Europe Is Going After Google Hard, and Google May Not Win - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2016/07/europe-going-google-hard-google-may-not-win/ <comment><USER2> Is anyone surprised that Google didn't come from Europe, and the next one isn't either?

Good for Europe. Go out there and extract that pound of flesh from the foreign company and show domestics what a powerful government regulator looks like, show them that their business is better started in another country.

Is what it is. Hope the tax revenue offsets the lack of innovation and talent flight.

But I think Google News and Spain demonstrate the reality of this situation, that regulators are dogs chasing cars who are praying they never catch it.

" In the end, Google in Europe could wind up as a very different thing than Google at home."

Are Europeans not upset that they're being forced into sub-standard foreign technology by their government for which they have no superior domestic alternative, also suppressing domestic innovation as innovators seek greener regulatory pasture, all in the name of today's tax revenue?

<comment><USER3> > Are Europeans not upset that they're being forced into sub-standard foreign > technology by their government

Oh you're so funny. As opposed to the US where people overpay for sub-standard local technology?

People in the US still use _cheques_. And they have to pay (a lot) to print those.

Chip cards? No, let's use our fraud-prone magnetic stripe cards.

It's cheaper for me to call the US using an MVNO from Europe than picking up a phone and calling the US from within with a pre-paid cell phone there.

Talent flight? Sure let me wait for an H1-B (that you might not get after all). Meanwhile a non-EU worker visa takes about a month to process (sometimes less).

<comment><USER4> Wait wut?

First my cheques are free, and the only time I really use them is when somebody needs by account info on file.

Second I have a chip card and I hate it.

Third, you're right. US telecom blows.

Fourth I hate to break it to you but talent really does flock to the US from europe and elsewhere and many of our greatest scientists and entrepreneurs are from abroad. Hell, Elon Musk is South African. That is the result of an extremely innovation friendly investment community, and the best higher education (UK is a distant second), in the world.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> Second I have a chip card and I hate it."

Why? A bit more info would be useful.

<comment><USER5> Probably because it's slightly slower to use than magnetic strips (at least in the US), and since we're in a transition period you kind of never know whether a given store supports chip inserts.

<comment> k-mcgrady Good points but that's not really a problem with the chip and pin tech. The parents comments sounded like he had a specific issue with that. Regarding speed I'm not too familiar with magnetic strip cards but don't you have to sign the receipt? If so that seems like it would take as long as entering a PIN. Also, do magnetic strips support contactless payments? The chip and PIN cards in the UK do which makes payments almost instant (up to £30).

<comment><USER6> We didn't do Chip+PIN in the US, we did Chip+Sign for everything but debit cards (which still use signatures in most cases as a lot of stores don't have support for the US Common Debit AID, yet). No, virtually nobody supports contactless on cards themselves, if you want that you're stuck with Apple Pay / Android Pay / Microsoft Wallet and having to use your phone or watch.

Our EMV rollout in the US was awful, the software running on card terminals is abysmally slow to authenticate transactions (taking upwards of 15 seconds in some cases), while traditional magnetic strips took maybe 2 or 3 to authorize. This is fixable, and multiple vendors in the chain have been providing fixes that drop the authentication+authorization time back down to the 3 second window, but it's going to take a while for it to get rolled out now that it's almost a full year after the big switch.

<comment> k-mcgrady That sounds pretty terrible. In terms to auth speed we get that occasionally in very small stores (newsagents) but when you have to type in your PIN most stores handle it all in a few seconds now. The 15 second auth time was common here until about 5 years ago. In the last year I've also seen massive improvements, largely due to stores upgrading terminals to support contactless payments which I use almost everywhere now. I regularly leave home without my wallet as I can be quite certain I'll be able to use Apple Pay via the contactless terminal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I feel like all large companies run into this wall eventually. The 'head' loves to talk about welcoming competition and capitalism and all that, but the 'body' acts as-if it hates a level playing field. They tie unrelated products, predatory pricing, bundle their browser into random installers to trick people into installing it, pay other companies for preferential treatment, lock you into their platform, act like a bully, and do everything except letting individual products succeed or fail on their own merits in a free market.

</comment><comment><USER8> As it should be. I wonder why the EU isn't putting more scrutiny on the app store.

<comment><USER9> Apple's market share is too low. There's no doubt that the world would be a better place if we stood up against abuse of power on all fronts, but the laws as they stand allow apple to abuse their power with impugnity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> At least these cases seem a little more reasonable than the Microsoft case. Windows N was the dumbest product ever. No consumer wanted that. No consumer benefited from it's existence. Complete waste of time and effort.

Eliminating Google's stranglehold on search would be good for consumers I think. I'm not quite sure about the others. None of the write-ups seem to do a particularly good job summarizing the complaints. So I can't tell what the precise complaint is or what the improved consumer situation is speculated to be.

</comment><comment><USER11> "Europe" isn't doing anything of the sort. The EU is. Europe is a continent on the western part of Eurasia. The EU is a corrupt, anti-democractic bloated bureaucracy where the wheels are continually greased by the interests and demands of multi-billion dollar lobbying organisations. It's good to see the article allude to this in the first paragraph. It's just a shame that it doesn't come under much scrutiny in general, as it's of huge importance to people living in Europe in areas under the control of the EU.

</comment><comment><USER12> I am not a fan of the "Right to be forgotten" but I am an even less happy with the idea that just because they are so good are providing searching that somehow they aren't allowed to favor their own interests. Are we to treat them as a utility or such simply because they spent the time and effort to become so good?

<comment><USER13> With great power comes great responsibility, right? If you're not operating ethically and it affects billions of people, I don't think it's out of the question to expect some accountability for your actions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Don't be evil." \-- Google, early 2000's [1]

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil)

Edit: Despite the strong HN bias I will keep this comment.

<comment><USER15> Are people just downvoting this because they think Europe is in the wrong?

<comment><USER16> Mostly because it's known, obvious, and doesn't add to the discussion. We know it had that idea, and we know what followed. If the OP wants to make an actual point/statement, then they could do that instead.</comment></comment></comment>


UK government considering a "cut-off date" for EU citizens' rights to residency - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-eu-citizens-live-in-uk-freedom-of-movement-european-union-a7601051.html <comment><USER2> OK, wait, this does not make sense. If half of Romania an Bulgaria wanted to come to the UK, they would already be there. Because free movement already exists.

Why would anyone decide now to "quickly move to the UK", just because they are leaving the EU? I would rather see this as a _disincentive_ to move there, as a EU citicen, right now...

<comment><USER3> It's fairly easy to foresee a rush to get in before the door closes.

<comment><USER4> Define "rush". There perhaps might be a small uptick in people who were considering it, had plans in place and would now accelerate those plans, but are we so arrogant as a nation that we think EU citizens who have had the option to come here for years would now think, as we're about to say "f __k you " to our closest neighbours and embark on years of uncertainty, will suddenly uproot their lives to come here?

I have friends and loved ones who moved here from the countries mentioned who contribute to this country infinitely more than a large number of native Brits. No one ever really talks about the human side of all of this.

<comment><USER3> >There perhaps might be a small uptick in people who were considering it

Like there was only going to be a trickle of immigration from the Eastern European countries when they joined the EU.

Don't get me wrong, I was staunchly in favour of remaining and see immigration from Europe as largely positive but we have to be more honest about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's sad how even the Independent is now taken by misleading headlines. They are considering stopping it 'after a "cut-off date"'' to prevent abuse of people from poor eastern Europe countries to flood UK before it leaves the EU. Right there in the first couple of paragraphs.

I used to have a lot of respect for the BBC, Financial Times, and The Independent. Even The Guardian being partisan had the basic decency of putting things in perspective of the opposing side.

Nowadays all turned into hardcore fanatics looking how to manipulate as much as possible the news to provoke reactions in readers.

Perhaps they were cornered into this by the readership. And by Facebook and other social networks creating a cutthroat environment where only nasty clickbait survives.

It's very sad. We are witnessing the end of respectable journalism.

<comment><USER6> What are you talking about? What is misleading about this headline? It doesn't contain literally every detail, because yes you are supposed to actually read the article. As you mentioned, the important details are right there in the first couple paragraphs, not missing or buried near the end.

How would you have phrased this headline?

<comment><USER7> I'm an EU citizen living in the UK, and I held my breath reading this headline. I was relieved to read alecco's comment (and the actual article). I think that's what he means: the headline sounds like she's going to kick EU citizens out. After all, the headline, as it stands, applies to me. Her actual words, very explicitly, do not. That is misleading.

