Researchers find way to zap RSA security scheme - <AUTHOR> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/030410-rsa-security-attack.html?hpg1=bn <comment><USER2> Ugh, reading mainstream articles about cryptography is painful. I like how they claim a brute-force attack would take "hours". I guess you can measure the lifetime of the Unvierse in hours... technically...

Side-channel attacks are nice, but IMO, they are mostly good for breaking things like DRM. You cannot go to your bank's datacenter and measure the voltage the processor consumes while encrypting your transactions. You can, however, do that to your DVD player.

So while real cryptography is not broken, DRM is. Of course, we already knew that.

<comment><USER3> Reading mainstream articles about X is painful.

Only enjoyable if you are almost totally ignorant about X. Works for all X. Tells you something about the target audience of the mainstream media.

How about a "Metajournalist" site? A Wikipedia-style site where we can collect all of these technical bloopers, listed by author?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Fault attacks on crypto are not new; but it's always interesting to see new variations. The world is not ending, but people who do crypto in hostile environments have another reason to be careful.

</comment><comment><USER5> Researchers find a side channel attack on RSA.....

</comment><comment><USER6> Yet another alarmist title. No, RSA hasn't been zapped. Not even remotely close.

For those not wishing to slog through this paper, here's what it amounts to: If you can get close enough to the hardware that is encrypting data, and have sensitive enough equipment, you may be able to grab enough of the data to break the encryption through various indirect means.

Interesting, sure, but pretty much meaningless. It should always be assumed no system is secure when it is physically accesible by an attacker.</comment>


European hacking schools - <AUTHOR>

What are the best hacking schools, universities and colleges in Europe? I found this place: http://codeacademy.org which is exactly what I'm after but at this stage it's not an option to relocate to the US. <comment><USER2> Not too much time ago I looked for the same thing, but unfortunately, I never found anything of interest. Will keep an eye on this :)

EDIT: Where are you from?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi mate cheers for the response! I'm from Australia, nothing of interest here either unfortunately.

<comment><USER2> Being from Aus? Why looking in Europe?

<comment><AUTHOR> Moving overseas May-June 2013 and looking for another city to settle for a couple of years. At this stage it's looking like Berlin. Where are you from?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The GitHub hiring experience - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blog/1269-the-github-hiring-experience <comment><USER2> Am I reading right that it's 4 days from first contact to hire? That is extraordinarily fast.

I wonder how much of the work of screening candidates is done "for free" for Github tech hires, since most of the techs Github would want to hire are also users of the site.

<comment><USER3> Agree, 4 days is absolutely remarkable. But its much better to take a long time and do it right, than to fall in love with the candidate and screw everything up afterwards.

I recently had an absolutely excruciating experience after a startup on HN made an offer literally 0 days after meeting with me. We met for a sandwich and 2 hours later I had an offer. Three days go by and the hotshot young founder has now found a new muse, we have a falling out for an absolutely contrived reason, and I'm out on the street with no job in a new state with no health insurance and having to break the rental lease.

Thankfully the next weekend, once again I clicked on the "Ask HN: Who is hiring? " thread and landed a new job, but this company took 50 days and a ton of coding interviews.

Better safe than sorry.

<comment><USER4> That's a shitty situation. I'm glad you had a soft landing!

What made you accept the offer on such short notice? I get that startups move faster than other companies, but if someone wanted to hire me right now or not at all, I'd take it as a serious warning sign. Most likely it means they're hard-ass negotiators who are manipulating you or that they're genuine but too focused on the short term--either way, a red flag.

I got a tentative offer for my current job just as I was starting a one-year sabbatical backpacking trip through South-East Asia. They had something time sensitive they needed me for as soon as possible. Despite that, they were totally understanding, reassuring me that they still wanted to work with me whenever I was ready.

<comment><USER3> >what made you accept the offer on such a short notice?

I was the first hire with good equity...so I guess I was just plain greedy and not thinking straight. Or maybe it was the boredom that comes from working at a safe job in a bank...I was plain ecstatic to get back into a startup.Mostly my greed and idiocy. Am never going to be so trusting again.

<comment><USER4> Hey, it could have been worse. A friend of a friend had the rotten luck of getting hired at a company, moving across the country, and getting laid off within the first week due to the company shutting its doors, not once but on two separate occasions!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow. I think back to when I first tried to go out as a contractor. A headhunter got me an interview with a local telecom. During the interview, the manager asked me if I was one of the people named in a recent ComputerWorld article about families with multiple generations in IT. I said I was. He said the whole staff of the telecom IT were curious as to why everyone in the article had given their salary, but I had not. I told him it was because I had merely filled out a questionnaire before I found out the reporter was going to write a nationwide article, and that I subsequently declined to reveal my salary to the world. The manager asked how that went down. I told him not very well--the reporter dunned me to find out my salary, sent me a disposable camera with instructions to send him a photo of myself for the article (I also declined that honor). I told the manager I was a private person and had not consented for my image and my salary to be plastered in a magazine. Then I tried to steer it back to IT, and mentioned that I had recently started using Linux (this was 1998, when that was a daring thing for a mainframer to have done). He said, "Oh, you're one of those Unix guys? We hate that sh _t!" So, no fab whiskey, no dogs, no hotel, not pool and air hockey--just a quiz about an article I had tried not to be in, and a curse for liking Linux._ sigh _

</comment><comment><USER6> I like github as a tool and use it daily, but am I the only one to think this hiring article is pure PR speak woven with some artificial coolness?

To compare with other companies: Google communicates in a more traditional way with possible candidates so it is visibly PR speak and don't try to hide it.

Facebook had a nice shot recently with a fake negative view. That was cool and did not smell the strong fragrance of PR speak.

Github here has a middle ground I would love to love but...

<comment><USER7> What part of the article reads PR speak to you?

<comment><USER6> I don't know, it is more of a general perception, but if I have to excerpt some typical sentences I could find these:

\- "Valuable people deserve a bespoke hiring experience"

\- "Hiring good people is one of the most critical activities we do as a company"

etc.

Maybe it is not exactly raw PR speak, maybe it is just empty sentences ballooned with good will and "think positive" attitude, written there in the hope that potential candidate will read them and apply. What worries me is that it looks like genuine and sincere, but it is not.

It's like artificial marple syrup stuffed in a natural marple syrup bottle. And if I have the choice I prefer natural syrup in natural syrup bottle and artificial syrup in artificial syrup bottle over what we have here.

<comment><USER8> Man, that's pretty pessimistic.

If you want the straight dope — or maple syrup, in your case — here it is: hiring good people _is_ the most important thing we do, and we don't fuck around with that. We fly people in, get them to meet people, and show them how we work because we care about this process. More importantly, we want this relaxed atmosphere so we can see if someone actually would fit in with us. It's a big deal. We have a pretty wildly different culture than most companies, and we want our hiring process to reflect that.

Why would you not spend time on this? Why would you not care? It's literally the most important part of your business.

<comment><USER9> > we don't fuck around with that. We fly people in, get them to meet people, > and show them how we work because we care about this process.

It sounds like you aren't neglecting it.

It just sounded like the author was really surprised that you weren't neglecting him.

Perhaps I've just had good interview experiences, but I've rarely felt like the company I was interviewing at didn't devote resources and energy to hiring. I was more surprised about the little ways they failed than the big ways they succeeded.

Has your experience been different?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I find articles like these disheartening only because it is impossible for all workplaces to be this way. What if you are at a mediocre job with mediocre teammates? How would you ever get to experience the joy that is working at a Google or a Facebook or a Valve or a GitHub.

It's nice that this strategy works for them, but I wonder why everyone isn't doing it if it is so successful?

<comment><USER10> I suspect it is much harder to retrofit such a culture to an existing organisation than to have it that way from the outset.

With Valve, GitHub et al we see organisations that are trying to encourage novelty and creativity in their workforce. Many organisations are more interested in repeatability in their workforce. By which I mean many of their workers are basically following a workflow of some sort that requires just enough human judgement so as they cannot yet be replaced by a robot.

So I think you're right, not all organisations can work this way and some probably don't even want to. But I entertain myself sometimes wondering how they could. My personal favourite is thinking about how one might manage to get a government department to work like Valve/GitHub.

<comment><USER7> Let's do it! Which department?

<comment><USER10> I didn't think anyone would be that interested in my little hypothetical. :)

Well, I may live in a different country to you, so any department I describe may not be familiar to you. But without getting too specific, my first starting observation is that the hiring practices of most public organisations are terrible. They're not stringent enough and they don't encourage self motivated workers. So that would be the first thing I'd want to try and fix. Self motivation within the workforce would seem to be one of - if not the most - important ingredients to get the Valve/GitHub style culture working.

Size of the organisation also would seem to be important. I have seen it discussed here before as to just how large an organisation this kind of flat strucutre would scale out to. I obviously don't know the answer. But again I think it would largely come back to how well the hiring process is managed.

And how such a essentially anarchistic department would interface with the rest of the government and/or the public would also be a interesting experiment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My own experience with their hiring process was sadly not as positive. After the initial screen (which was face-to-face with one of their engineers and which I thought went well), I got the runaround. All I really wanted to know was whether it was a "cultural fit" issue or a "skills aren't up to par" one.

Mostly I'm just disappointed because it seems like an awesome place to work.

<comment><USER12> Did you ask?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I find these cultural pieces fascinating. One point that I'd love to know about in more companies is around how hiring is prioritized. Coby calls hiring "one of the most critical activities we do as a company" whereas at Valve it is _the_ most important thing you can be doing.

