Police confirm new nerve agent novichok poisoning in UK - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/04/wiltshire-couple-poisoned-by-nerve-agent-police-announce-dawn-sturgess-charlie-rowley <comment><USER2> If nerve agents can be spawned in secrecy, then the ability of police to detect will always lag behind. Nations inherently need to get involved to efficientize resources.</comment>


Do you really know what Philosophy is? - <AUTHOR> http://jng.imagine27.com/index.php/2012-08-16-134222_do-you-really-know-what-philosophy-is.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=do-you-really-know-what-philosophy-is <comment><USER2> > "Objectivism is objectively the greatest system of Philosophy ever put > together up until now."

Please.

Objectivism draws no clear distinction between self-interest and self-worship. Its followers are some of the most unbearable narcissists I have ever had the misfortune of talking to. Many of their arguments can be boiled down to "My pre-packaged belief system says its logical, therefore I must be logical!"

<comment><USER3> I agree. Many(but not all) of Objectivism's followers are unbearable narcissists. Too bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Objectivism is objectively the greatest system of Philosophy ever put together up until now."

I wish this post spent less time concentrating on revealed truths, and instead supported assertions like this one with reason and argument.

<comment><USER3> Simple. Go read as many schools of philosophy as you can and then read Rand in comparison.

<comment><USER5> Please.

Rand is mostly popular in the US --where people don't have the background in the history of philosophy that they have in western Europe.

Compared to actual philosophy Rand is like a tv informercial compared to a documentary.

<comment><USER3> So you've never even read her then ? More ad-hominen and no substance. Yawn ...

<comment><USER5> How you came to the "never even read her then" conclusion?

I read her alright. That's why I can be so dismissive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> No one who "really knows what Philosophy is" takes Ayn Rand seriously. Actually, taking Ayn Rand seriously is a pretty good sign you don't really know what Philosophy is... or at least that understanding is 80 years out of date.

</comment><comment><USER7> > Do you really know what Philosophy is?

Yes, I do -- it's an area of human thought where you can say absolutely anything, and coming to a testable conclusion is regarded as extremely bad form.

Scientists focus on what and how, and sometimes arrive at a conclusion. Philosophers focus on why, and never arrive at a conclusion. Both are doing exactly what they were trained to do.

If you think my outlook on philosophers and philosophy is bleak, you should read Richard Feynman's:

[http://physicshead.blogspot.com/2008/03/feynman- philosophy-i...](http://physicshead.blogspot.com/2008/03/feynman-philosophy- is-bullshit.html)

<comment><USER3> You're right. That is exactly what most philosophy is considered today. Sad but true.

While I highly admire Feynman in innumerable ways I don't agree with an opinion of his just because it came from him. This is essentially the same as an argument from authority on your part.

<comment><USER7> > This is essentially the same as an argument from authority on your part.

True. It's ironic to hear an argument based in sound scientific logic emanating from an advocate of philosophy -- but refreshing.</comment></comment></comment>


Covid-19 Leaderboard (US counties) - <AUTHOR> https://rocky-hamlet-54713.herokuapp.com/ <comment><USER2> A key issue with confirmed cases is that reported results have far more to say about testing practices than underlying ground truth. A confirmed case requires an infected individual, a test, and a positive result.

(False positives are rare, false negatives fairly common.)

At county-level resolution, I'd argue that direct comparisons are at best difficult, and may be effectively meaningless. Rapid rises in values may indicate outbreaks ... or more intense monitoring. Low results, especially in populated counties, are a very likely _warning_ sign -- the outbreak can now be presumed nearly universal. As a rule of thumb, you might rank US state public health effectiveness by dates of first detection of community spread of COVID-19, earlier being better.

Death rates are far more reliable true measures than monitoring, though they both lag infections (by about three weeks, though confirmed cases by less, possibly only one week), and are far thinner -- about 1% of all infections 3 weeks ago given typical course of illness.

The reliability comes from the fact that bodies are far less convenient to hide, and a far smaller and targeted testing target.