<comment><USER8> Also EU citizen living here for 2 years (so not entitled to the permanent residency). I own a UK company and pay my share of taxes. Still I'm scared I'm going to be asked to leave at some point.

Also, if I go visit my family on the continent, am I going to be able to come back ?

<comment><USER5> Work Permit in UK is quite open for non-EU workers. Stop freaking out. Unless you are a waiter or dish washer.

<comment><USER9> Are you sure about that? Do you know what the requirements are?

<comment><USER5> Yes, first hand. They have everything on the government websites. As long as you have a sponsor and not working on something trivial you are safe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > "She will be giving clarity by setting a clear deadline while the European > Union looks increasingly muddled and mean-spirited."

> The European Union has apparently argued that the cut-off date should be the > same date as the day the UK actually leaves the EU.

-

They're not sounding particularly muddled or mean-spirited to me..

</comment><comment><USER11> Is there a government resource supporting these statistics:

      > 3.6 million EU citizens who are already in Britain
      > 1.2 million British citizens living in other EU countries

I like the Economist in this regard, they seem to always reference source data. It could be explained by the differences in editorial policies or the fact that the Economist is on a weekly release schedule, so their fact- checkers have more time to backup their inputs.

<comment><USER12> It's a bit complicated, but:

[https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/ukpopulationbycountryofbirthandnationality/august2016)

> 3.2 million of the non-UK born residents were born in the EU (16% of whom > held British nationality, 83% held EU nationality and 1% held non-EU > nationality).

> 5.4 million of the non-UK born residents were born outside of the EU (54% of > whom held British nationality, 5% held EU nationality and 41% held non-EU > nationality) – a reflection that EU nationals have the freedom of movement > between EU countries, whereas for non-EU nationals there is an incentive to > acquire British nationality.

[https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/whatinformationisthereonbritishmigrantslivingineurope/jan2017)

> Around 900,000 UK citizens are long-term residents of other EU countries; > the largest age group is aged 30 to 49 years.

I'm not sure where Independent is getting their numbers.

<comment><USER13> Those ONS numbers you cited would account for 2.92 million EU citizens living in the UK (3.2m * 0.83 + 5.4m * 0.05), but there's also the possibility of UK- born EU citizens living in the UK. Which admittedly doesn't exact fit most people's definitions of immigrants but may well be included in the Independent's number.

It's also not clear how how the ONS numbers account for dual citizenship, since their numbers all up exactly to 100%.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This should cause inflation of prices as the price of food increase. This is due to it being more expensive to produce food in the UK versus importing it from for example Spain and the Netherlands. Thus the average UK consumer will be poorer.

Not limited only products such as vegetables.

<comment><USER5> What are you talking aobut? EU protectionism raises food prices.

<comment><USER9> [http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/nfu-issues-warning-potential- labou...](http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/nfu-issues-warning-potential-labour- shortage.htm)

[http://www.producebusinessuk.com/insight/insight- stories/201...](http://www.producebusinessuk.com/insight/insight- stories/2017/01/12/post-brexit-scheme-for-seasonal-agricultural-workers-could- be-on-the-cards)

"UK citizens do not like to come and pick our crops and so we have to bring in workers from the EU; from Poland, Czech Republic and Bulgaria etc. They represent 95 percent of our workforce and without them we are absolutely sunk," he said.

<comment><USER15> No, man, I'm sure the lower class British workers will be glad to work for crap pay and be treated as sh*t just so the rest of the Britons get cheap produce :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It makes sense, I don't think anyone could realistically expect anything different. Considering it's basically a starting negotiating position, it's actually pretty good from my perspective (EU national who has formally been granted permanent residency by exercising his treaty rights).

Obviously the devil is in the details, i.e. what it will mean exactly "after the cutoff date": if one has lived in UK long enough to qualify for treaty- rights but never actually exercised them formally before the cutoff, can he still do it after that date? That's the situation most people are likely in, at the moment. A reasonable government would answer yes, of course, but recent news seem to indicate they are looking for any excuse to kick people out, so it's not a given.

If you are an EU citizen living in UK, you should absolutely ask to exercise your rights TODAY; do not delay, do not trust news reports, it's just a bit of bureaucracy but could make a big difference in your future. Make sure you send documents as recorded delivery and track each and every date.

If you are an EU citizen looking to move to the UK: just don't. This country has decided they don't need you and me, they don't deserve our labour, our ideas and our taxes.

<comment><USER17> My perspective is a little bit different. If they want to kick me out, I'll go somewhere else.

I am Irish; the probability is high that my nationality will be treated differently owing to history. But if they want me to ask to stay, they can go fuck themselves.

<comment><USER5> > If they want to kick me out

Did the article? This is about a cutoff date to stop a wave of last minute immigrants. Nothing about expelling current ones. Don't let clickbait headlines make you angry.

<comment><USER18> _" Nothing about expelling current ones. "_

Don't be so sure about that: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk- news/2017/feb/26/grandmother-...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk- news/2017/feb/26/grandmother-deported-from-uk-despite-being-married-to-briton- for-27-years)

<comment><USER19> This case is completely unrelated to the rights of EU citizens to live and work in the UK.

<comment><USER20> For now. Presumably even if you were here for >5 years now as an EU citizen, if you went to europe for >2 years, you wouldn't be allowed in, the same as this lady.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> More accurate headline would be: Theresa May to end [new] EU citizens' rights to live in UK

</comment><comment><USER22> As a CTO of a London based tech startup who has just employed an EU national with a start date after the 15th of March this article is terrifying.

<comment><USER5> UK Work Permits are trivial to get for tech workers from anywhere in the world.

<comment><USER22> Sure, they can definitely come in with another visa but that requires a fair bit more work compared to a 'local' hire which is an added cost. Then once they get here (if the article is true) they don't have any right to remain in the country for an extended period of time which makes attracting them over/keeping them here even more difficult.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> As I read it, this means that EU nationals will be able to enter the UK up until it leaves the EU, but when it has left, those who entered after the cut- off date will not necessarily be allowed to stay.

It doesn't look too unreasonably, and probably doesn't violate EU rules by itself, but I wonder about a few things:

* How will it effect EU nationals getting for example a mortgage in the UK before the exit? Normally banks require a permanent right of residency and an EU passport is enough to prove it.

* How will EU nationals who entered before the cut-off date prove it to the government? Immigration applications can often be ridiculously cumbersome. Will someone who has lived in the UK for 20 years be expected to submit detailed documentation for every international trip in those 20 years?

</comment><comment><USER24> Here is an actual barrister's opinion of the situation, and it isn't pretty!

[https://www.freemovement.org.uk/briefing-legal-status-eu- cit...](https://www.freemovement.org.uk/briefing-legal-status-eu-citizens-uk/)

</comment><comment><USER25> As an EU cit who left five years ago, working through short gigs and remote consultancy made me appreciate their persoective but also think that we are all going for a bumpy road and united might be better than alone.

</comment><comment><USER26> Hmm, do you think article 50 would further reduce GBP/USD ratio? I have some money in GBP and I am considering selling now.

</comment><comment><USER27> Made me wonder if I'm "the EU" do I respond to this by

a) Saying that the same rules will apply to UK citizens living in EU countries at that point in time (hard line).

b) Saying "UK folks welcome".

c) No comment/ignore.

</comment><comment><USER28> Why is this on HN?

<comment><USER29> Someone submitted it and other people voted for it.</comment></comment>


Show HN: It's sorta like Evite or FB Groups... the way Rails is sorta like Cobol - <AUTHOR> http://tryCapsule.com

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm looking for feedback on my new startup. After a year filled with so many trips and weddings, we realized there was no good way to plan, organize and capture an event. We built Capsule to track the before, during and after.

Use the invite code "hn" if you'd like to check it out. We're in private beta but really interested in feedback. I should only let so many in but if the code runs out, let me know and I can up it a bit.

Thanks! Ryan

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's a quick screenshot demo: <http://bit.ly/v36QlN>

</comment><comment><USER2> I haven't looked at the site, but that's one confusing headline.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's my attempt at humor but clearly it doesn't work well every time. The idea is that Capsule is like Evite + Facebook Groups on steroids.</comment></comment>


Linux Security Hardening and Other Tweaks - <AUTHOR> https://vez.mrsk.me/linux-hardening.html <comment><USER2> This is cargo-cult hardening without specifying a threat model. Some of the things in there make no sense in most contexts -- for example, logging in as root on a tty to perform administrative actions because you might have an X11 keylogger protects you from pretty much no real attack vector. Your X11 keylogger still runs as your user, with full access to your data, full access to your browser accounts and passwords, etc.