Is this prioritization common (or key?) at exceptional workplaces?

</comment><comment><USER14> It's funny, as seemingly unrelated as it is, the one thing that comes to mind after reading about how GitHub sees value in flying people to San Francisco from around the globe despite the cost is that the essence of that practice is the same as what we Americans SHOULD be seeing in our education system: People willing to invest enormous sums of money up front with the intention of producing graduates who, in turn, will generate much larger sums of money for the economy. Too bad all American politicians are too short sighted to see it.

</comment><comment><USER15> From their build/deployment process to their hiring experience, it's hard to think of a company more open than GitHub these days (not including all that open source code ;)!

</comment><comment><USER16> I love Github's hiring process and their software building process. More companies should implement similar things. Now obviously you can't expect all companies to shell out this kind of cash, but I've read so many blogposts of Githubbers that all say the same thing: we just want to work with awesome people and make great products. It doesn't seem like there are a lot of politics going on. One post I've read by Zach Holman showed that the interview process was more about working on a project that you cared about rather than rambling off tiny utility methods or impractical algorithms.

Hire people who show enthusiasm (and of course talent) instead of those who have memorized interview questions from glassdoor.com

</comment><comment><USER17> Fantastic read. As a current CS student (Junior), I'm hoping a GitHub employee might let me know if there are internship opportunities for next Summer? I'd love to try some SlowMerge(TM) ... and work really hard of course.

</comment><comment><USER18> Seems more of a blogvertisement for GitHub

</comment><comment><USER19> So long as you're younger than 35 har har ...

<comment><USER20> There are a fair amount of us > 35 folks at GitHub.

<comment><USER19> ah good to hear, just joking love the Git! these articles usually remind me of exercise mags where a 20 something person brags about their abundance of health + energy level, oblivious to how hard it is to retain that after late 30s, ok i'm rambling ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I ate that article up like a starving raccoon.

Working at github is sortof a personal fantasy.

</comment><comment><USER22> This is what happens when you keep HR out of the hiring process.</comment>


Learn More By Asking Fewer Questions - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.hbr.org/schrage/2012/08/learn-more-by-asking-fewer-questions.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Couple months old but a great article I didn't see here. The highlight for me:

"What the smartest innovators and smartest marketers I know have in common is not asking a lot of questions but making sure the most important questions get asked and answered."</comment>


Ask HN: Do you see a therapist? - <AUTHOR>

With such common occurrences of mental illness, depression and anxiety disorders in the startup community, do founders (and non-founders) regularly seek psychological therapy to better handle stress? <comment><USER2> I have, yes. Problem is, therapy isn't much more effective than placebo these days. Psychoanalysis has largely been shown to not work... There are things you can do, however. Gratitude is probably the single highest expected value activity you can do for your mental health. Also, developing a practice to fully feel and process / access emotions. Happy to share more and talk if you need.. anthony @ 175g . com

PS - I also work as a coach with high performers and have helped a number of folks on Hacker News for free who have reached out, and happy to do the same for you or anyone else.

<comment><USER3> I'd strongly disagree with your statement that psychoanalysis doesn't work, just from personal experience. In the aggregate it may not work for everyone (and there's the minor issue that saying "psychoanalysis" is a bit like saying "programming" \- there are a lot of schools of therapy and a wide range of abilities within those schools), but it's certainly helped me a great deal.

<comment><USER2> It may very well have worked for you. The data seems to a show that about 1/3 stay the same, 1/3 get better and 1/3 get worse. When I say psychoanalysis I mean it in the classical Freudian sense, and yes there are some things that seem to work better than others. I read that the average American has .8 intimate friendships - I think having a relationship where you feel comfortable expressing some of your emotion and inner life is valueable for sure and can be healing.

<comment><USER3> Can you point me to the study (ies) you're talking about here? I'd be interested to look into this further, but would like to be sure we're both discussing the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm not a founder or co-founder, but I started to see a therapist or counselor about 2 years ago. My level of stress was mounting and I was falling into depression. I had just gone through some pretty big transitions, but I realized it was too much for me to handle on my own. After going to counseling regularly, I started to feel like I really regained control over my emotions and decisions. I could organize my time much better, and, although not necessarily "Mr. Peppy!", I got back much of my spunk and personality that had started to slip away.

If anyone is thinking about it, I highly recommend it; if you think you need it, it probably won't hurt. And don't be discouraged if the first counselor doesn't fit; it took a few before I found one that was comfortable to talk to and that could challenge me to actually make progress in myself.

</comment><comment><USER5> We went to a therapist [Licensed Clinical Social Worker] for marriage counseling at two different times in our 18 years of wedded bliss. These are decisions I have never regretted.

For context my spouse is a therapist - hospice, oncology, Alzheimer's and geriatrics over the past twenty odd years - so I am perhaps biased.

</comment><comment><USER6> Yes. To talk about startup anxiety, but also balancing everything else in life. I think the desire to problem solve also extends to life issues, and sometimes this gets unhealthy if it all stays in my head.

<comment><USER7> That's really well put. The desire to constantly problem solve doesn't let you relax and clear your mind at times. I saw one recently but found the advice lacking, felt like a waste of time and money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Therapy is as effective as medication for many conditions, and more effective for some. But you don't need a condition or even stress to talk to one.

Yes I see a therapist. I see it as no more controversial than seeing a physical therapist for injuries, or a personal trainer to tone yourself, or a coach to train for a sport.

As a programmer, my brain is my work. My therapist is a resource for me to use to improve myself.

And I want to live in a world where there is no more stigma for having a therapist then a trainer, and where being in a support group isn't any more shameful than joining a gym class. Not to mention that being on an antidepressant should be seen like being on insulin for a diabetic.

The only stigma that should exist is a mild one for people that don't get treatment when they have an issue, and that should be mitigated if their issue makes seeking treatment hard.

</comment><comment><USER9> BTW, if anyone cannot afford a therapist and just needs to talk to someone, check out:

blahtherapy.com

Because sometimes you just need to get things off of your chest.

</comment><comment><USER10> I did therapy years ago. It has it's uses. But I think there are plenty of other things that work better in some sense. It depends in part on where you are in your journey, good fit with the therapist in question, and other factors.

If you have genuine friends of the sort you can spill your guts to and/or people who can act as a sounding board, that can be really helpful. Also reading up on some things about how humans work can help. Plus learn some basic stress management, which is often about basic self-care. When I was raising special needs kids, I learned that a short nap, a tall glass of water and/or something to eat was sometimes the difference between "I can't take another minute of this!!!" and "The sun will come out tomorrow..."</comment>


How to Lose 20 lbs. of Fat in 30 Days… Without Doing Any Exercise - <AUTHOR> http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2007/04/06/how-to-lose-20-lbs-of-fat-in-30-days-without-doing-any-exercise/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is the blog book and comments that got tim Ferris to write his latest book 4 hour body . For those of you tight on money, just reading this post by Tim, as book is all spelled out for you here.

This blog post is actually how I found out about his orginal book, 4 hour work week. Which final got me on right path of finding resource I needed.

Thank you time</comment>


How to write better JavaScript code - <AUTHOR> http://amix.dk/blog/post/19496 <comment><USER2> While I understand his point about multiple files, large sites like Reddit have a very good reason to concatenate all their javascript and css into single files: it drastically reduces the number of HTML requests needed to render a page.</comment>


Show HN: Sdfgh – Encrypted notes. Don't trust it, just read its 65 lines of code - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/josephernest/sdfgh <comment><AUTHOR> (It uses AES encryption)</comment>


Show HN: Stories – train skills crucial for remote work - <AUTHOR> Hi fellow hackers, We are Nikita and Nastia, co-founders of Stories (https://story-board.pro). We've built a learning app aimed to train skills crucial for remote work.
It's super easy to learn with Stories because lessons are in a short-story format and each course adapts depending on your achievements. We are solving a problem of motivation by placing you in a competitive environment. The more attentively you learn, the more points you'll get. This will up your rank and open exclusive content. But game technics aren't the only thing that helps you stay on track, you can also earn money with us. We have a payout program that in a case of successful completion of a course allows you to choose where to transfer paid money with a bonus up to 30%: a) Charity – on benefits of our earth, b) Reimbursement – back to your bank card. So, paying $30 you can get back up to $40 if you invite 3 friends. And finally, by the end of a course, you will have access to a web-page with a comprehensive description of gained knowledge and achievements. You can make it public and share wherever you want.
During the last 5 years, I worked remotely on different projects as a developer and as a team-lead. I noticed that as a remote worker, firstly you must have a high degree of emotional intelligence cause it is way easier to motivate yourself and manage at-home distractions.
Secondly, you must have great listening skills cause during short calls you must listen carefully and understand things quickly.
Today, we are launching with two courses that will explain techniques of increasing Listening Skills and EQ. • Listening skills course created by an instructor who prepared US presidents for public speeches. • Emotional Intelligence course prepared by a corporate psychologist with more than 15 years of experience in this field.
You are more than welcome to download the app and start learning:
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/stories-study-easily/id1437541419 <comment><AUTHOR> Links: [https://apps.apple.com/us/app/stories-study- easily/id1437541...](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/stories-study- easily/id1437541419) [https://story-board.pro](https://story-board.pro)</comment>


A website to curate all react tutorials - <AUTHOR> Hi All, I have been learning React for sometime now, and I must say that there are lots and lots of tutorials, how-tos, videos and more content about React.
I feel that there's a need for a website that curates and organizes all this information about React in one place.
I have had this thought for sometime and would love to build something like this in my spare time. I would love to hear your opinions and suggestion. <comment><USER2> I created one already, will post it once it looks somewhat presentable :)

<comment><USER2> So the site is finally live! It's called ranktutorials.com Let me know what you think!</comment></comment>


China would rather see TikTok U.S. close than a forced sale - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-bytedance-tiktok-exclusive/exclusive-china-would-rather-see-tiktok-u-s-close-than-a-forced-sale-idUSKBN2622L6 <comment><USER2> That's understandable because a forced sale would be seen as a major loss of face and national humiliation, and might put the government in a delicate position at home.