Test results, coverage, and negative:positive ratios (higher is better, suggesting better coverage) are all highly useful, as is case severity mix -- more mild cases suggests more complete testing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. I'll add a doubling period for deaths and confirmed cases so you can compare. Do you know of any good data sources for getting the number of negative test results in a locale?</comment></comment>


Unexpected cracking found on critical Boeing 737 Next Generation part - <AUTHOR> https://komonews.com/news/local/exclusive-unexpected-cracking-found-on-critical-boeing-737ng-equipment <comment><USER2> For context, the 737 NG is previous iteration of the 737 (before the MAX) and among the most popular aircraft ever built, with over 7000 in service. Grounding this would absolutely cripple the airline industry.

However, the NG also has an excellent safety record, and 35000 cycles is equivalent to 5 flights (takeoff & landing) every day for 10 years. So while this may lead to extra checks on older aircraft, it's highly unlikely to cause a MAX-style global grounding.

<comment><USER3> What is the actual safety record of the B-52, which i subjectively consider to be the safest machine in history.

How would the B-52 match up against modern commercial airliners? (Does anyone, other than boeing, even track this stat?)

The calc would be something along the lines of;

Date-of-design -> completion, testing, commissioning, hours in flight - accidents, crashes,pilot error, time in service, fuselage age, etc...

I am subjectively of the opinion that the B-52 is the greatest aircraft ever made.

<comment><USER4> [http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm](http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm) indicates 79 fatal 737 incidents with about a quarter billion flights under their belt.

[https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-safety.htm](https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-safety.htm) indicates 76 B-52s destroyed in accidents across 7.5 million flight hours.

They're not perfectly comparable sets of numbers, but the B-52s look _substantially_ riskier on a per-hour basis.

<comment><USER3> Thank you for this!

76 machines destroyed, carrying (obstensibly) nukes.. from 7.5mm flight miles == .00001% risk of failure.

Did I do the math correctly?

With ZERO nuke detonations...

And a flight carcass of nearly 70 years old now???

<comment><USER5> It is almost impossible to get a nuke to accidentally detonate. Has nothing to do with the B52. Let alone 1 in 76, we're talking 1 in millions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There is a 9 year old documentary on two Boing whistleblowers describing cracking probability on the 737ng. It's an hour long: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWdEtANi-0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWdEtANi-0)

<comment><USER7> Extremely interesting. Especially, around 19-21 minutes, we find the same problem as on 737 Max: Boeing has the delegated authority from the FAA to certify their own processes and parts.

I'm never flying Boeing again. They were hammering crucial parts to fit, provoking crackling; redrilling holes when the hole was 3 inches apart, endangering the whole structural integrity; painting it all green and sending that to production.

The documentary is about the circles of the airframe structure, not about the wing forks of today's article, so that makes one new type of botched work from Boeing.

<comment><USER8> > I'm never flying Boeing again

I suspect you were intending this to be obvious hyperbole, but also this will be very difficult if you're flying at all regularly. While you can have a look at the equipment the airline thinks it'll be flying at booking time, there's no guarantees about which plane will actually show up, and the airline isn't going to refund your ticket because they decided to swap out their A350 for their 787 for operational reasons.

<comment><USER9> All this plane talk makes me curious, if there are any airlines that tell you ahead of time what planes they are using for a route? I guess they'd now be even less inclined to tell.

<comment><USER10> The information is almost certainly available on the page where you see the search results and choose your flights. Probably right next to or near the flight numbers. It is on every major US carrier's search results. I don't know about any of the OTAs: Expedia, Kayak, etc.

<comment><USER11> It's there but it isn't guaranteed nor part of the sales contract.

<comment><USER10> According to the fine print (and carriers' past actions), nothing on an airline ticket is guaranteed as part of the sales contract; not the plane type, flight numbers, arrival/departure times, baggage handling, connections, and, thanks to overbooking, not even the fact that you have a seat on the plane.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If a part's made of aluminum and undergoes cyclic stress, even staying within its instantaneous modulus of elasticity, it _will_ eventually crack.