Similarly, many of the L1TF-style mitigations make very little sense on a single-user computer. They make sense on shared tenancy servers / VM hosts where you want to prevent lateral movement, but there is close to no lateral movement to be had on your random Linux laptop. The mitigations that do help are mostly those at the web browser level, since this is for almost all users the only place where they run sandboxed untrusted code.

<comment><USER3> +1

As a networking person, some of those bits also stand out as meaningless to me. rp_filter doesn't do anything on hosts, it really only affects routers. And DNSCrypt doesn't get you anywhere since your configured recursive resolver likely doesn't support it. And the ICMP settings mostly just affect your local network behavior...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm surprised that lynis [i] isn't mentioned when it's a discussion about linux security hardening. A dead simple tool that covers a wide range of security considerations.

[i] [https://github.com/CISOfy/lynis](https://github.com/CISOfy/lynis)

</comment><comment><USER5> Maybe I missed something, but the boot partition can and should be encrypted as well (depending on the threat level I suppose).

There should be a password for the boot configuration (BIOS), Encrypted boot partition, and user login. Adding a second password check in grub would add additional security, but that seems excessive since you can't access grub without unlocking the boot partition. As for unlocking root, you can create a keyfile that is accessible on the boot partition and have it verified during boot. Be sure to set the perms on it and it's always good to keep a hash of the keyfile to detect changes.

Also, firejail is notoriously weak with it's default settings. Even configured, bwrap is more secure but you have to specify specific variables that many may not understand. But there are plenty of tuts on it and a script to open a bwrap shell in it's repo.

<comment><USER6> >Maybe I missed something, but the boot partition can and should be encrypted as well (depending on the threat level I suppose).

It should be authenticated. You can sorta get there with encrypting boot and keep a boot loader off the main computer, if you don't have secure boot. But the better option is to always setup secure boot and sign all entires.

Using a unified kernel image you would end up protecting the initramfs, microcode and the kernel with secure boot.

[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd- boot#Preparing_...](https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd- boot#Preparing_a_unified_kernel_image)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you're actually concerned about keyloggers and unsafe sudo, use 2 factor auth. You can set it up with hardware keys or something like duo.

<comment><USER2> If you've got persistent malware on the machine (-> keylogger), 2FA with a hardware key will barely help. The malware can just notice your "sudo" call, pass through your password + 2FA token to its own "sudo" invocation, and make your "sudo" invocation say "invalid password" \-- which you'll likely interpret as a typo.

Not that getting root is too interesting for malware running on your personal machines that runs all the interesting code as uid1000. [https://xkcd.com/1200/](https://xkcd.com/1200/)

<comment><USER7> Don't have to type anything. If you don't type anything, there's nothing to keylog right? It'll send a notification to the duo app with the command name, and will allow you to verify whatever you're running. If the attacker attempts to sudo, it'll show the command they are trying to run and you can choose not to allow it.

<comment><USER2> 2FA that actually carries a payload to verify like Duo will be much harder to exploit, indeed. As to whether making your life harder for routine system administration tasks will actually make stealing your personal data harder, I still have my doubts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> who is the target audience here? what is the threat model?

this sentence also doesnt mesh with my understanding. i thought debian stable was highly secure, is it not? "Debian especially, users are often left with kernels full of known holes for months at a time".

<comment><USER9> Debian (especially the main branch, 'stable') is as the name implies highly stable, secure though? Definitely not! Outdated kernel, outdated libraries, very long release cycle: you can't backport every security fix for 3 years while the rest of the ecosystem is rapidly progressing.

Industry wants Long Term Support, but rolling release (or for increased stability 'short' (< 1 year) release cycles) are the way to go when it comes to security.

<comment><USER8> thanks. found this, many takes on the subject: [https://www.infoworld.com/article/3118898/is-debian-the- gold...](https://www.infoworld.com/article/3118898/is-debian-the-gold- standard-for-linux-security.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > The base install is relatively minimal compared to a "prebuilt" distro like > Fedora or Mint. This lets me focus on adding just what I want, rather than > constantly trying to strip out things I don't need.

That's why Fedora minimal exists, and I wouldn't be surprised to know that there's something similar for Mint as well.

</comment><comment><USER11> Since v4.10 kernel, tcp timestamp offset is randomized so net.ipv4.tcp_timestamps should not need to be from the default 1 to 0, in my opinion. [https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/95a22caee396cef0bb2...](https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/95a22caee396cef0bb2ca8fafdd82966a49367bb)

</comment><comment><USER12> Anyone else notice the use of Aphex Twin's logo as the tab icon?

</comment><comment><USER13> Throw away your Linux media and install OpenBSD

</comment><comment><USER14> I always remove NTP functionality because even though NTP is innocuous, the servers still have a perfect opportunity to see when a box is online and keep logs of that. I just go to [https://time.is/](https://time.is/) and configure my clock manually.

<comment><USER15> And DNS doesn't?

<comment><USER14> Well since we're on the topic of hardening Linux, there are people who do this with UFW[0]:

        sudo ufw deny out to any port 80
        sudo ufw deny out to any port 53

[0] [https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UFW](https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UFW)

This ensures no plaintext http can be sniffed, nor plaintext DNS queries. Then you can just configure DoH in your browser to get DNS functionality back, (in encrypted form usually over port 443).

Doing that depends on your threat model though.

<comment><USER16> This reply doesn't match your comment on time servers tracking you by IP address. Even with encrypted DNS, your DNS servers can track you the same way your time servers can. I don't understand your points clearly.

<comment><USER14> Sorry I diverged a bit. You're right: DoH servers can still see when a box is online and possible keep logs/timestamps of requests. I would trust a DoH server more than a standard DNS server simply because it would be catastrophic for a DoH server's reputation if they were found to be handing over logs to third parties. Cloudflare keeps logs for 24 hours then deletes: but there's still that time window of a day to worry about :/

BTW: You can nuke NTP requests by doing:

            sudo ufw deny out to any port 123

<comment><USER17> What is it that your worried about there? And how is it different from likely sending the same information over in SNI a moment later?

<comment><USER15> Sounds like he doesn't trust his NTP provider and doesn't want his IP address being sent to the NTP provider, because he wasnt to pretend his IP address is not online.

But he does trust cloudflare for his DNS requests.

Cloudflare run NTP, so just use their server.

The only threat I can see is if someone intercepts his NTP traffic, but they could intercept the DNS traffic too and see his SYNs (and indeed pass them on with you not even noticing)

His concern seems to be more about the IP leaking rather than the NTP result being incorrect, however in the latter case then yes, NTP isn't signed, so it's possible for someone to skew your clock by a few seconds if they were to intercept your traffic to all your NTP servers.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Don't learn how to code, learn how to make things - <AUTHOR> http://www.jakelevine.me/blog/2013/03/dont-learn-how-to-code-learn-how-to-make-things/

<comment><USER3> Where "things" still means "software."

I think a more accurate title would be "Code first, learn how to code later."

And you're probably right. Personally, I learned how to code in PHP because my company needed a web app for something, so I bought a basic web programming textbook that happened to teach PHP/MySQL, read it for a week or two, and then started building the app.

Now I have a few different "stock" scripts and applications that I've implemented, and when I want to learn a new language, I learn by studying the new syntax for a week or two and then dive right into re-implementing some of my existing scripts & applications in that language as my "homework," and just googling things whenever I get stuck. I think this is a pretty good way to learn programming outside the classroom.

<comment><USER4> Its so true... Recreating apps you've already created in different languages is the best way I have found to learn a new language; its exactly like translating from English to Spanish to learn Spanish.

But, how about the people that don't know any programming language? If they had never engineered anything from the start through planning and designing and implementing, how can they begin to use a programming language they are beginning to learn? None of the tools that languages provide have a context for a new programmer, much in the same way that high school kids don't understand why math is so important.

I agree with your first statement in that "things" should mean something other than software. Maybe they should build a treehouse or a toothpick bridge or anything to get the process of creation and engineering into the mix of thinking about writing code.

<comment><USER3> I think that the most important concept that needs to be grasped when initially learning to program, is that big problems need to be attacked by breaking them up into smaller, more manageable sub-problems. If you solve each sub-problem and put them all together, you have solved your super-problem.

It's like the old saying, "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time."