The current Chinese state (on both sides of the Taiwan strait) came to be as the result of, and reaction against, such past humiliations (e.g., but not only, Hongkong). The 20th century history of China has been a reaction and struggle against these aggressions. So there are probably some people who would rather scupper the company in the US rather than give in, would also allow the government to play on that foreign aggression aspect without appearing weak.</comment>


Larry Ellison explains Oracle's restructuring and layoffs - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/larry-ellison-explains-oracle-ongoing-restructuring-2019-6 <comment><USER2> Paywalled.</comment>


Zuckerberg: Why I stayed CEO even though many people thought I should quit - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-zuckerberg-the-founder-versus-the-ceo-2009-10 <comment><USER2> Remember the good old days when the internet was text and it took 3 minutes to read an article versus 30 minutes to watch it?

Can someone link to a transcript?

<comment><USER2> too bad there's not a transcript. however, i just watched it and would highly recommend it.

some of the highlights:

\- 3 key values: move fast. be bold. focus on impact(helps attract the best people; at fb each engineer is responsible for >1M users).

\- the more control you give users over their own information, the more they will share

\- unless you're breaking some stuff, you're not moving fast enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I say this with all sincerity: It must have been hard work for him to learn how to not come across as an arrogant douchebag like he used to.

Kudos to a nerd who learned how to hack his personality and become a positive PR force instead of a negative one.

He also had some very interesting stuff to say about Facebook. ;)

<comment><USER4> I guess I wasn't paying attention to him during that phase.

Any representative examples you could link to?

<comment><USER5> I found this article about a 2005 interview but the video linked appears to have been taken down. <http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-facebook- phenomenon>

Edit: OK, here it is. [http://bambi.blogs.com/bambi_francisco/files/zuckerberg_256k...](http://bambi.blogs.com/bambi_francisco/files/zuckerberg_256k.wmv)

Personally I don't think he sounds that arrogant; the only thing that stands out is the question/answer "What was your pitch?" "Oh... we didn't do one."

Can someone find examples of Zuckerberg in 2006/2007 for us to compare?

<comment><USER6> This was one that I particularly thought was a little bit of him reading his own press a bit too much:

"the next hundred years will be different for advertising, and it starts today. As marketers pushing our information out is no longer enough. We are announcing anew advertising system, not about broadcasting messages, about getting into the conversations between people. 3 pieces: build pages for advertisers, a new kind of ad system to spread the messages virally, and gain insights. ... Once every hundred years media changes. the last hundred years have been defined by the mass media. The way to advertise was to get into the mass media and push out your content. That was the last hundred years. In the next hundred years information won't be just pushed out to people, it will be shared among the millions of connections people have. Advertising will change. You will need to get into these connections."

[http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/06/liveblogging- facebook-a...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/06/liveblogging-facebook- advertising-announcement/)

<comment><USER7> I actually just got out of an advertising class (like, literally 3 minutes ago), and we discussed this. It's dead on. Television advertising is in many ways the exact same as radio advertising: New techniques have been developed, but the philosophy behind it remains the same. Internet advertising is a much, much different beast.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> All i gotta say is that those random ads in the video are super annoying. DO it either before or after.

<comment><USER9> Out of curiosity, would you rather pay to watch?

<comment><USER8> No I wouldn't pay to watch a 60 second clip.

<comment><USER9> 60 seconds? The interview is 30 minutes.

<comment><USER8> Agreed. But It was broken up in too many parts. If it was a single video, with no ads I might pay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The thing that bugs me about the "founders should run the company" line of thought is that it's not entirely true. Bill Gates handed the business side of the company over to John Shirley in 1983 and Steve Jobs did the same with Apple and John Sculley. And both were right to do so (Gates often says Microsoft might not have made it without Shirley, Jobs is still a little bitter about the whole "pushing him out of the company thing")

Both realized it would be better to have someone with experience run the company while they learned the ropes (since both eventually took over their respective companies though we all know Jobs' road to CEO of Apple was a longer one)

So it's' not like there's some grand tradition of founders holding onto the reigns of power and never letting go. Just the opposite. The truly smart founders got someone who knew what they were doing and used the opportunity to learn from them.

<comment><USER11> FTA: "In this model, the founder remains CEO of the company and surrounds himself or herself with a strong executive team."

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Best part: "If you're not breaking things, you're not moving fast enough" [...] "The goal of building something is to build something, and not to avoid making mistakes"

<comment><USER13> "If you don't make mistakes, you can't make decisions."

-Warren Buffett

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Direct link to whole 30 min interview: [http://www.businessinsider.com/mark- zuckerberg-innovation-20...](http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg- innovation-2009-10)</comment>


How a Chatlet works in SVYFT. - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@svyft/how-a-chatlet-works-in-svyft-18870dc8838a

<comment><USER2> Very odd, If you look into their twitter they promote other products called tesla.IM and peopledock on a site called [http://yourstory.com](http://yourstory.com). Which takes you to SVYFT.com (couple name changes?) They never mention their name changes in these "news" articles. I guess they are trying to get as many links to their site as possible.

Either way, I like the idea but I think they would have a better chance in this market if it was open sourced or allowed companies to install it on local networks. Let developers make their own chatlets that they can sell and promote the product at the same time.

Almost reminds me of google wave.

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://twitter.com/teslaim/statuses/467583083118473216](https://twitter.com/teslaim/statuses/467583083118473216)

also

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/csg81bicijnvj2m/Name%20change%20fo...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/csg81bicijnvj2m/Name%20change%20for%20HN.png)</comment></comment>


Forget Google - Driverless Tractors already doing the work in Germany - <AUTHOR> http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/driverless-tractors-till-high-tech-030110397.html

<comment><USER2> Driving a tractor in a field and driving a car in towns/roads with other cars and pedestrians a whole lot different game.

The title should be edited.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, it's less risky to drive in a paddock if that's what you mean.

The tractor still has to dodge fences, rocks, trees, etc. No risk of lives, but it still requires a fair bit of work.

<comment><USER3> fences, rocks and trees don't move, pedestrians do, they may suddenly jump on your path, the tractor just need to calculate the route once

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough, though as I understand the tractors try to avoid rocks, and so they may have to change their route whilst on the job.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Star Trek Discovery: Season 2 was not that bad - <AUTHOR> What do you folks think? really feel the show has improved from S1. <comment><USER2> I loved Season One. It had something to say.

At the time a lot of people were upset about the Lorca reveal. That he wasn't evil enough, seemed to appreciate the non-human crew members instead of being openly evilm etc, etc. That argument struck me as soft-headed. The really insidious thing about prejudice is that it isn't always open or nakedly vitriolic (I'm sure Lorca could have "a lot of Kelpien friends"). It scary to think that the people in charge don't necessarily have our best interests at heart but can still be seen as "likable" or "leadership material". In Season One you were encouraged to look for the cracks and it felt like the best of Star Trek.

It never made it to screen but Mirror Lorca actually destroyed the Buran after the crew discovered that he was from the Mirror Universe. The way Lorca just blinked uncomprehendingly after Burnham said something to the effect of: "You didn't have to do this, we would have helped you get home. It's who we [Starfleet] are." was brilliant. I see this all the time, people to skulking around or trying be manipulative when they could have just stated their case plainly and asked for help.

Season One wasn't perfect and I loved a lot of Season Two (the cast is great and Pike is easily my favorite captain) but Season Two didn't have much to say about our times. Control (a rampaging AI of our own creation) was dumped into our laps mid-season. Instead of getting a meditation on the modern angst surrounding AI, we got a splashy time-travel story with an "Armin Tamzarian" ending: "Let us never speak of this again."

Star Trek was meaningful to me as a kid. Not in the "I want to go to conventions and read books about how EPS conduits work" nonsense kind of meaningful. Meaningful in the "tiny Mike likes his morality plays" kind of way. I want a series to say something more than I want it to fit into canon.

<comment><USER2> Thought about it a bit more.. Hopefully Season Three will have a shabby future Federation and a "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" vibe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I liked the first season, it wasn't very treky but it was a decent sci-fi show but the second season was truly awful no part of it was good.

!SPOILERS!

After a season and a half of not talking they suddenly decide to give the robot girl a name and back story only to kill her off an episode later? thats not how you setup a story or develop a character arch.

They made such a big deal of it too like she was a fan fav, I was rolling on the floor laughing when they give her the big send off and she had so little character that the only thing her friends can say about her is "I liked her because she was a robot and I have head gear."

Truly an awful show, not to mention the main story and klingon guy.

</comment><comment><USER4> I stopped watching early in the season. The episode with the severed babies head... where it became clear that we're gonna get a spin-off about StarFleet spies... No thanks, as a lifelong Trekkie it felt strange to switch off. But I started watching the Orville and am loving it.

<comment><USER5> I think that scene was completely unnecessary, and also out of character for the rest of the show.

It's strange to think about too. No nudity, but will show a severed baby's head..