Note the aluminum curve in the graph here [0], it _never_ levels off horizontally.

My understanding is this effectively means the modulus of elasticity for aluminum parts is forever diminishing. Aluminum is a metal that's "work hardened", it's basically becoming increasingly brittle the more cyclic stress it experiences.

I'd been told in the past that commercial planes are regularly X-rayed for cracks as part of their maintenance, because of their extensive use of aluminum.

None of this should be a surprise except that it's supposedly "unexpected" in the pickle fork. These vehicles have always been high maintenance machines, in order for them to be safe all the structural aluminum must be regularly inspected for cracks, the cracks should be expected and parts replaced as needed.

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

Edit:

Out of curiosity I did some digging for photos of this part and more information, this thread delivers some insightful links and citations:

[https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/625886-737ngs-have- crack...](https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/625886-737ngs-have-cracked- pickle-forks-after-finding-several-jets.html)

<comment><USER13> The modulus of elasticity of aluminum does not change with cycling (or basically with anything else but big temperature differences).

Fatigue is a damage accumulation process, that does not show in the most obvious properties, like modulus or strength.

The aviation regulations changed a long time ago from requiring to avoid cracks to requiring to have structures that can operate with cracks long enough to for them to be detected, as is exactly the case here. Of course nobody design planes to crack, but the regulations reflect the realization that completely avoiding cracks is impossible ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Unsurprising given the 2010 Al Jazeera revelations of the Boeing-Ducommun conspiracy and cover-up: critical structural elements that were supposed to be CNC machined by Ducommun were crudely made by hand and Boeing managers ordered them installed into 737 NG (-600, -700, -800, -900) anyhow. And then when a blue-ribbon panel of Boeing employees went to find out what happened, their findings were buried and no corrective action was taken. 737 NG's are flying around with substandard critical structural components like spars and the areas around doors, leading to several fuselage breakups on hard landings and runway overruns, which has killed at least several passengers to date. In past similar incidents, aircraft fuselages survived intact. There's a very real possibility that one or more 737 NG's may breakup in heavy turbulence, hard landings and runway overruns at any time, and Boeing knows about it, but has done nothing to remedy it.

[https://youtu.be/IaWdEtANi-0](https://youtu.be/IaWdEtANi-0)

<comment><USER15> > leading to several fuselage breakups

[citation needed]. It's what AJ is positing, but it's presented like a correlation, I don't think investigators called that out an a cause of the breakups, and it's been 10 years since that was made and this doesn't seem to be a major problem. One thing I read suggested that the fuselage is strongest at the wing, so the break happens away from that section. That, and hard landing is an understatement; One landed short of the runway, another overshot it, and one dropped onto it.

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAnima...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAnimation_- _Turkish_Airlines_crashed_during_approach%2C_Boeing_737-800_-_Dutch_Safety_Board.webm) (4:55)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm not flying anymore. Between the GHG annual personal emissions and the stunning staggering massively deadly failures of rushed Boeing product launches. Finally I will note the whole damn process is dehumanizing and terrible.

<comment><USER17> The worst part of these revelations is that the aviation industry is exalted as _the standard_ other industries should look up to when it comes to safety.

If Boeing can't escape the perverse incentives that tempt every company, then what company can and why are we relying on this economic model to drive such a high stakes industry?

<comment><USER18> >The worst part of these revelations is that the aviation industry is exalted as the standard other industries should look up to when it comes to safety.

I don't see why that's "the worst part". Flying is the safest mode of travel, and among airliners the 737NG is one of the safest planes in aviation history. The fact that cracks have been discovered doesn't change that, and the routine inspections which have discovered these cracks and will lead to them being fixed is precisely the reason why these aircraft, and the aviation industry as a whole, are so incredibly safe.

<comment><USER19> In fact, finding and _correcting_ faults in airplanes happens constantly. Up until the Boeing debacle this was just something that happend while nobody was looking. Now journalists are riding the scare wave generated by the relevations following the 737 max crashes and dragging all these fairly routine happenings out into the open with disproportionate coverage.