Once someone understands this, you can show them Python or Javascript or whatever and basically go, "Here's the syntax to declare/call a variable, function/method, array, boolean test, iterative loop, etc. Now here's a real- world programming problem. Break it into smaller sub-problems and solve each of them using these tools, then put the steps together into a logical sequence to create a runnable program. Google the documentation for the language and its libraries if you get stuck."

Planning, designing, testing, etc. can be learned later. First you just need to take a problem, break it up into bite-sized pieces, and start taking bites.

This is why object-oriented programming is bad for beginners, by the way. OOP puts design ahead of problem-solving. You really don't always need to create an abstract model of a problem before you can work on solving it, but OOP forces you to do this.

<comment><USER5> I learned to program by doing the above method with Objective-C, an OOP.

Basically I made a Tip Calculator, and did it in a very functional way. Here was my thought process. I basically had one method, "didClickCalculateTip" - <USER2> button click-down. First I knew I had to take the user input as a string, and convert it to a float. Okay, Google, show me what you got. Then doing math on the float. Okay, now I have a result. How do I put that back on screen onto a label? Hmm, it won't let me set the string property of my UILabel to a float. Google: how to make a UILabel's text (string property) show a float. Okay, now print to the console to make sure it works. And voila.

So, using an OOP language isn't bad right off the bat, because I was able to plug in and figure out OOP design and principles by virtue of playing around with the language over time. I'm a pretty proficient Objective-C developer right now because I haven't stopped playing around with it over the past year and 3/4. Object-oriented design patterns aren't mystical, they make a lot of sense when you just think about them. I chose the language because my quest was to make an iPhone app I had as an idea (not the tip calculator haha) but needed to start somewhere to learn how to program. So I picked the tool that would directly translate to the product I actually wanted to make.

<comment><USER3> Objective-C is a language that has object-oriented features, but unlike Java, doesn't force you to use them. You just gave an example of a project where you didn't use an OO design pattern nor OO features beyond a superficial level (An NSMutableString object doesn't count). You used a more event-driven design pattern, which was more appropriate to the problem you solved.

<comment><USER5> Yes, obviously, but I made the point to show that shunning an OO language from the get-go isn't necessarily the best way to proceed if you want to learn programming from nothing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why are "things" and "build" mutually exclusive from software (addressing other comments here, not the article)? I think physical vs information is a bit arbirary (and often overlapping in true contexts of projects).

I think that the article's main point is learning by doing vs learning by instruction - and it applies to software as well as physical things. I tend to agree pretty strongly that this is a better - and more fun - way to learn.

I was on the solar car team in college. Most of the people on the team were engineering students, but without a doubt the most valuable guy was doing a graduate program in ligustics. He had no formal engineering or design training, but was very hands-on and could design and build pretty much anything. He still stands as the best "hacker" of mechanical arts I know. In contrast, most of the engineering students (myself included) were pretty useless at design until we took a more hands-on approach to it.

On a flip to this, I'm doing a PhD now in biomaterials engineering. Even the "exparimentalists" (myself included) in the group usually spend more time using and writing software than in the lab.

</comment><comment><USER7> I particularly don't like this approach to programming. Building things is an important aspect while learning to program, but it should not be learnt by just googling and figuring out how to do a particular thing. I think learning to code neatly in a language and learning what a particular construct does, is really important before you start googling and copy pasting things from stackoverflow. With the above method, you can become a decent guy/girl who knows to put things together, i.e. build skins over databases(as quoted in a previous HN article).

If you take this approach, then you would have learnt some aspects of the language, and hence won't have the patience to go through an introductory book again. I programmed in python for a year without knowing how python variables are actually names, because I was too impatient to go through a introductory book.

<comment><USER8> There are "introductory books", which can also be used as reference manuals. The beauty of them is that some of them are very accurate in their concept portrayal, but the concepts are in a order than lends itself towards learning the whole thing from the beginning.

Also, never felt the feeling of "Whoa, this is cool, I'll refactor this method using that?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was getting ready to launch into my usual serenade of "totally agree, learn how to build tangible things if you can afford the time and money, coding is mainstream these days, hardware skills is what can set you apart". Until I realized the author isn't talking about building things at all. By "building" he really means "coding". And his point is to code instead of not code. Fair enough.

But seriously people, don't use the word "building" when you talk about virtual things. In your bubble writing software might be the only kind of creative work there is, but in the world at large, building is associated with the construction of tangible results. And while I am ranting: Don't use "engineer" as if software engineering is the only engineering discipline either.

<comment><USER10> Then why does my IDE have a 'Build' menu?

<comment><USER8> When you build it, it converts your source into gerber files to be sent to your 3d printer. It then physically builds the source code into a layered statue of syntax. Then you compile it, but don't ask me how, because I never got past that point.

<comment><USER11> Compilation is an advanced technique where for convenience you stack multiple silicon wafers into a single unit called a 'book' (colloquially known as a chip.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Please learn how to code. Please read the old-timer's books (K&R, Pike, Unix classics and manuals, etc.). Please learn about writing useful comments, following the KISS principle, and avoiding fancy stuff just because it is fancy and happens to be a fad du jour.

That is, if you want to be a programmer loved by your peers and those who inherit your codebases.

<comment><USER13> If you want to be a software engineer that can produce a large, complex, and high-quality product, learn to code.

If you're cranking out weekend-project websites (see author's examples) and $0.99 apps, you'll get by with a minimal knowledge of software development.

There is a difference between hobby and professional programming, but both are equally important.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I love this. This topic came up yesterday at a SXSW panel on getting young girls and women interested in programming. We think a key factor in getting more women to want to join the tech industry is to stop talking about learning to code and algorithms, and start talking about how software can be used to solve problems and to help people (building stuff!).

Learning something complex for the sake of leaning is appealing to some people, but not everyone. For some people, that first website can be very empowering. It can be a gateway to trying to solve increasingly complex problems with code.

</comment><comment><USER15> I agree with most of this. What got me really going on programing was an idea I had that kind of existed, but not really, so i set out to learn how to create something PERFECT(still not there). Anyway, my point is, having a goal that you personally really want to achieve is a fantastic motivator.

With that said, i totally disagree with the idea that you should be able to build a functional prototype in a weekend. That's crazy talk if you're truly trying to create something worthwhile. Sure building a practice site in a weekend to get you hands a little dirty, and kind of get a feel for the way things work is a great idea, but if you start with the goal of building a prototype of your masterpiece in a weekend, you're surely setting yourself up for a fantastic failure, and probably get demotivated and quit. I think it's a better idea to dabble a bit with some fun practice and then get an idea of what you're building entails, then set a realistic goal(aka 4x what you think it'll take you) and set out to make something great.

Just my 2 cents.

</comment><comment><USER16> Very nice. I totally agree. The reason why I picked up programming in the first place is not to become an 'uber geek', but simply to build cool things.

Apparently this same sentiment is held by Zuckerberg as well in his code.org video. "It didn't start off as this mission to learn all of Computer Science, but rather build something cool that me and my sisters could use."

</comment><comment><USER17> I was not impressed with Codeyear last year for this exact reason (and I did it with coding skills; I just did it for interest to fill in any gaps as I'm self taught). What started as JS then moved to HTML/CSS (fair enough, they do relate to each other) … and then in the last four months switched entirely to Python! At the end I didn't know whether I was coming or going.

</comment><comment><USER18> I love Codecademy, like, as an addict, but it doesn't teach anyone how to make anything.

This could probably be seen as a serious problem, but not a problem with Codecademy, more of a problem with society as a whole.

Codecademy DOES provide people some of the tools they'll need to make things with computers. And another tool in the kit is always a good thing. Makes us better makers.

We can give people knowledge, we can teach them how to think, but if they don't know how to DO anything, what are they going to do with all of their ideas?

In my experience people usually just need to be enabled to become makers. Tell them "You could make a thing! A Cool thing!" and if they believe you, they'll go out and prove it.

This article is useful in that way, it might enable folks to start using whatever they do have in their toolkits to start producing. Creating value.

But "Don't learn how to code"? That's just silly.

<comment><USER19> Its often said creativity fuels itself. We can all see what zero plus zero is though. The most we can hope for is to teach some tools and hope at least some people get carried away with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I completely agree but have a few words of precaution that might prevent somebody from falling into a trap that I did.

My advice is DO buy high quality books/courses that teach the fundamentals too. Scan them so you know what kind of stuff you can learn from there. When stuck making something try to learn the hard way. Learning from blog articles/tutorials like "How to make X" that give you prepackaged answers is just very unproductive in the long run. Been there, done that.