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Watching both seasons through the "this isn't _exactly_ OG Star Trek" lens has made both seasons pretty darn enjoyable for me. The Orville is close to a classic Star Trek feel, and that show has filled that void for me.

</comment><comment><USER7> They need to get their plot pacing sorted out, there's whole blocks where the plot creeps along snail-pace then you have to rewind to catch something that whiplashed past. i.e. the last 10 minutes of the leaving the mirror universe episode

</comment><comment><USER8> Star Trek Discovery is consistently a pile of flaming garbage. Both seasons.

</comment><comment><USER9> Better than 1 but still terrible.</comment>


Show HN: Stachify, Instagram for mustaches - <AUTHOR> http://st.achify.com

<comment><USER2> For people interested in the concept, there are also a few Chrome extensions that do this to images you see in your normal browsing sessions:

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/khaoakmndhjandiaaa...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/khaoakmndhjandiaaadnjgnbchillcdj)

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gnmngbknombiopoggi...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gnmngbknombiopoggilgiebonllnndhp)

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow this app doesn't just overlay a moustache image but the moustache actually follows you around in realtime. Never seen this technology before. Awesome!

<comment><USER2> Apple Photo Booth does something similar (although I don't think with moustaches.) While trying to search for that, I found another iOS app that can do this with 250 facial features including a moustache ([http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ace-freakyface-cartoon- mask/i...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ace-freakyface-cartoon- mask/id454513332?mt=8))

<comment><AUTHOR> Are you kidding me? The tracking on that app is abysmal. It has not one, but two banner ads, one on the top, one on the bottom. Furthermore the UI obscures much of the image. And you have to purchase the pack that includes the mustache. There are many apps that do what Instagram does, but there is only one Instagram for a reason.

<comment><USER2> As I mentioned, I just found it while doing some searching. I hadn't actually downloading the app (so no, I was not trying to 'kid' you.)

But you made some fair points about what makes your app better (assuming that it doesn't have these problems.) If one looks at the app store description for your app and the other app, though, it is hard to tell the difference (other than the lowest common denominator language in the description of the other app suggests it may be crappy and the opposite may suggest the quality of yours.)

Having a video of your app might be useful to show that you get those things right, although people who buy via the webstore might not see it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Possibly the most useful app ever created. Evernote, take a back seat. Kudos!

<comment><AUTHOR> Have you ever watched a movie, listened to music, or played a game? All pretty useful eh?

Stachify makes most people laugh or smile, which probably lowers their stress a bit. Lower stress means improved health. I think that's pretty useful.

<comment><USER4> I wouldn't describe watching a movie as useful. It's enjoyable. There's a distinction.

But hey, it's a funny app. I was just joking a bit. Obviously it's not meant to be something like Evernote. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> moustagram clone? <http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/moustagram/id531864119?mt=8>

<comment><AUTHOR> Not really. Moustagram only lets you add the same mustache to still pictures. Stachify uses the face detection API in iOS 5 to add mustaches in real-time. You can also add staches to existing photos if you want. Stachify also doesn't require you to login with Facebook or Twitter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm completely smashed and bought this!</comment>


Apple Should Buy a Search Engine, Analyst Says - <AUTHOR> https://www.barrons.com/articles/apple-should-buy-a-search-engine-analyst-says-51591642347 <comment><USER2> Let's unpack this somewhat misguided commentary:

First, Apple is building a search engine, in a non traditional sense, by providing a first level of results directly via Safari suggestions and Spotlight/Siri on client devices. That layer gives them enough ability to capture specific verticals should they find them profitable.

Second, and more subtle question, would be whether to become a full-fledged player in this space. Apple, of all tech companies, seems to care the most about the bottom line and does not go about reckless dick-measuring contests. Building search is hard, and it is questionable that Apple in the medium term would be able to profit more than it already does from Google search. At very least this would be a can of worms they open with unknown profitability. Note that to make money off of search you have to also build the ad side of things and then try to compete with Google who owns the rest of the ecosystem and has levers to undercut you. It's even possible that the current arrangement is more favorable to Apple, as Google indirectly benefits by preserving their monopoly and may be willing to pay even more than that particular transaction should be valued independently.

Where owning the search space matters to Apple most is the option value, and Apple so far has a cheap way to do it (Microsoft had been paying the costs). In addition, Apple has been minimally boosting DuckDuckGo by giving it some free exposure for the just-in-case scenario.

My take is Tim Cook is going to watchfully wait and let this play for as long as possible while ensuring they have enough leverage to keep Google paying up, instead of pulling another Apple Maps.

Right now the focus is to take some Android marketshare mid-market and sell some services there. Once they own quite a big chunk of client devices, perhaps it will make sense to give the middle finger to Google.

P.S. all of this is especially true now that Pixel has failed to capture any meaningful share of the high end iOS market to be a real threat for Apple.

<comment><USER3> I agree, Apple is not an advertising company, and free search engines business model seems to be ad related

<comment><USER4> The current agreement in a way puts Apple at the mercy of Google.

DuckDuckGo (with a better name and more polish) could be an Apple product. It wouldn't be that expensive to buy and they don't need to put as much ads on it as Google does, they only need 30% of income to make as much as they make now.

I wouldn't be surprised by such a move.

<comment><USER5> DDG is dependent on Bing, it also uses Yandex and a few other smaller players.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> kube-system Gotta love it when Wall Street comments on the strategy of companies they only partially understand.

In order to stop paying a third-party for search results, Apple should buy a company that mostly pays third parties for search results?

> Apple could likely buy it for under $1 billion

> a deal would be fairly easy to digest given DuckDuckGo's small size, with > fewer than 100 employees.

Exactly what kind of tech does this author think DDG has that Apple couldn't build better than DDG with 1,000 employees making a $500,000 salary for 2 years?

I love DDG, but I don't think this person really knows what it is.

<comment><USER6> Cynical part of me expects to hear about DDG raising another round in the near future. This is the type of article I'd want out there if I were looking to raise money, giving a seemingly plausible exit strategy with a valuation

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The article has a few weak assumptions:

> _Sacconaghi estimates that Alphabet (ticker: GOOGL) pays Apple (AAPL) > between $7 billion and $8 billion a year for Google to be the default search > engine for iOS ..._

The real figure is probably $12 billion - _[https://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search- en...](https://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-engine/*)

> _Google pays that large sum to Apple in part out of concern about what > Microsoft (MSFT) might be willing to pay Apple to supplant Google with Bing*

Unlikely. Apple does not have search, and they simply need the best search available for their devices to stay true to being "premium".

> _Sacconaghi thinks Apple should consider acquiring the No. 4 search engine > (after Google, Bing, and Yahoo)—privately held DuckDuckGo. He thinks Apple > could likely buy it for under $1 billion, "_

This is completely off. DDG is highly unlikely to be worth that much. As discussed in this other thread - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23458202](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23458202), DDG is dependent on Bing both for search and ads.

> _And he also writes that "If Apple attempts to acquire DuckDuckGo but is > blocked by regulators, it would arguably put Apple in a worse position than > ever, given that Google and Microsoft would then know Apple has no > alternatives."_

This does not make much sense to me. It's not the kind of thing I see regulators going after. Happy to be schooled though.

<comment><USER8> > Unlikely. Apple does not have search, and they simply need the best search > available for their devices to stay true to being "premium".

That being said, how did Apple Maps turn out vs Google Maps?

<comment><USER9> Apple Maps really has improved, and they just rolled out a huge map tile quality improvement to get denser displays (the "closer to google" argument).

With recent quality improvements I take Apple Maps over google maps grand majority of time (well in pre-lockdown life). It took a while but I think its finally working out genuinely well now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Headline: Apple should buy X!!!

Analysis: "Apple can make such acquisitions for less than $1 billion. This will be less than a week of Apple's cash flow."

Logic: None! Apple makes $1 billion a week by avoiding running a bunch of minnow services with stronger competitors. Apple should buy X is a meme that needs to die.

<comment><USER11> Or buy something I have taken a short position in

<comment><USER12> Apple should buy Tesla ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think Apple doesn't just want to direct users to _some_ search engine, they want it to be the _best_ search engine. The current deal, where Google pays billions for that usage, is a pretty good partnership. Every other search engine probably would be worse at making money off that traffic and thus couldn't afford to pay as much for it, and also would give a less premium user experience. Why would Apple rock the boat?

<comment><USER14> They didn't take that approach with maps. Might not have been as lucrative, but could've been cheaper than developing their own, inferior maps solution.

<comment><USER15> They did Apple because Google orpahned their maps app on the iPhone by giving turn-by-turn navigation capabilities first to their Android app. Classic strategy tax that backfired as the most used maps app on Apple is the default app and Google has a fraction of the users on the iPhone.

<comment><USER16> Given the effect on early Android adoption, it might not have backfired.

<comment><USER17> You think a strong percentage of people switched to Android simply for maps?

<comment><USER13> A big factor in my switching from Android to iOS was Google Maps support coming to CarPlay. So I wouldn't write it off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't agree because the cultures are too divergent. But Apple could quietly invest in them to ensure someone else can't take them over...

</comment><comment><USER19> If this were to happen, it would be sad if it ended up like their recent DarkSky acquisition:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22739839](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22739839)

'Buy this expensive Apple Phone you _cannot_ own / overpriced not- professional-grade MacBook Pro, or else you have no good private search engine option.' (except for Qwant which is usable but not good)

<comment><USER20> Qwant and DDG seem similar in goodness to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> > Sacconaghi thinks Apple should consider acquiring the No. 4 search engine > (after Google, Bing, and Yahoo)—privately held DuckDuckGo

Oh please, literally nobody outside of tech has _heard_ of DDG, let alone would want to use it on their iPhone

<comment><USER22> Drive around the southeast United States. There are DDG billboards __everywhere __.