<comment><USER20> The primary reason why air travel is so safe is that each and every failure in production becomes a major news item for days.

So the system broke somehow, and the news will keep hammering it until someone somewhere learns their lesson. We hope.

Yes, they will go after a bunch of false positives too in the process, but the thing with weeding out the true negatives reliably is that you have to be paranoid about the false positives too.

Cutting the margins too fine and skipping the 'paranoid, inefficient' checks is how we got here.

Focusing a really big spotlight on the entire industry is part of the feedback loop.

<comment><USER19> The media is ignoring 80 to 90 percent of incidents that happen in aviation that lead to investigations. A fair bunch results in technical changes to aircraft, but it is mostly too boring for a layperson.

<comment><USER21> The Politics of Attention means we've always been reactive. Too much outrage. Too few eyeballs. Resulting in triage. Made worse as investigative journalism has been gutted these last few decades. Made worse as engagement driven business models (ad revenue) begat outrage culture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > Engineers design pickle forks to last the lifetime of the plane, more than > 90,000 landings and takeoffs, a term known as "flight cycles" in the > aviation industry, without developing cracks.

That number made me do a double take. Seems planes never stay on the ground for very long.

<comment><USER23> Not an aerospace engineer, but this seems like a weird way to measure airplane life. A transpacific plane could have 1/10 the cycles but equal airtime, and one would think that the stresses of flight are worth considering. Wonder why it's not measured in hours, like say, tractors, or miles flown. Do we measure any other engined vehicle this way?

<comment><USER24> There are a variety of ways that age of something can be measured with two common examples in everyday life being people and cars commonly measured in years and kms/miles respectively. The metric chosen is one that adds value for understanding the impact.

Aeroplanes and their components do have a lot of different ways of having their ages measured, depending upon what one cares about. Engines are a good example of something where the hours spent running is usually the most salient.

For fusalages, as we're talking about here, pressurisation cycles is actually very important in pressurised airframes. This is because it is the main source of material fatigue which is a major cause of issues - usually in the form of cracks. This was discovered the hard way with the de Havilland Comet[0].

Smaller non-pressurised planes are normally measured in total flight hours, but the effect of repeatedly pressuring and depressuring is so great that it's the biggest factor that will affect the life of the bigger airframes.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet#Accidents_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet#Accidents_and_incidents)

<comment><USER23> Very informative, thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> For those curious about how this part looks, Boeing Pickle Fork graphic illustration:

[https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/625886-737ngs-have- crack...](https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/625886-737ngs-have-cracked- pickle-forks-after-finding-several-jets.html#post10581606)

</comment><comment><USER26> A lot of text providing very little information.

</comment><comment><USER27> <A 'pickle fork' is the part that connects the fuselage with wings to manage stress and torque loading on the structure>

See link for pictures of design

[http://newsinflight.com/2019/09/28/boeing-workers-found- new-...](http://newsinflight.com/2019/09/28/boeing-workers-found-new-cracks- on-boeing-737ng-not-max/)

</comment><comment><USER28> >> We're told this is very much an ongoing investigation, and that it's unclear whether or not this is a widespread issue.

TL;DR: a crack in a critical part was found in one plane during a routine inspection. But you wouldn't know that unless you read all the way to the middle of the article. This is a non-story engineered to create outrage and clicks.

<comment> kube-system > Another source tells us Boeing quickly reported the issue with the single > plane to the FAA last week, and now more planes with similar cracking have > been found.

<comment><USER28> How many? Could be as few as 2. Out of thousands.