Also keep in mind that when you're working with other people knowing the right jargon is very useful. It will make you better at finding the right answers on Google too. Speaking jargon is the natural language equivalent of high-level programming.

</comment><comment><USER21> Why are there so many persons saying it's better to build something specific and be creative than to learn to code? That we should learn to code as a mean for something? I enjoyed coding that AVL tree class last week, just for the sake of it. I like solving Project Euler's problems and bash my head for hours on really complex problems.

I don't have to aim for something bigger to enjoy coding and I don't understand why so many people claim the opposite. When it gets to the trivial parts of a project, I just get bored and never finish them.

</comment><comment><USER22> Absolutely. Learning to "code" by taking codeacademy lessons, is okay but you don't get a product you can maintain, tweak, and break. In my experience if you set out to make a thing and do whatever it takes to make that thing, you will learn more and have something to come back to and refine constantly. Plus it teaches you to break a problem into steps and you learn where to find good info. It may mean that you miss some fundamentals, but you can come back to those if you decide to stick with it.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is why when people ask me how they should learn X web technology, I usually tell them to pick something they want to use, and make it. It's a ton more motivating.

</comment><comment><USER24> I think "making things" is overrated. I think because the majority of people rely on computers to do things, from finding apartments to sorting data/information, that for beginners, it's better to "make your own life better". I guess it is non-trivial to realize how your day-to-day tasks in your professional life can be streamlined/improved by simple scripts, but no harder than it is to build a basic website that isn't amateurish.

And learning to code by reading a Rails book? Don't you have to _know how to code_ before you build even a basic Rails app? Even average coders can't easily grasp all the concepts behind building a full-fledged web app, nevermind someone who barely knows what a for loop is.

<comment><USER25> "And learning to code by reading a Rails book? Don't you have to know how to code before you build even a basic Rails app? Even average coders can't easily grasp all the concepts behind building a full-fledged web app, nevermind someone who barely knows what a for loop is."

Agreed. As someone who has some coding experience (i.e. current CS student) but who is learning web dev, many parts of Rails/Django are way over my head. Rails/Django weren't designed for beginners. I've found starting with Flask which does considerably less than Rails/Django to be much more understandable. Sure I am probably often reinventing a shittier wheel but I think there is benefit in understanding what a full blown framework like Rails or Django provides before using one.

<comment><USER26> Also agreed here. I started really getting into programming on rails, and really regret it. The only reason I made it through was because I was an intern full time and had the guidance of a bunch of really smart people available the entire day.

I'm going to write a post about this specifically soon. I feel like it's this insane craze that rails is the way to go for people that don't know a single thing about programming, and it makes me sad that 99% of these people will end up dropping it because of this misguided notion.

<comment><USER27> I blame ruby for being a great _way to go for people that don't know a single thing about programming_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I love to make my own web apps. I made my own system for cloud bookmarks, sharing, notes, contact, news feed, etc. I prefer making it because then I can tweak it and modify it the way I want without having to wait on some company. But I dislike coding, I hate syntax errors, or debugging code for an hour because of a dumb mistake. I could never be a full time coder. But I still love making things.

</comment><comment><USER29> As a developer, I have great power to make things (web apps) that my internal business partners can barely dream of. I am working on using SignalR in .NET 4.5 to create some great working proof-of-concepts (MVPs as you call them). This is yet another great year to be a developer given SignalR, Meteor, Knockout/Angular/Ember/Backbone, Boostrap, etc.

</comment><comment><USER30> I did the cs61A course online and it was much more illuminating than when I made junky websites with html and css

</comment><comment><USER31> Hands-on is key but after 30 years of programming I still feel the same excitement when I get my first program running in a new language as I did on my Apple ][ back then.

I'm sure you can learn to love it but for me programming was something I instantly knew I wanted to learn everything about.

</comment><comment><USER32> Agreed! An MBA type at a hackathon abruptly told me that writing code (the thing I do for a living and often for fun) was too boring. I said that if you want to make something bad enough, you'll figure it out. He told me at the end of the day that he'd started learning HTML. It's a start.

</comment><comment><USER33> Oh jeez, it's so hard to read through this when the favicon continuously "blink"/change. Had to go full-screen mode to even read it through..

</comment><comment><USER34> Don't learn how to code;

Learn how to make and sell things ...

</comment><comment><USER35> I can already make things. I'm shit @ coding.

</comment><comment><USER36> I especially like the animated favicon.</comment>


How I made the Met Office admit its climate-change data was wrong - <AUTHOR> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7028418.ece

<comment><USER2> Headline writers really like to create eye grabbing titles: I'd hardly call me sending them a friendly email "making them admit" :-)

<comment><USER3> John, with a more technical audience here, can you describe what kind of inconsistencies you found, and how your code was built to detect them? (I mean, building consistency checks into code is easy; the art is in knowing what kind of inconsistency those checks should be looking for)

<comment><USER2> The average temperature between 1961 and 1990 (which is the critical baseline for the anomaly charts that are drawn showing global warming) was incorrectly calculated for a large number of stations (observing points) in Australia, New Zealand and other parts of Oceania.

Each of the station files contains the observations from the station per year and per month, as well as the calculated average (called the normal) and standard deviation.

I was concerned that as I read and parsed the Met Office data I was make some sort of standard cock-up like putting the wrong months in the wrong years so I used the averages and standard deviations as a double check since they are based on known date ranges.

BTW The code is open so you can stare at it yourself: <http://landsurfacetemp.sourceforge.net/>

<comment><USER4> John, congratulations for the friendly email! (wondering actually who you emailing next:) Glad to see a .pl making headlines! You obviously spent some time with the data and I would appreciate it, if you can shed some light on the 'average'. Does the average really represent a fair average over the earth's surface? How is it exactly calculated? Are the met files raw data or is it data that has gone through some homogeneity tests?

<comment><USER2> I don't think I can really do your questions justice. I would suggest as a first port of call the paper that describes how the Met Office generates CRUTEM and HADCRUT.

Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850 P. Brohan, J. J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S. F. B. Tett & P. D. Jones <http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf>

That paper is long and covers how the Met Office generates the trend data you see, how the data is modified and gridded, how error estimates are generated, etc.

<comment><USER4> Thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Note that the article very clearly states at the beginning that the errors in no way change the conclusion that the Earth is warming.

<comment><USER6> Sure. And none of the future climate-change revelations will overthrow the conclusion that the Earth is experiencing relatively unprecedented warming. Until the one that does (if that happens). Given the continuing flood of revelations and the incestuous nature of this field (there is very little truly independent data), the "consensus" 5 or 10 years from now may be quite different from what it was 5 or 10 years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> While the article tells an interesting story and supports that climate change is happening, the stone-throwing title suggests that something is wrong with the idea of climate change. Very counterproductive.

</comment><comment><USER8> I read this in The Times this morning (made it it into the print copy), and was surprised/pleased to see a HNer make it in).

Also relieved that the usually self-promotional jgrahamc didn't post the link here himself.

<comment><USER2> _Also relieved that the usually self-promotional jgrahamc didn't post the link here himself._

I figured that you didn't need to hear me repeat a story that I've already told here.