<comment><USER21> I would if I were allowed to fly overseas ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Hell no!! This would be worse than oracle taking over SUN Microsystems. I would litetally protest in front of an applestore and I have never protested before.

Leave ddg out of your empires. It's one of the few reliable and trustworthy services I use daily. I guarantee apple will just ruin it and help google dominate in the process. Thesr analysts don't get why people use ddg!

<comment><USER24> > Thesr analysts don't get why people use ddg!

I think people who use DDG don't get it's mostly just bing's search API with better branding and privacy features.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it just makes DDG much more of a Microsoft acquisition target than an Apple one.

These so called "analysts" have no idea what they are talking about. Google pays Apple nearly $8 billion a year at this point to stay the default search on safari iOS.

Why would Apple throw away that free money to instead pay it back to Microsoft operating a business that can only be monetized by advertising?

I doubt search will ever be part of the Apple portfolio. Users won't pay for it and Apple is not interested in becoming an ad network.

<comment><USER25> An independent DDG that's seen as an independent alternative, slightly hurts Google and provides impressions for Microsoft-managed ads is likely a lot more valuable to Microsoft than another Microsoft-owned brand that nobody will believe is actually independent and more privacy-friendly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I don't know how Apple can think they will remain competitive with Siri without building a search engine.

However, Apple are really bad at executing on cloud services of any kind. With any amount of resources there are certain things that company just cannot get right, and search is definitely one of them. I would love to know what it is organizationally that makes them so terrible at web apps and cloud services.

<comment><USER27> Apple doesn't have to own a search engine to use one in Siri. They could pay Google/Bing/DuckDuckGo to provide an API. Companies don't need to merge into one big monopoly to have synergy with each other.

<comment><USER28> This is what they do already to power the web results in Siri except the search companies pay Apple.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The article suggests that Apple should buy DuckDuckGo, a much smaller player than the top-3 (Google, Bing, Yahoo) for fear of being "uncomfortably dependent on Bing". First, if Apple wanted a search engine, they could have acquired Yahoo for ~4BN a few years back when it went up for sale. Second, as has been mentioned multiple times, DDG's organic search results come from Bing.

<comment><USER30> Yahoo isn't a search engine and hasn't been for years. Just check the "Powered by Bing™" at the bottom of every search result. That leaves just two search engines, Google and Bing. Not counting non-US search engines that may have significant market share in their respective countries.

<comment><USER29> In the years before the acquisition by Verizon, while Marissa Mayer was still CEO, Yahoo had rebooted its own search engine, an effort that was abandoned shortly before the sale. At that time, Apple could have very well acquired a formidable search engine if they wanted to.

<comment><USER31> Nothing coming out of Yahoo has been "formidable" in over two decades.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> It used to be that "Apple should buy Netflix" for several years, on and off. Now this. Analysts have always misunderstood Apple, what it focuses on and what it will not do. They come up with meaningless recommendations that Apple will not even spare time for an elevator pitch.

Wherever Apple sees any deficiencies, it works by secrecy, non-acceptance (or denial, like "you're holding it wrong", depending on the case) and creating its own way out of it without any or barely any acknowledgment of deficiencies (or wrong doing, as the case may be).

I personally believe that, more than having a search engine, Apple would be better off with an online maps solution (including navigation) that anybody could use, regardless of their hardware and OS. It has already opened up it's iWork suite on the cloud for everyone with a browser. Would Apple consider such a move with maps (though it's a very weak competitor in most countries outside the US)? I don't think so.

Also DuckDuckGo is nowhere close to Google's results for many intents and purposes (I know anecdotally many people find it extremely useful). Apple buying it would be a dead investment not just for this reason, but also because Apple doesn't really know how to manage and run certain online services well

<comment><USER33> _that anybody could use_

If it isn't going to help sell some other product or service then I think that is unlikely.

 _but also because Apple doesn 't really know how to manage and run certain online services well_

That was certainly the case ten years ago, more recently they seem to have improved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Aha! I am vindicated!

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20453797](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20453797)

</comment><comment><USER35> In the last week I've heard multiple ads for DDG during podcasts about business and startups, saw an article today on HN about how DDG is better than Google on privacy, the same article again with a different title about mobile choice, and now this article about an analyst who thinks Apple should buy DDG.

If I didn't know better, I would think DDG is trying to get bought...

<comment><USER36> Or they know how to read the room and press on their main competitive advantage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> A bit off topic: try Qwant[0]. I was a user of DDG for a few years but I made the switch some months ago and didn't look back: search results are way better. AFAIK is a European company (if that is relevant to you). I'm not affiliated with it in any way, just an happy user.

[0] [https://www.qwant.com](https://www.qwant.com)

</comment><comment><USER38> In truth, Apple already bought a search engine when they acquired Topsy. The engineers from Topsy now work on the search tech that powers all sorts of things at Apple.

That being said, DDG would be interesting as an acquisition for Apple because it would be consistent with Apple's privacy-first approach to service design.

<comment> matt-attack But isn't DDG just proxying search requests to Bing?

<comment><USER39> Pretty much. They claim there's multiple sources, but the results are strikingly similar. And on image search, identical.

<comment><USER40> If that's all DDG are doing it would be simple for Apple to replicate, no? Do Bing charge for this? If not could they legally enforce such charges? What aren't there more DDGs around?

<comment><USER41> Yes, Bing has an API which they charge for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I feel like every year an analyst says Apple should buy something:

\- Apple should by netflix and get into the streaming game(considering how much appleTV stinks this may be a good idea!)

\- Apple should buy Disney, there is the synergy of two trusted brands in the entertainment/media space(Steve Jobs did own Pixar which Disney now owns)

\- Apple should buy twitter, they can expand their news and reach a large connected audience.

Things I think Apple should do:

Buy a large email provider, they had a yearly $100 a year email subscription service but that was a flop, make it free and make it iOS exclusive(as an alternative to gmail).

Buy Spotify, given they have iTunes getting spotify would make sense, perhaps antitrust issues with this one.

<comment><USER43> Netflix makes the most sense. Definitely made the most sense in hindsight or bullish on Netflix. Buying it for $100B or so would've been great. Apple would've been in an insanely strong position right now with whatever combined thing they'd come out with. For the sake of a competitive market, I'm happy it didn't happen. I much prefer Netflix not being owned by a bigger company.

I don't get Spotify. Spotify would cost $40B+ to buy after the premium they'd have to offer. Apple Music keeps growing its user base. Not sure if it would be allowed by regulators. There's still Rhapsody in the west for music. Beyond that I don't think any streaming service survived.

Again for the sake of competitiveness I wouldn't want this to happen. I still miss Rdio's design. Along with other things I don't think Spotify or Apple Music really improved on since the Rdio, MOG, Zune music (forgot the name now) days, early Spotify, Rhapsody/Napster days.

<comment><USER44> Netflix would have made more sense certainly but I suspect they would have "pruded" it to death given their failed attempts and interference with Apple TV over things which may offend utterly irrelevant demographics.

Even if independent a company would have been a good investment doesn't mean that they would leave the damn thing alone and not ruin it in practice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> If Apple acquires a search engine, that engine will instantly lose most of its value. People do not want to use a search engine that appears to be a side- project.

What Apple should do, along with others in the industry, is jointly create and fund a new search engine, based on non-commercial principles.

I'll quote an old HN comment:

        > I don't understand why Google's competitors don't form an
        > independent search engine. If I were Microsoft, I'd talk to
        > Apple and others to see if they would help fund a spun off Bing.
        >
        > The internet badly needs a big alternative search engine that
        > isn't beholden to advertisers or dependent on a single
        > corporate owner.
        >
        > The benefit of such a search engine (whose main incentive is to
        > just be a good search engine) is obvious for the public, but
        > would also give companies who rely on their own OS, leverage
        > against Google.

</comment><comment><USER46> Couldn't Apple just consume the Bing API directly instead? What would acquiring DuckDuckGo actually get them?

<comment><USER47> The only reason would be the goodwill/value of the brand, but I can't imagine a company with the design and marketing chops of Apple running a service named "Duck Duck Go".

<comment><USER20> They would presumably rebrand it "Search".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> The issue with suggesting buying Duck Duck Go is that they're reliant on Microsoft/Bing for results. That would mean Apple coming to a deal with Microsoft for search access where Apple runA the ads business.

If you think you can make $20B on ads and Microsoft charges you $15B for search access on that scale, why not just let Google pay you $7B and make more money?

It's possible that Microsoft would charge less or that Apple could make more, but buying DDG doesn't get them unlimited access to Bing's results for one low price. I'm not implying that DDG doesn't have any technology, but they are reliant on Microsoft for the hardest parts and there's no guarantee that Microsoft would grant Apple as favorable terms when it's not just a niche project, but a major competitor's new foray.

</comment><comment><USER49> Even if Apple did buy DDG, it would probably become another mediocre hobby product much like Siri.

<comment><USER42> It could be, but apple maps and its 1B dollar update may prove otherwise, I feel like this was one update that really was worth it for Apple, the new maps update is excellent and I no longer use google maps. Siri on the other hand...

<comment><USER49> Are you in the US?