<comment><USER29> It is clearly not all planes were disassembled and checked, from what I read it is not a routine check so it will take a while until all planes are checked. So yeah they may have found only 2 more planes with cracks because they only checked 2 more planes that were already disassembled.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Evaluation of New Zealand's bicycle helmet law (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2012/vol-125-no-1349/article-clarke <comment><AUTHOR> For those with too little time, the basic premise is that helmet laws appear to suppress cycling significantly, increase the risk of cycling and cause premature deaths through lack of exercise

TL;DR "The following trends were observed following the introduction of New Zealand's helmet law:

Cycling usage reduced by 51%. Cyclist's injury risk per hour increased by 20–32%. Estimated to have contributed to 53 premature deaths per year (due to reluctance to cycle and hence people not exercising). Thousands of fines are issued annually for not wearing a helmet. May contribute to discrimination in accident compensation and the legal processes. Could have contributed to environmental pollution and environmental harm (due to use of vehicles in place of cycles). Possibly diminishes civil liberties and human rights (by imposing a requirement to wear a helmet when several reports raise serious doubts whether they improve safety overall)."

<comment><USER2> No, helmets aren't killing cyclists, car drivers are.

In the 1980's the New Zealand government removed tariffs on imported cars leading to a massive growth in car ownership.

More cars leads to more driving and less cycling. Then, with more cars on the road, cycling becomes more dangerous.

This trend just happened to coincide with the change in helmet law.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not sure your argument stands up to the 0-17 age group having a 75% reduction in cycling.

<comment><USER2> Also, see this response [https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all- issues/...](https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all- issues/2010-2019/2014/vol-127-no.-1389/5988)

"there was a 67% decline in serious traumatic brain injury (TBI) comparing data for the years nearest the helmet law (1988–1991 vs. 1996–1999)."

"Tin Tin et al6 list several reasons apart from the helmet law for declines in cycling rates and increases in cycling injuries. These include the lack of cycling focus in the New Zealand road safety agenda, an increase in children being driven to school due to parental concerns of safety and an already existing pre-law decline in cycling rates."

<comment><USER3> I don't think that totally stacks up though. A decline in injuries at the time of the introduction of the laws is natural - there was a lot of campaigning and awareness at the time.

And ultimately a net decrease in head injuries doesn't mean that much when there are many other injuries with cycling generally being more dangerous.

I'm just a single data point but I stopped cycling in nz after they introduced the fines for being caught without a helmet. I've cycled daily in London for years now an it's a much safer place to cycle. My feeling is that's generally due to the awareness from having a lot of cyclists on the road. Whatever nz are trying to do with their foisting of rules upon people, it's not working.

<comment><USER4> "Whatever nz are trying to do with their foisting of rules upon people, it's not working."

Based on funding and who advocates these laws, a substantial amount of advocates are supporting them in order to clear the roads to promote motoring.

I'd say that's working just fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't doubt the conclusions of the report, really, but it's missing the part where it explains how helmet laws suppressed cycling. You didn't ride your bike to school because you had to wear a helmet? Maybe. Or maybe you didn't ride your bike to school because nobody rides their bike to school anymore because their parents are scared to let them. (That also changed in the last 25 years or so).

Obviously both are a factor and maybe mine is the lesser, I'm just saying that it's not in the report.

<comment><USER6> I'd be far more inclined to jump on my bike and ride to my local shops instead of driving if I didn't have to wear a helmet. If I'm riding on the shoulder of a busy road then I wear a helmet by choice, but riding around my quiet neighbourhood is a far more pleasant experience without a helmet.

Riding around city streets in Europe without a helmet further demonstrated to me just how nanny-state Australia really is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Correlation does not imply causation - the observed 75% reduction of cycling among children aged 5-17 (from 40 minutes to 10 minutes per person per week) from 1989/90 to 2005/08 coincides with the increase in popularity of internet/video games etc (and I believe, a drop in all forms of outdoor activity)

Also this article is 3 years old and should probably be appended with [2012]

<comment><USER8> In the latter half of the period you mention, distance cycled in Copenhagen has gone up about 25%.[0]

I realise that Denmark and the Netherlands are the 'exceptions' to the rule, because there cycling is used to actually get places rather than for fun. But I know Denmark has no strict helmet laws. Not sure about the Netherlands.