<comment><USER8> Appreciated ; )</comment></comment></comment>


10x Client Productivity Start-Up - <AUTHOR> I've got an idea for a software startup and wanted to get some feedback. I'm talking to a potential partner -- bouncing ideas back and forth.
We know what the problem is. Startups and even more established companies don't have the tools they need to create systems that work so that they can maximize productivity. Think "Franchising the startup and small business world."
In other words, there's no software that is designed to increase productivity -- to put powerful systems in place that stop negative inertia and establish a "creative and chaotic order," if you will.
Sure, there's google app's and there's Basecamp and Attask. But are these programs really about productivity? Think about it. What is productivity? How is it defined? How is it measured? Do these programs increase it?
As far as I can tell, no company in America is focusing on the heart of the productivity problem. And the software tools that are supposedly about "productivity" are really about "collaboration and goal-setting."
Collaboration and goal setting may be a part of productivity, but only a small part.
What we have so far for our overarching company purpose is that we want to 10x client productivity. We see productivity as a product of at least three things.
1. Happiness. You've got to love what you're doing to be productive. In other words you've got to be working within your values, within a frame of reference that inspires the heck out of you. We call this the iBeam effect. (If you haven't heard the iBeam story, it's awesome! I can't take up the space to write it here, but believe me -- it's really cool)
2. Theory of Constraints. A book was written all about this theory. The book's called The Goal by Eli Goldratte. My friend had the perfect explanation for the book, "Raw energy." I agree. It is written by a physicist that comes at business productivity from a scientist's perspective. It's written as a novel about a plant manger that is forced to either increase productivity or lose his job. It's very informative. Every founder should read it.
3. Finally, the software. Once we know exactly how to solve the problem, we will map out exactly what our software will do. It may have some of the features that project management software currently has, it may not. But the key aim of the whole endeavor -- 10x client productivity.
Measuring productivity. Although productivity encompasses the three points mentioned above, we are going to need something more concrete to measure it. So we decided to measure it in terms of either money or products delivered.
In other words, if a client  puts into practice the education and tools we give them, they should 10x either A. The money they make in terms of net income or B. The number of products they're able to ship / produce. We haven't decided which would be the better of the two to go with.
The two revenue streams we'll have are:
A. Recurring revenue from software subscriptions and
B. Sales of the educational tools we'll offer (interactive educational video presentations covering key concepts).
We want to give away some (or all) of it away for free to startups and have our paying customers be the more established small businesses.
Books that are inspiring us: Art of the Start - Guy Kowasaki The e-Myth Revisited - Michael Gerber The Goal - Eli Goldratte The Innovator's Dilemma - ?
We're still working out all the details, and this post isn't even the half of what we have discussed.
What do you think? Any comments? Suggestions? <comment><USER2> """In other words, there's no software that is designed to increase productivity -- to put powerful systems in place that stop negative inertia and establish a "creative and chaotic order," if you will."""

All other considerations aside, what you seem to be asking is for companies to alter their whole way of working (plus adopt new software tools) on the promise of "10x productivity". That's going to be a very tough sell, particularly if you're just starting out and have no management experience. Just as techies are suspicious of "noobs" with ambitious ideas but no code, so managers are going to ask you about your track record right from the start.

It's almost like you're saying "I want to write a program which can create love, then educate people about being in love" when really you should focus on a specific tool for a particular problem, like creating a dating website or something. Changing the insides of people's heads is the hardest thing you'll ever try to do, so something smaller would be a more achievable goal.

It's good to be ambitious, but equally you need targets you can hit immediately. Reduce the thing to its bare essentials then see where you can go with it.

<comment><AUTHOR> "All other considerations aside, what you seem to be asking is for companies to alter their whole way of working (plus adopt new software tools) on the promise of "10x productivity".That's going to be a very tough sell, particularly if you're just starting out and have no management experience."

I agree. Good point. My potential partner has about 15 years of experience in consulting, software engineering, and business development for his clients.

A good way to help people see the value in our product/service would be to illustrate with case studies from his past clients.

On your other point about asking clients to change too much, what I'm thinking is that people will buy our product because of the quality of our marketing. This will not require anything except a credit card and excitement from our marketing (you can sell almost anything with good marketing; in our case people will actually receive A LOT of value too, not just be sold on good value).

Most people won't actually do what we suggest, but those who do will see the results of what we've taught them. (Maybe 5% of people who buy our educational tools will actually use them)

This may not sound like very many people, but if that 5% of people really do have 10x their income as a result of the education we've provided, I will feel great! And all of their business type friends will want to know, "Hey, what do you attribute your success to?"

Then they'll say "XYZ company gave us the education and tools we needed to become successful."

Not only will that be good for marketing and goodwill purposes, but will give us new client testimonials that can be used for future marketing.

"It's good to be ambitious, but equally you need targets you can hit immediately. Reduce the thing to its bare essentials then see where you can go with it."

This is very good to keep in mind. I'll have to define a clear goal that we can hit in the next couple months.

Thanks for the feedback m0nty!

<comment><USER3> What is the status quo that you are using to make the 10X promise? This will change in different companies and goes to the hear of your promise? What is the base for the 10X comparison?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Some quick random thoughts. What are the last N tools that collectively created a 10X productivity bonus for the type of work/products you are focused on? What's the status quo set you are going to measure yourself against?

I think the non-engineering tasks are actually evolving more slowly and might be the ones to target.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good questions. I'll have to think about those....

I'll go brainstorm and come back later with answers.

What do you mean by "non-engineering tasks are ... evolving more slowly"?

<comment><USER3> take a company of 25, 50, or 100 people. What fraction is not involved in engineering/development. How has the content of their jobs changed in the last 10-20 years compared to software development. As a firm grows less of the total headcount is in engineering, attacking these functions might yield more productivity improvement. You have yet to answer my status quo question: what is the baseline for your 10X comparison?

<comment><AUTHOR> I haven't been able to find an answer to the status quo question.

<comment><USER3> Without a baseline or status quo your 10X promise doesn't have a basis for substantiation. Any new offering you are contemplating has to compete against the status quo that your prospect is currently enjoying/using. You can pick the status quo and say if you doing X (e.g. faxing documents for signature, using Notepad and FTP to manage your website, flying 500 miles for a one hour meeting) then Y may save you time, money, errors, ... But you can't just promise a blanket 10X because what people will hear instead is you telling them that they are really stupid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Once we know exactly how to solve the problem, we will map out exactly what > our software will do.

You usually don't know exactly how to solve the problem until fairly late. Heck, you often don't even know exactly what the problem is until fairly late.

In other words, you're speeding up the small part of the problem.</comment>


Show HN: I am making an online debating platform What do you think of the idea? - <AUTHOR> http://www.chilledlime.com/?

<comment><USER2> One of the "other" ideas we submitted to YC is something called the 'Dispute Resolution Wall'. It is a debate and discussion forum where readers can vote on each argument (limited to 150 words) by marking how many stars each argument will get. It will be limited to 2 weeks. The total number of stars will determine the winner. Participants can attach files, videos, or any evidence for their claims. We were hoping this forum will be used by marketplace listing and payments companies to handle disputes of transactions and take advantage of crowd resolution through voting. This could potentially create a buzz and get more traffic to participating eCommerce sites. A modified version can also be used by blogs and news outlets who would like to create more buzz in their comments sections by allowing the public to take a stand, comment, and vote on everyone's arguments. For the first time blogs and comments sections will no longer just be an outlet for dissatisfied users to cry about what happened, but comments and arguments can truly impact the outcome of disputes. I am glad someone else is doing it for real, and I bet you guys are already many steps ahead with this compared to us. We only have a couple of pages of concept. We are currently focused in getting our payments platform off the ground and it's already a lot of work. The Dispute Resolution Wall was the next idea we're considering if PayGuard did not work out(<http://stark-river-6968.herokuapp.com/>). It makes me feel good that someone is really doing this because it is validating the idea. Good luck!</comment>


Dark matter might be a type of particle not many scientists are looking for - <AUTHOR> http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/january-2015/dark-horse-of-the-dark-matter-hunt <comment><USER2> Does it bother anyone else when science reporters talk about some hypothesis endorsed by a lot of people as if it is just a plainly observable thing? A sentence like this

> Dark matter comprises most of the mass of a galaxy.

means just about nothing. It reminds me of when Richard Feynman was ranting about the science textbook with "energy makes it go" as the answer to some questions, and saying that you could just as easily substitute the word "wakalixes" and it would communicate exactly the same amount of information. Dark Matter is the popular name for a variable in some models of how fast galaxies of different sizes rotate. The current definition basically goes "maybe there is a lot of extra mass that we can't see and somehow doesn't interact with the visible matter in other ways."

I'm sure it's a very sophisticated hypothesis and a lot of smart people have good reason to support it, but that's what it is. Why condescend to the general public by pretending that Dark Matter is some well-defined observable thing that scientists are simply trying to measure, instead of a proposed explanation for observations that we don't understand yet?

Maybe it helps get funding, I don't know. This experiment looks neat because they're having a go at falsifying one model.

<comment><USER3> It's a dirty little secret. There are two physics, the public-facing one and the actual one. The public-facing one is the one that builds and maintains public interest in physics in the name of maintaining the substantial amounts of money needed to conduct experiments and get research grants.

This physics is very loosely based on the actual physics, which can't be understood beyond a superficial level without an appreciable amount of advanced mathematical training (nothing special: advanced undergrad/basic grad, but way, way, way beyond what 99.9% of people are conversant on).

The result is metaphors that are barely, tangentially related to the math. They are evolved, tested talking points: black holes, string theory, warp drives, dark matter. Any one with any physics training at all has been to umpteen cocktail parties where they were pumped for information about the "God particle" or the movie Interstellar, and has bitten the bullet and done their best.