I live in Mexico and even hardcore Apple fans don't use it here. It's either Waze or Google Maps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I am actually doing an experiment of using DuckDuckGo as my exclusive search engine across all my devices for the last two weeks. The experience has been suboptimal and much of it is on the UX side followed by the lack of search engine features.

As a part of this experiment, I also used Bing for two weeks before this and after a few days I could not notice that much of a difference to Google (one thing that annoyed me was Youtube videos playing inline on Bing).

But DDG is simply painful to use as much as I want to like it. I can not imagine it meeting Apple's product standards or having an Apple logo on what is the current DDG product. I also can not think of any IP that DDG has that would be interesting for Apple to own.

</comment><comment><USER51> Apple has already been crawling the web in some capacity for its Siri Website Suggestion feature. There are obviously some hurdles to take, so there's nothing that says they _couldn 't_ create their own search engine.

</comment><comment><USER52> Given that DDG uses the Bing API, would it really be insurance enough?

What it would do is give Microsoft all the leverage they need to negotiate (Give us a cheaper rate or use our API and pay us a similar rate?).

</comment><comment><USER53> The whole article is bereft of any reasonable logic as to why it makes sense for Apple to buy DDG.

The article does mention an important detail that the so-called analyst fails to properly account for: from Google's perspective, its opportunity cost—the amount of revenue it stands to lose if the deal were to be renegotiated adversely—is at least $25B. Google therefore has every incentive to maintain the status quo, or at least be allowed to offer to pay more than $8B to remain the default option on iOS.

</comment><comment><USER54> Frankly, much of Apple's search technology over the years has been terrible so (assuming it's a competency issue) they should at least consider buying something better. The App Store certainly can't find things well...I suspect that is "by design" though. Long ago I had to replace Spotlight with Alfred to get good performance on the desktop.

Apple isn't an ad company, I can't imagine they'd make a significant amount of money releasing a general search engine just to have one.

</comment><comment><USER55> Well, Analysts are doing their job; they did also say Apple should get Twitter as well.

As with twitter, I don't see much merit with this argument; Which goes like "If Apple decides to give away it's revenue stream from X, decides to go with Y which provides inferior service, if Y decides to shut its shop, So Apple should buy Z which doesn't generate as much revenue as X or Y"!

</comment><comment><USER56> An ad-tech company now owns a majority interest in Startpage. Same old story. We will take money from the ad industry to protect users from the ad industry. Brilliant!

Maybe creating privacy-oriented search engines is actually a profitable venture as it seems inevitable someone on the opoposing side will eventually buy you out.

These online ad investors are so aggressive I expect Pi-Hole will one day be a target.

<comment><USER20> Yes, but unlike Startpage and Duck Duck Go, Pi-Hole is actually free and open software, so it could just be forked.

<comment><USER56> True, and that is why I mention it as an example. I believe these online ad industry people will try anything, even something that appears futile to you and I. Last I checked, Pi-Hole does own a trademark application. Presumably whomever acquired it could use this against a fork that tried to use the name.

<comment><USER20> Having to change the name doesn't seem like an insurmountable obstacle for a fork. (Pi Hole-Origin, Next-Hole, Ice-Weasel-Hole)

<comment><USER56> Does it seem like those names would not support a trademark suit? Would you have to use the word "Hole" in order to attract users?

<comment><USER20> My parenthetical suggestions were a joke.

But having to switch names, even to something completely different, would be manageable, I'm sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> m-p-3 Then they'd make it integrated exclusively in Apple products, like Dark Sky.

I prefer one more search engine available to everyone, not one less.

</comment><comment><USER57> It already has a trillion dollars, it doesn't have to worry about trivial bullshit like cost-cutting. Wall street types don't really understand product building ... the math is more like, if you increase water in cola, you can increase profits by 20%.

</comment><comment><USER58> Maybe this is a stupid question but is DDG for sale?

<comment><USER59> Every company is for sale at every moment, it's just a question of at what price.

<comment><USER58> Technically correct, materially useless.

My impression is that the idea of Apple buying DDG is fictive, am I hallucinating or does that seem to hold water?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Reviewing the DDG wiki page, it looks like it has VC funding since 2011. How is it able to stay afloat for so long without going public?

<comment><USER34> from their blog:

> DuckDuckGo has been a profitable company since 2014 without storing or > sharing any personal information on people using our search engine.

and

> As mentioned, DuckDuckGo is profitable based mostly on keyword-based search > ads, though we have always been on the search for other ways to anonymously > make money so that we can reduce the dependence on advertising.

[https://spreadprivacy.com/duckduckgo-revenue- model/](https://spreadprivacy.com/duckduckgo-revenue-model/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Would be the fastest way to drive the current user base away, I imagine. Of course, Apple probably wouldn't care about that.

</comment><comment><USER61> Why? Just open yourself up to anti-trust issues with very little upside in earnings.

<comment><USER62> The article literally explains the _why_ of it.

<comment><USER10> It's a stupid why. Currently they get $8 billion for nothing. Purchase DDG (and set default) and they lose $8 billion, users complain about worse search results (just like maps) and Google just puts a banner on their homepage saying here's how to change search engine and gets the search traffic for free.

Just because apple makes plenty of money doesn't mean they should buy every random startup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> The qualifications for being an "analyst" are about one-millionth of those required to decide whether Apple should buy a search engine. This commentary is like me telling Lebron James what strategies to use in the upcoming basketball season.

<comment><USER64> Are you saying that corporate development is harder than being an equity analyst? Not that it means all that much, but an equity analyst is considered to be a more prestigious (and harder to land) position than a corporate development job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> If Apple buys DDG, I think it will die.

</comment><comment><USER66> one analyst says: not analysts say

</comment><comment><USER67> [https://web.archive.org/web/20200609030352/https://baseread....](https://web.archive.org/web/20200609030352/https://baseread.com/analysts- say-apple-should-buy-duckduckgo-search-engine/)

</comment><comment><USER68> Government should investigate Apple for anti-trust violations, future analyst says.</comment>


Redirect Detective - <AUTHOR> http://redirectdetective.com/ <comment><USER2> It doesn't find a redirect when I input, you know, a google result: [https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjVgamJs5beAhWrpFkKHfYaDlMQFjALegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.urbandictionary.com%2Fdefine.php%3Fterm%3Dfuck%2520google&usg=AOvVaw2NSe-G2z0OPtkJ54TZXXyn)

<comment><USER3> Seems like it only works with http redirects, not meta refresh or js redirects.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> In particular, I love that this tool tells you when a bounce sets a cookie (and how many).

</comment><comment><USER4> This is an excellent tool, I have been using it for a long time now. I am in the app business, I find it useful for discovering affiliate programs I wan't aware of from other peoples links, other revenue generating opportunities.

</comment><comment><USER5> Doesn't find anything when I input one of those youtube redirect links.</comment>


Formal verification of Amazon's s2n SSL/TLS library - <AUTHOR> https://galois.com/blog/2016/09/verifying-s2n-hmac-with-saw/ <comment><USER2> Isn't verifying that the math is correct the really easy part of making sure crypto code is safe?

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you mean as opposed to e.g. verifying the absence of timing attacks? While I agree that verifying the absence timing attacks is probably much harder than what was done here, the difficult part of the s2n verification I linked to was that we verified equivalence between _imperative_ C code and a _functional mathematical_ specification.

<comment><USER3> Right, it says "convincing argument that the C implementation does the same thing as the mathematical specification" and "Assuming that we didn't accidentally program the same "bug" into our Cryptol spec".

My understanding is it's another way of white-box testing the code against specified behaviour, but just that using a (proven?) mathematical specification for algorithms is probably easier than writing unit tests that have to capture all edge cases. (In essence, it sounds like verification software is probably set up to detect such edge cases, which I do think is a good idea, because you only have to program such software once.)

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think I understand what you mean by "white-box testing" here, but perhaps it's helpful to clarify what I meant by "equivalence" above, and how it relates to testing: what we did here was verify _input /output equivalence_ between the imperative C code and our functional mathematical spec in Cryptol, for a range of key and input buffer sizes. This corresponds to testing _all_ inputs of those sizes, which is not possible to do by direct testing: e.g., for a 64 byte key and a 1000 byte message, the equivalence corresponds to checking

8^(64 + 1000) =

772229093352564060021182203061704429810699485400692901921197 543030601797302324658889178066005708227773161814337173682980 065612522479316644103460638515687114933331680544961552375412 914711698479251875125441335427310394080188149008724146221306 402242642191159219745353079189135871713826154087180913177991 135554545843425504232155742364801022614341625532175948198587 539576566458760517446126909555225085347521013376171505426231 008775737688282539095967230536510936329489906183630574979494 541005574981802619546120394597788656899688609063922312837993 473534655739423794995816974687759952971465473538229880976237 137410666755636310464327792929854669852851716265627988045993 010404521026728809660275537200281773360887456757531693050082 473180078568595877659952113273156104380151800825339034988199 020562681928372626978536148813617979584497069978086989075685 756621893032191527888867820144068182725496496585643739551119 7590300209437142003442599950379602277911674788208191414992896

tests, which would take "forever" to verify by direct testing.

We did not prove any properties of our mathematical specification in Cryptol, but the claim is that it's close enough to the official FIPS mathematical specification for HMAC [1] that it's easy to believe that it's correct. However, a group at Princeton has also verified HMAC in the past, and gone further than us by not only proving that the imperative C code is input/output equivalent to their mathematical spec in Coq, but also proving that their mathematical spec has the security properties of a secure hash function [2].