[0] [http://cyclehelmets.org/1257.html](http://cyclehelmets.org/1257.html)

<comment><USER9> No helmet laws in the Netherlands.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think the problem with laws like this is drawing a line when to stop. How much should a state protect you from yourself? I would argue, that the state should indeed protect mentally ill people from doing harm to themselves but should not hinder me to harm myself if I do not endanger others with my actions. I value my freedom much higher than winning the world life-expectancy competition.

Unfortunately our society works around fears. You need fear to get attention or political approval. Everything is getting more complex and thus more and more people want the to step in and regulate things for them.

Additionally this liberal [0] thinking is a bit elitist. To make it actually work in a society drifting apart, you would have to invest huge amounts in education and welfare to prevent typical health problems of the underclass. This would ironically increase the size of the state.

[0]: In the European meaning of the word.

</comment><comment><USER11> My bicycle helment saved my life. You'll never convince me they're a bad idea.

<comment><USER12> No one is saying you shouldn't wear them, the debate is whether or not countries should make it mandatory. If you require bicycle helmets then fewer people ride their bikes, leading to fewer people pushing for safe bicycling laws, more cars on the road, and a less active (and thus less healthy) population.

<comment><USER13> But this isn't shown by the article. Cycling dropped, but there is no indication that this was caused by helmet laws. A much more detailed study would be required to determine the cause of reduced cycling.

<comment><USER14> Well, except that the same thing has been found in other studies as well. The results of this study are _completely_ unsurprising to anyone who has read any other study of helmet laws in his/her life.

At some point you just have to accept the evidence.

<comment><USER15> It's not about accepting the evidence. It's about making sure we interpret it correctly.

The main question to ask is this: why exactly do mandatory helmet laws reduce bicycle usage, and what needs to be done to address it?

Is it that helmets are too expensive? (They aren't.)

Is it that they are too difficult to put on and take off? (They aren't.)

Is it that they are too uncomfortable? (Maybe, but not any more so than seat belts, and yet most people aren't arguing against seat belt laws.)

Essentially, I'm not against accepting the validity of the evidence from these studies. I'm simply against the mentality of "mandatory helmet laws reduce bicycle usage, therefore we must not have mandatory helmet laws." That conclusion is too simplistic. The topic requires further study.

<comment><USER16> Helmets are quite inconvenient. One's head gets sweaty, one's hair gets mussed, one can't hear anything for the wind noise, and seeing a helmet gives autocage drivers the psychological permission to leave about eight inches when passing. Those who chose to cycle without a helmet have their reasons, just like most other human beings who do as they choose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is barely above junk. Most strikingly, there is no data that shows trends _prior_ to the introduction of the helmet law. Therefore there is no model for comparing the before and after scenario to the "do nothing scenario", which is what you care about.

There are good, well-known, well-understood methods for handling all the problems with this paper, but since the author hasn't used any of them this work does not do more than incrementally increase the plausibility of the proposition that "Helmet laws make cycling less safe".

</comment><comment><USER18> Any chance to repeal this law?

<comment><USER19> The problem is that these laws are pushed by the insurance and auto lobbies specifically to discourage cycling.

Look behind the big bicycle advocacy organizations in the United States and you'll see serious funding from the American Automobile Association and bicycle companies. I assume the situation in NZ is similar.

<comment><USER2> More like, the auto-lobby pushes motor vehicle infrastructure at the expense of cycling infrastructure.

Would you rather cycle helmet-less on the road or helmeted on a dedicated cycle path?

<comment><USER19> I ride helmetless on the road, and I avoid cyclepaths, as I'm far less scared of car drivers pulling something sketchy than I am of rollerblader-dogwalker- strollers pulling something sketchy.

I also live in California, where case law has determined that government is _never_ responsible for injuries that occur off the road and on a bike path.

Additionally, it is flat-out unethical to ride faster than 10mph if you're weaving through pedestrian foot-traffic.

The auto lobby loves cycle infrastructure. It gets cyclists off the road.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The study makes some comparisons to UK cycling which should be taken with a pinch of salt. The UK has some of the highest density road traffic in the world - NZ nowhere near.