It is a necessary side effect of a democratic society where funding for the sciences is tenuous, granted by scientifically illiterate half-wits, where the public could care less about anything not on BuzzFeed, and where the level of mathematical literacy maxes out somewhere south of Algebra I.

<comment><USER4> If you can't talk about Interstellar with somebody who doesn't understand topology, I will gladly do it for you. Maybe they're below you, but they're my favorite people because they're the people who will get as excited as me about how stars form and what happens when they collapse and how friggin awesome it is that the computer simulations in a sci-fi movie were so accurate that Kip Thorne thinks he can publish a few articles about them[0]. This is _SO MUCH BETTER_ than having to talk to people about _What the bleep do we know?_

[0] - [http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar- black...](http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole/)

<comment><USER3> I didn't mean to imply they're below me, but I do stand by the idea that those kinds of conversations are only a shadow of the real big picture.

But I definitely raise a glass to preferring Interstellar over What the Bleep. :) Here, here.

<comment><USER4> I apologize, I was being a bit presumptuous.

When it comes to quantum physics I do see your point.

For astrophysics I view the math as a stepping stone to understanding those things in the sky that we see at night. In that sense there's a bigger picture behind the big picture of the physics and we can all share in it. In QM, maybe not so much.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ancient never-before-seen viruses discovered locked up in Tibetan glacier - <AUTHOR> https://www.livescience.com/unknown-viruses-discovered-tibetan-glacier.html <comment><USER2> For some reason I don't like to know that some people are doing research on extracting viruses from ice or mass graves from old plagues. It looks like playing with fire.

<comment><USER3> Well, the ice is melting anyway.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Bootstrapped Training Platform – Try Demo - <AUTHOR> http://romylms.com/ <comment><USER2> That's a really solid platform! I like that Easter Egg in the demo, haha (hint for those who don't want to look too hard: try changing the organization)

</comment><comment><USER3> Is there an open source version of a course app?</comment>


Are CLoudflare's DNSs down? - <AUTHOR> Domain resolution doesn't work for 184.108.40.206 and 22.214.171.124 or is it just me? <comment><USER2> How to check if you're having trouble from your specific location:

\-- Windows --

Cloudflare DNS:

      nslookup www.google.com 126.96.36.199

Google DNS:

      nslookup www.google.com 22.214.171.124

\-- Linux --

Cloudflare DNS:

      dig @184.108.40.206 www.google.com

Google DNS:

      dig @184.108.40.206 www.google.com

</comment><comment><USER3> yep [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17198554](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17198554)</comment>


Alex Payne, Peter Seibel, Jessica McKellar, more are Hacker School Residents - <AUTHOR> https://www.hackerschool.com/blog/8-alex-payne-peter-seibel-jessica-mckellar-david-nolen-and-stefan-karpinsky-are-hacker-school-residents

<comment><USER2> I took a break from my startup and PhD in EE at Stanford as well as 6 years of work at Apple to do hacker school. It has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life and I would do it again if I could. There were people with a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences during my batch--from programmers who learned how to code before they could speak :) to a baker who had only started programming a month before the beginning of the batch. The only requirement is that you enjoy it so I encourage anyone who wants to grow as a programmer to apply.

<comment><USER3> Cool. How old were you when you did this? At some point I may do a sabbatical, and decide for hacker school than a more traditional school

<comment><USER2> I'm 29 and just did hacker school this last summer. The youngest person in my batch was 18 and the oldest was 38 :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I know both David Nolen and Alex Payne - they are fantastic engineers and awesome people to be around. If nothing else, I highly recommend people apply just to have a chance to interact with them :)

</comment><comment><USER5> I really can't emphasize enough how awesome Hacker School is. I was in the last batch.

If spending three months working on open source projects, developing & stretching your coding skills, meeting awesome people, & living in NYC sound awesome, then you should apply.

</comment><comment><USER6> _Was this site's design inspired by Y Combinator?_ - _Yes. We copied most everything except the 90s markup._

thought that was hilarious

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm cofounder of Hacker School. I'm happy to answer questions about the residency program or Hacker School in general.

<comment><USER7> What's the acceptance rate? I'm design-focused (currently at CCA) but I'd really love to do this to cement my programming skills.

<comment><AUTHOR> The acceptance rate has varied considerably by batch. It's generally pretty low, but I think the numbers are incredibly misleading. The reason is that most of the people we say no to don't really want Hacker School for what it is (e.g., they're looking for some sort of Rails bootcamp, or they want to prototype apps and products, not focus on becoming a better programmer) and/or because they don't seem to actually like programming very much.

I think we accept the majority of people who a) really enjoy programming, and b) have a clear idea of what Hacker School is and is not. If you meet those two criteria, your odds of getting in are quite good :)

Hope this helps!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > While New York can be a very expensive city, it can also be reasonable if > you plan correctly. You can certainly find a room for under $1,000/month.

I wonder how hard is to find such a room for someone who's not an US citizen and doesn't live there. Anyone who's been in that situation care to provide more info? Do you just go to craigslist/AirBnB and try to book a room for 3 months?

I'd love to apply to Hacker School, but currently I don't think I could afford 3 months in NY without any income.

<comment><USER2> I roomed with 3 other hacker schoolers in a 4 bedroom apartment about 20 minutes away from hacker school (by train), and rent was $600 a month. I found the place through craigslist. Once you get accepted you can coordinate with other hacker schoolers and people from previous batches to help you find affordable places to live. Also, there were people from India, South Africa, Netherlands, Sweden and France during my batch. Most of them found housing in a similar way (through craigslist/airbnb or previous hacker school alumni)

<comment><USER8> Ah, $600 is not too bad! Thanks for the info.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This sounds awesome! I've just started learning about Clojure and Clojurescript and have encountered a lot of David Nolen's work. It'll be amazing to be able to hack with and learn from him for those 3 months.

<comment><USER4> He's a great and very smart guy - definitely take advantage of his time while you have it. His work on the core.logic and ClojureScript has been a serious boon to the community.

<comment><USER9> I'm not actually part of the hacker school batch (though I wish I were). I might try my hand applying for the next semester.</comment></comment></comment>


For the First Time in History Man Cured of HIV - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/12/14/for-the-first-time-in-history-a-man-is-cured-of-hiv/

<comment><USER2> From my friend, an HIV researcher:

Me: So is this genuine progress or breathless "science" journalism?

Him: A little of both to be honest. They basically replaced the man's entire bone stem cell population with a donor's to "cure" him. Which only works for one type of the virus. Which only works if you have an exact match for a bone marrow donor. Which only works if the exact match happens to have the super rare CCR5-32 mutation that makes them immune to that one type of virus. And you get to take immunosuppressants for the rest of your life because you have another dude's bone marrow in you. That being said, they cured HIV.

<comment><USER3> Couldn't they put the original bone marrow in a box somewhere, wait until the borrowed marrow has done it's job and then replace the original one, to not have to take immunosuppressants?

<comment><USER4> I don't think bone marrow transplants are quite that cut & paste.

<comment><USER5> Someone should file a bug report, cos that is obviously a design flaw.

<comment><USER6> Cut and paste will be in the next release :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> From my understanding HIV is a virus that infects immune cells and uses them to replicate. What happened is that this man had his immune system almost completely destroyed to defeat leukemia, and received stem cells from a donor with the mutation CCR5 known for its reduced risk of HIV infection.

Basically they destroyed the HIV's food source, and likely (at least temporarily) changed the man's new immune cells to the CCR5 variant in them that reduced the effectiveness of the HIV's ability to replicate.

Again, from my lay understanding, HIV changes its cell protein markers to avoid being attacked by immune cells. Often there are multiple HIV variants with different protein markers at one time active in a person.

IMO all but the 'newest' variant likely died of attrition, leaving one or two HIV protein marker variants that the new highly bolstered CCR5 mutant immune cells managed to latch onto and defeat.

I could be way wrong, but from my understanding this is the closest 'model' I can think of for how this would work. However, it's past my usual end-of-day so it may just be gibberish of an overtired mind.

<comment><USER8> Nitpick: Viruses don't consume food for energy, they feed off of the energy metabolism of their host cell. CCR5 is a receptor that HIV binds to while entering human cells. If it is mutated in a certain rare way, HIV has a hard time entering cells, and it needs to be inside the cell to replicate. By swapping out this guy's immune system with one that has mutant CCR5, they've prevented HIV from replicating in his body.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> A sample of one is not a cure.