[1] [http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips198-1/FIPS-198-1_...](http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips198-1/FIPS-198-1_final.pdf)

[2] [https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/papers/verified- hmac.pdf](https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/papers/verified-hmac.pdf)

<comment><USER3> AFAIK, white-box testing is simply when you can look at the source code (as opposed to black-box testing) for example a unit test is a type of white-box test.

What I was struggling to express is that in the mathematical notation, the operations are well defined (right?); in C that's not necessarily the case. So you could argue that if you were writing direct tests, you don't need to check all inputs, but testing edge-cases will do. And maybe that's true, but practically impossible for complex algos because how do you know which inputs cause edge case behaviour? So I was agreeing that this approach is probably better than having some fallible human write test cases :) (better = more thorough and reliable) And although you'd have to make sure the same fallible human hasn't put bugs in the mathematical spec, as you've said that's probably easier to check.

EDIT: Nevermind, I found part three about undefined behaviour. I had written: _You seem to know loads about this, maybe you could say how undefined C behaviour is handled when comparing against a spec? Is e.g. shift-past- bitwidth simply forbidden? The only alternative I can think of is looking at the disassembly on a certain platform and checking those instructions, which sounds less than ideal._

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for clarifying "white-box testing".

Some comments:

* the operations in the mathematical spec are mostly well defined, but e.g. division by zero is not defined. However, the verification handles this by checking that all operations are well-defined on all possible inputs.

* yes, identifying the "edge cases" is not something you can do easily, and hard to make formal. In some sense, the fact the non-edge-case inputs are treated in a uniform way is probably what allows the verification to succeed at all.

* a short summary of the answer you already found in the third blog post: what we actually verify is the LLVM assembly that Clang produces when compiling the C program. Much of the potentially undefined behavior in a C program is translated away by the compiler on the way to LLVM assembly. For any potential undefined behavior that remains in the LLVM assembly, the verification checks that it cannot happen at runtime.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Did Reddit Boss Coverage Cross a Line? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/sunday-review/did-reddit-boss-coverage-cross-a-line-ellen-pao.html <comment><USER2> News coverage today is all about sensetionalist opinion pieces and soapbox. Nothing shows this better than Pao and GamerGate coverage the last few years.

</comment><comment><USER3> This statement in the article summarizes very well the state of modern journalism, not only NYT but the industry in general:

 _I often hear from readers that they would prefer a straight, neutral treatment — just the facts. But The Times has moved away from that, reflecting editors' reasonable belief that the basics can be found in many news outlets, every minute of the day. They want to provide "value-added" coverage._</comment>


Teardown of a 50-Year-Old Modem - <AUTHOR> https://hackaday.com/2019/03/29/teardown-of-a-50-year-old-modem/ <comment><USER2> Steve Garcia in BYTE (1983) had a DIY acoustically coupled modem ($20 in parts )

I was (in the UK) sorely tempted to change a couple of components and get our electronics shop to build a batch for a project we where doing to avoid the huge GPO tax £300 for answer and £650 for answer origionate.

All Illegal of course - though that didn't stop us hacking the modems we did buy to have variable gain.

For information we brought 6 modems (more than my salary at the time)

<comment><USER3> UK 1976 I was doing a computer science O level at the local technical college (Wednesday afternoon release from my school). There was a 19" rack modem with accoustic coupler on the front and a dial to dial the number. That was connected to a teletypewriter. We did some BASIC 'interactive' programming (the main projects used coding sheets).

The system was vulnerable to thunder storms I remember (line noise). All good fun.

<comment><USER2> I rember my first Job (based at Cranfield Uni) and we where a long way away from the Exchange - Some times you had to whistle into the acoustic coupler to get the carrier to pickup then quickly put the hand set in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder why the acoustic coupler was removed?

Eyeballing the pictures there is a lot of corrosion in there. It would probably be difficult to bring this guy back to life, and even if you did it's probably 300 baud or so.

<comment><USER5> 300 would be quite amazing out of that. More like 75/75 for TTY connection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This makes me miss good swap meets. The MIT Swap has just been guys in vans selling plastic trash for the last couple years.

</comment><comment><USER7> Look at the big transformer, I was thinking "audio", and sure enough, it's an acoustic coupled modem, as in "set the phone on the modem"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_coupler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_coupler)

<comment><USER8> If you are referring to the large transformer clearly visible in the first photo at the top, that is most likely the AC mains transformer that supplies power to the modem. This device would have been built before the days of switching power supplies, and linear power supplies (esp. 50 year old ones) often begin with a step down transformer of about that size

<comment><USER9> Guessing this board is the bridge rectifier and DC voltage divider that comes right after the transformer: [https://hackadaycom.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/pwr2.jpg](https://hackadaycom.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/pwr2.jpg)

<comment><USER8> That was my guess as well, given the four diodes on the right edge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A tiny bit misleading: yes it was a teardown, but I was hoping we'd see a discussion of the circuits, like the guy that built the analog video game console a few weeks ago. Still cool tho.

</comment><comment><USER11> Only saw coupler in books and in war games the movie. Use digital modem Hayes command etc already. Sad he did not do it. Nice to see how it works.

</comment><comment><USER12> The modem itself is certainly interesting but the author's tone is very condescending. Who is Hackaday's target audience, anyway?

<comment><USER13> Nerds. Who think they're smarter than everyone else. It's like Hacker News. The tone really fits the audience well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> "The probability of knowing what an acoustically coupled modem looks like is inversely proportional to knowing what Fortnite is"

I happen to know about both, really. All I can see is a bitter boomer talking down to anyone born from the mid-eighties onward. (The actual article is fine, but that sentence sticks out like a sore thumb and makes the rest seem sour)

<comment><AUTHOR> "The probability of knowing what an acoustically coupled modem looks like is inversely proportional to knowing what Fortnite is"

...And yet, the author of the article seems to know what both are... paradoxically... <g>

<comment><USER15> Inversely proportional does not mean there is no overlap :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Excellent Point!

I stand corrected!

:)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: GO2CINEMA the first website to allow cinema ticket price comparison (UK) - <AUTHOR> https://go2cinema.com/showtimes/kensington-and-chelsea-w10-30UXC923113 <comment><AUTHOR> I am the founder of the GO2CINEMA. I am creating the first website (world- wide, as far as I know) to allow price ticket comparison across multiple cinemas for multiple events. In effect, I am creating Google Flights/ Momondo for cinemas.

Is ticket price that important vs quality of the experience? This is what I get asked quite often. The answer is: it is for some. However, the big picture that I am focusing on providing different metrics to compare venues/ events (screen size, 3d, IMAX, etc) along with the ticket price comparison. The users will find the most suitable event for them, within the price that they can afford.

Is price comparison the only USP? No. The aim is to create the first website in the UK (and eventually across the EU) that allows cinema ticket booking in all of the cinemas. In the EU, we are able to book cinema tickets from the individual cinema websites but not from a single website/ app (e.g. like Fandango in the US or BookMyShow in India).

The the entire UX has been tested with countless of ABs tests. I am focusing on creating the most convenient tool to find showtimes.

When is the booking going to be enabled? 2 out of 3 big chains have been already developed, along with 2 other smaller chains. Bookings are getting rolled out sometime this month.

Questions? Suggestions?

</comment><comment><USER2> Hey interesting project. Just curious about the detail page. Not obvious how to navigate home or check out other movies.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. I am thinking of adding movie search to the header of the page, a lot like [http://www.allocine.fr/](http://www.allocine.fr/). As for navigating home, it requires a separate navigation (needs to be done too). Thank you for the feedback.</comment></comment>


In Java 3 = 12 - <AUTHOR> http://www.virtualspecies.com/2017/06/in-java-3-12.html <comment><USER2> 1) Left-associativity

2) The price you pay for type coercion. Be thankful Java defines the order of evaluation. Not all languages which coerce specify the order of evaluation.

<comment><USER3> Yes but that's strange. Java is such a staticaly typed language you would not expect it to do that if you are like me and don't know it very well.

While Python is very dynamic, but:

         >>> print(1 + 2 + "=" + 1 + 2)
         Traceback (most recent call last):
          File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
         TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'int' and 'str'

<comment><USER4> This is possible exactly because Java is statically-typed. Java's type system works over the operands, and does implicit conversions before the expression gets a chance to run. It sees values and does implicit magic from left to right.

Python, on the other hand, does not need to do a typing pass at parse-time. Instead, literals are stored as values, and those values are tagged with their source class. Python's way of doing it means that a + operation is called upon with an integer and a string.

Java might be able to yield the same kind of result as Python if it had operator overloading. It could define Integer's + operator as only taking other Integer values, therein yielding a type error at parse-time.

My own language uses ++ instead of + to distinguish between addition and concatenation, though I've considered some other token since the two are quite similar to each other.

<comment><USER3> Actually Python does have a way to change addition semantics. It's just not defined for this operation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This isn't at all surprising if you know how Java works; you could probably point out this kind of a strange feature case in nearly any language if you look hard enough.

It does left to right order of operands, so 1 + 2 happens as integer addition since both operands are integers, then + "=" does string concatenation since one of the operands is a String, then "3=" \+ 1 evaluates as a concatenation since one of the operands is a String, giving "3=1" \+ 2, which evaluates to "3=12" by the same logic. Parenthesis solves this by explicitly specifying order of operations.

And explicitly specifying order of operations is almost always a good idea for making sure it does what you want and maintenance purposes.

<comment><USER6> > you could probably point out this kind of a strange feature case in nearly > any language if you look hard enough

I disagree. I think it's a product of bad language design.