There is a controlled Clincal Trial in the recruiting stage for participants surrounding CCR5 and its ability to block HIV.

[http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00842634?term=806383&#...
Sad not to see that citation in every single one of the attached articles pounding the drum.

<comment><USER10> Thanks for the link. However:

This case _is_ a cure. HIV is pretty well known to not go away on its own (except under the circumstances described in your link). This treatment is almost certainly responsible for him no longer having HIV.

The notion that a cure must be widely applicable in order to _really_ be a cure is rapidly becoming obsolete: many hypothesized or developing treatments involving stem cells or genetics or bacteriophages are very specific, often to the level of needing to be manufactured/cultured/etc. on a per-patient basis. This makes them less useful, but really has nothing to do with their ability to actually work.

This case is not announcement that a miracle drug will be hitting pharmacies in a few decades, but it is proof (or at least, very strong evidence) that HIV can be defeated _in vivo_.

<comment><USER11> 1\. The notion that a cure must be widely applicable is the foundation of clinical medicine, even with personalized medicine. You simply can't run clinical trials with a sample size of 1. Just because an individual treatment is tailored to the patient doesn't mean the process and plan of action is generated new each time. The OP is stating how there is no way to generate the 'curative' stem cells and the odds of them appearing in natural populations is extremely rare. This case is an awesome but exceptional situation, and is not a basis to claim a breakthrough in the fight AIDS. As a proof of principle, even anti-retrovirals show that an individual can be healthy post-infection.

2\. There are no FDA approved therapeutics for disease that use bacteriophage, there is only some things as preservatives for meat. Most treatments of genetic disorders are generally nonspecific - they treat symptoms and gene therapy is still a developing field. Even in that case, the delivery vector is usually generalizable - usable in many patients with slight individual modification.

3\. in vivo refers to in glass, or in an experimental set-up, this is most clearly not in vivo.

<comment><USER12> >even anti-retrovirals show that an individual can be healthy post-infection

Anti-retrovirals only do so much - they have to be taken for the patient's whole life. This is different, they are claiming that HIV has effectively been eradicated in a living body, which just hasn't happened before. This isn't meant to be a clinical trial, it's the only living proof we have that we can kill all the HIV without killing the patient.

And you're mistaken about in vivo. In vivo = "within the living", in vitro = "within glass" (& "in silico" = "within silicon", ie. simulated on a computer).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think this is the original article: <http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0802905>

</comment><comment><USER14> I would like to see the a Medical Journal Article referenced here. Needs more testing, but certainly a great success, no matter what.

</comment><comment><USER15> I have a friend of mine who moved away, so I now mostly keep in touch via his blog. I've known him since 1995, and he's been HIV positive since I've known him.

That said, within the past few years he was admitted to a similar clinical trial that has all but eradicated the presence of HIV in his system. For at least the past 6 months (it's under very close watch) there has been absolutely no detectable traces of HIV in his blood.

This is far outside my general sphere of knowledge, so I'm apt to speak unintelligently on the subject if I go into deeper detail, but it goes without saying that we're ecstatic for him, his family, and everybody else in the world plagued with the virus.

My biggest concern is the cost of the treatment. He's in trial, so it costs him effectively nothing, but as the treatment is perfected and rolled out to the masses, I have very little doubt that this will be affordable to only those with the very best insurance or those with very fat pockets.

I'll reserve judgement on the morality of that, as I do believe the presence of an expensive cure is infinitely better than the absence of a cure, but I'm just hopeful that they can manage a way to ensure that it does in fact work as they believe, and refine the process to such a degree that it becomes affordable.

</comment><comment><USER16> This guy ended up with brain damage most likely from the treatment. If that's part of the cure then I'm not sure it's worth it.

</comment><comment><USER17>
        20th century: "HIV is a virus, and viral diseases cannot be cured." [1]
        21st century: "Counterexample!"

[1] My understanding of diseases is weak. I remember being told that bacterial diseases can be cured more or less trivially, but viral diseases can only be vaccinated against.

<comment><USER18> Some viruses are better than others at staying around. Retroviruses, such as HIV, have an enzyme called integrase that adds the virus' genes into your DNA. That makes it particularly difficult to get rid of. Most viruses aren't that good.

<comment><USER19> Funnily enough Retroviruses are also the major vector in gene therapy.

<comment><USER11> Retroviruses incorporate into the host genome and is important for gene therapy. This allows for a long lasting effect and is essential depending on cell type. Different cell types have different turn-around rates. If the gene of interest is for a protein, you need incorporated DNA for continual expression.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> BTW, this isn't really the first time.

It's at least the third time.

There was a case where someone got a bone marrow transplant (because of cancer) and the donor was immune to HIV which cured the recipient.

Also some people are naturally immune.

<comment><USER21> There has only been one case; all the articles you remember reading (including this one) reference this one study.

<comment><USER20> But that was in the news 2 years ago - why are we talking about it again?

[http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1858843,00.ht...](http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1858843,00.html) <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7726118.stm>

<comment><USER22> This is real science. It took three years to be sure; and for an announcement like this, the investigators want to be sure before they put their reputations behind it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I know someone with MS who went through something similar with encouraging results. I believe it was a mix of chemotherapy to suppress her own immune system followed by a bone marrow transplant from a healthy donor.

</comment><comment><USER24> Nice to hear this kind of break through! But is it attached to some kind of controversy like stem-cell research/cloning? If new bone marrow is the cure, then the next step might be a cloned bone marrow so you don't need to have pills for ever! This might be opening a hole into advanced genetic research on cloning stuff!!!!

</comment><comment><USER25> I hope this isn't similar to Assange getting bail and NASA discovering arsenic based life.</comment>


Museum of HP Clocks - <AUTHOR> http://www.leapsecond.com/hpclocks/ <comment> semi-extrinsic Old HP lab equipment is the bee's knees. I recently scored an HP 6261b power supply _for free_ from work, and it is awesome. This monster delivers up to 50 amps DC at up to 24 volts, can also be current limited; rock solid with very very low ripple and noise. Mainly because it's linear regulated and the six big capacitors inside are the size of beer cans.

I didn't know it at the time, but these still go for $1500+ on ebay. A new equivalent performance unit would be $5000+. Only downside is it's huge (4U rackmount) and weighs 80 lbs.

<comment><USER2> I once worked for an HP spin-off (Agilent) and scrounged an old but serviceable spectrum analyzer for the rack in my cube. I remember lifting it up to the top position one night and throwing my back out in the process. It was only after lifting to head height that I could read the warning sticker saying to use two people to lift because it weighed in excess of 80 lbs. Instead of transformers like your power supply, it was full of ovenized crystal oscillators.

<comment><USER3> > an HP spin-off (Agilent)

In my mind Agilent/Keysight is the real HP and the current HP just a PC- related spin-off.

<comment><USER4> Ain't that the truth. HP is now known for shitty printers and low quality computers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> FWIW I live streamed the UTC leap second here. Skip to near the end. I had an HP GPSDO in the upper left.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqWP4GXVQ-g&sns=em](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqWP4GXVQ-g&sns=em)

<comment><USER5> Outstanding!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Those guys were clever, and really did start the company out of a garage. I have always enjoyed the story of how their breakthrough product -an oscillator, or clock - was stabilized by no less than a light bulb. Sometimes the simplest solution is itself pretty simple.

[http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/Bill%20Hewlett%20and%20hi...](http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/Bill%20Hewlett%20and%20his%20Magic%20Lamp.htm)

</comment><comment><USER7> Old story. We had some hydraulic valves in a control system that would 'scream' under certain input conditions. The techs had changed them out, and the noise went with the valves. Vendor was positive that it could not be the valves having a resonance in that range. Borrowed an HP audio spectrum analyzer, and played back a cassette tape of the noise into it. Sent the results to the vendor, and they were able to duplicate. HP Test Equipment FTW.</comment>


Let Us Confirm - Automated Appointment Verification Service - <AUTHOR> http://www.letusconfirm.com/index.php

<comment><USER2> Great idea, but it looks a lot like a parked domain page and, in my humble opinion, the stock photo has to go. Not meant to sound negative, the service is a good idea, but hire a designer! :-)

</comment><comment><USER3> Yeah, site is mine...I don't claim to be a designer. HA! Very good point on the design, designer is one of the very next things on my list.

</comment><comment><USER3> There ya go, first step ahead to a new site look and feel. Look a little better?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Built by a friend of mine on Asterisk.</comment>