<comment><USER7> I disagree. I am not an expert of java language subtleties, but I had no problem to predict and explain this output. I think it is a product of the language simplicity. I have a deeper knowledge of C and more experience, but I regularly fail to predict output in similar exercises.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Does the same in .NET

[https://dotnetfiddle.net/0vkSCV](https://dotnetfiddle.net/0vkSCV)

Used .NET for 15 years and never knew this...

</comment><comment><USER9> It's evaluates left to right.

(1+2)=3 then concat with string = then concat with 1 and concat with 2.

The optimiser converts these concats to a StringBuilder.

[https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se8/html/jls-15.htm...](https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se8/html/jls-15.html#jls-15.18.1)

Second time I've seen something like this on HN.

</comment><comment><USER10> I really don't think this should be confusing - having a decent grasp on associativity and precedence is a pretty useful skill - so for example understanding WHY println(3 * 2 + "-" \+ 6 * 3) behaves "differently" is something I'd hope people would get.

And let's be honest, you definitely don't want to 'fix' this by tweaking precedence to include types. That way madness lies. ;)

Definite shout to ubernostrum's commment though - perhaps the confusing thing is that string concatenation is +, but a world of explicit Appends seems horrid, and that ship has very much sailed.

Just be (maybe) glad java doesn't allow generalised operator overloading ;)

<comment><USER11> I think + for append is fine, it certainly seems to make sense to me that you get "helloworld" from "hello"+"world".

I think the confusing thing is the type coercion. Does it make sense that "2"+3 is "23" but 2+"3" is not 5?

        (3*4).toString() + "=" + 3.toString() + 4.toString())

would not be as surprising that the two sides are different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I expected to see something more sophisticated than a simple implicit conversion to string.

</comment><comment><USER13> And in php (after [https://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad- design/](https://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/)):

"foo" == TRUE and "foo" == 0 but TRUE != 0

123 == "123foo" but "123" != "123foo"

"6" == " 6", "4.2" == "4.20" and "133" == "0133", but 133 != 0133, "0x10" == "16" and "1e3" == "1000"

</comment><comment><USER14> I suppose that's something every Java programmer should know: How types are automatically converted during "arithmetic" operations. There are some subtleties (like byte+short => int), but it's not too much to remember.

The deeper question is: Was it a wise choice to disallow operator overloading BUT use "+" as a string concatination operator AND convert all values to strings during string concatenation?

I think not, but it's a rather moot point, since that desing decision is not likely to change...

<comment><USER15> Thats why I'm glad D chose '~' as a binary concatenation operator so that there is never any confusion.

<comment><USER16> There is something to be said about using all the special characters of the ASCII table in term of readability.

Looking forward languages that will start making good use of Unicode! I am actually surprised Greek letters haven't made it already. Lots of computer scientists are mathematicians that are used to math papers looking like an Ancient Greek tablet.

<comment><USER17> The Fortress programming language was a research project at Sun that incorporated mathematical notation.

See page 24 of [http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/systems/ts-5206-159453.pdf](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/systems/ts-5206-159453.pdf)

They also had an ASCII-only representation for everything, so you could use a regular text editor if you wanted, kind of like Markdown.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I feel the title is a bit unfair. Technically it is '= + 1 + 2'. Which is expected as a Java developer.

Coming from other languages maybe it does look a bit odd though

</comment><comment><USER19> This was touched literally on second exercises (so second hour of learning Java) on university when I learned Java.

</comment><comment><USER20> I had to look twice at this. I was surprised that I could add the string "=" to '3'. I guess what's happening here is the int gets boxed and then gets implicitly converted to String. Proof of the pudding would be to try it with a simple string assignment rather than System.out.println. What happens after the "=" is more straightforward

<comment><USER20> This code gives the same result:

            String splat = 1 + 2 + " = " + 1 + 2;
            System.out.println(splat);

So the author's assertion that it is based on some `System.out.println` compiler magic is false.

The JLS spec [0] accounts for this in its treatment of the '+' operator:

 _" If the type of either operand of a + operator is String, then the operation is string concatenation."_

This does seem like idiosyncratic behaviour for java to be honest.

I don't think it's the compiler doing it either, because this will throw a null-pointer exception:

            Integer borken = null;
            String splat = borken + 2 + " = " + 1 + 2;
            System.out.println(splat);

EDIT: Also interesting, if I drop the language level to 1.4 I get this error:

        Plus.java:8: error: bad operand types for binary operator '+'
            String splat = borken + 2 + " = " + 1 + 2;

[0] [https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-15.htm...](https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-15.html#jls-15.18.1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> My question is why shouldn't it be assuming there is no compiler error and funny pointer arithmetic. If surprising part was lack of error then 1 + "0" would be a sufficient example. Is left associativity and + operator precedence not being dependent on data types the surprising part?

</comment><comment><USER22> This is standard behaviour I would expect in most languages that have implicit type conversions. The article seems to be willfully disregarding that. I can think of no language that would not produce either that string, a fault, or (on the outside) NaN. Java is doing a completely sensible thing here.

That majority of operators are left associative, and that associativity is not dependent on the types involved.

Very high level let's say the grammar is:

        Expr :- Expr + Primitive
             |  Primitive

        Primitive :- Integer
                  |  String

And then determining the type is always:

        type(Integer) = int
        type(String) = string
        type(Expr) = type(Primitive) or minimum_type(left, right)

With the simple rule (in this case)

        minimum_type(left, right)
            if (left == right) return left;
            return string

In java the type conversions are done as pass during compile time, doing something like this

        for (node in AST)
            if (type(node) != required type)
                replace node with type_conversion_node(node, required_type)

But none of this is java specific -- all statically typed languages (with implicit conversion) would do this. Dynamically typed languages in general cannot do this (in practice you can do a degree of it with local inference, etc), but that just changes when the type check is done.

[Edit, because the same confusion about static/dynamic/strong/weak typing is being made in multiple places.

Strong typing: The language does not allow you to perform an operation on a type if that operation were invalid when applied to that type. In java (to make it explicit) I could do (int[])someUnrelatedObject - that cannot be statically verified but it will fault at run time, because it is strongly typed. The equivalent in C will happily go off into the weeds and destroy everything.

Weak typing: A language does not guarantee that invalid operations will be prevented. For example C and C++ do have types, and they will disallow invalid uses, but there is no guard to prevent you from casting to an unrelated type. A more extreme example is some older languages that don't even disallow argument mismatches, etc.

Static typing: the types in the code are static, specifically they do not change run-to-run. The types of fields, variables, etc in the source could be inferred, or explicit by the programmer, but they are all known before the code is ever run. So C, C++, Java, etc are statically typed. Mostly. Because of Java's boneheaded array sub typing behaviour Object array[]; array[0] = someObejct; can fail at runtime due to a dynamic type check.

Dynamic typing: some or all expression types are not known until the code is run, everyone knows python, js, etc

(getting tired running out of steam)

So anyway, you can have:

Strong/Dynamic: Python, JavaScript, ... Strong/Static: Haskell, etc Weak/Dynamic: Can't think of a good example here because tired :D Weak/Static: C

And obviously there's a tonne of in-between

C++: all of C, plus statically type safe casts, and dynamically type safe casts Objective-C: all of C, but the ObjC object system which lets you send arbitrary messages to arbitrary targets. But you don't have to have the correct parameter types... ...

And this all ignores what caused this article in the first place: implicit type conversions. These do not effect the Strong/Weak description of the language if they are well defined, eg. people often complain about string promotion, but neglect to comment on someInt + someFloat promoting the int to a float, even though such a promotion can lose data. The distinction is purely a matter of "does the language allow you to perform an operation on a value of a type that is not compatible with that operation". One way to achieve that is the say it's completely illegal: throw an exception at runtime, fail to compile, etc another alternative is to implicit convert the type to something that is valid. Note that /converting/ a value changes the value being used. Compare that to the not type safe version where you literally ignore the type of the value being used. In the case of int + float it's the difference between converting the int to a float value, and just treating the bits of the integer as if they were the bits in a float.

Many apologies about the awful writing, but it's late :D

</comment><comment><USER23> I was expecting something more interesting, very disappointed.

</comment><comment><USER24> I think it's mildly amusing that Python produces a TypeError here, while the altogether stricter Java does not.

</comment><comment><USER25> One of these plusses is not like the other.

</comment><comment><USER26> Things to consider here are:

\- operator precedence

\- implicit type casting

\- how operator+ is defined per each type (e.g: numbers add, strings concatenate)

<comment><USER27> The interesting thing is that the "obvious correct" behaviour would require the precedence of the + operator to depend on the types of the operands - which is obviously impossible if it's done at the parse stage...

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> So on mobile you can't see the entire width of that website, but trying to scroll to the left or right changes articles. Absolutely brilliant, why do people think that overriding the scroll on mobile is a good thing is beyond me.

</comment><comment><USER29> The explanation is horribly wrong.

</comment><comment><USER30> 1 + 2 + "=" \+ (1 + 2)

<comment><USER31> Or as one might write in real life:

      (1 + 2) + "=" + (1 + 2)

A few braces here and there are a very practical substitute to wasting brain cycle about subtleties in operator precedence and associativity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Oh but it's not an article about how shitty javascript is, so let's just ignore it.

</comment><comment><USER33> so does javascript</comment>


Child finds flaws in mobile games that enable hacking - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14443001 <comment><USER2> "Details about what this bug opens up have not been revealed but such flaws are often used to let an attacker run their own code and get access to useful or saleable data."

System clock : the most unknown root access.

Same subject : <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2859123></comment>