Not to mention the argument that increased cycling deaths offsets deaths by obesity is completely specious. Obesity kills when you're 40-50+, not wearing a helmet kills kids when they're 10. I know which I'd prefer as a parent.</comment>


Work on Paper Batteries Charged by Bacteria - yaseen-rob https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/paper-battery-that-could-power-the-internet-of-things <comment><AUTHOR> Most interesting bit:

> In the lab, the microbial battery produced a maximum power of 4 µW/cm2 and > current density of 26 µA/cm2, which Choi says are "significantly higher" > than previous paper-based microbial batteries. Even so, the power > performance is "very low," limiting their application, at least for now. To > be viable for commercial use, the power/current density must be improved by > a factor of around 1,000, Choi says.

<comment><USER2> Actually this may be enough for modern IoT sensors, adding capacitor and doing transmission less often helps. Even flashing the LED (5mA pulses for 1ms) is only 5uA on average (once a second, 0.1% duty cycle) or even 1uA (once a 5 second, 0.02% duty cycle).</comment></comment>


Super Mario clone in Java - <AUTHOR> https://annot.io/github.com/BrentAureli/SuperMario/blob/master/core/src/com/brentaureli/mariobros/Sprites/Mario.java <comment><USER2> I was kind of expecting this to be the actual reverse-engineered Super Mario Bros. disassembly [0] rewritten into Java, with the physics routines intact and so forth.

[0] [https://gist.github.com/1wErt3r/4048722](https://gist.github.com/1wErt3r/4048722)

<comment><USER3> This is great. It really shows how much easier it is to make a game these days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> "The source to a Java-based Mario clone that is very different to Mario." you mean. Mario is over a decade older than Java. The NES did graphics in a wildly different way than is being done here.

And we're using Box2D physics and floating point math :p

The thing to note here is that you can make an incredibly entertaining game with a few hundred lines of code, and you can do it a lot faster than in the 80s, less memory and speed constraints, looser types, easier higher level languages.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is just a platformer made in Java, that happens to have a few characters with the same name as Super Mario Bros.

Nothing about the original NES game has been implemented here.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm disappointed this doesn't implement the original Mario physics and just uses Box2D instead.

</comment><comment><USER6> Thanks, I hadn't looked at libgdx before. This code brought it to my attention - I'll add libgdx to my research list.</comment>


Cali Police, Civil Liberties Groups Agreed on Transparency, Gov Brown Vetoed It - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/gov-brown-kills-law-enforcement-transparency-bill <comment><USER2> Gov Brown's criticism basically comes down to this: _" The bill is too broad in scope..."_. Which I believe you can interpret in one of two ways, either Brown thinks that the technical burden on the agencies to post their policies is to great, or he thinks that not all of these things should be public information.

He goes on to say, _" I appreciate the author's desire for additional transparency of police practices and other local law enforcement procedures, but I believe this goal can be accomplished with a more targeted and precise approach"_.

The with this statement is that the bill was targeted to specific agencies and was very precise in its requirements, so why did he shoot it down? I think that he didn't have any technical issues with the actual logistics of enforcing the bill, as he never mentions any of this in his veto. He must simply not want a higher level of transparency for these agencies.

</comment><comment><USER3> What purpose would uploading a law enforcement agencies policies and training materials serve? I'm sorry, but with the limited information in this article, I agree with Gov. Brown on this one. ...and it's drafted by the EFF, who would likely use the article to voice their side of this discussion.

Disclosure: I'm a regular EFF donor. They're a great org.

<comment><USER4> An open government is vital for a democracy to function properly, that's the purpose.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The governor also just signed AB 840, sadly, which greatly weakens California's 1% manual post-election audit. The change was introduced at the last minute and exempts from the audit all ballots that are counted by machine after election night -- an estimated 30-40% of all ballots. Now malicious actors can just target those ballots.

<comment><USER6> I guess Prop 14/2010 just wasn't enough to ensure a perpetual Democratic Supermajority in the CA Legislature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Great job California! Keep up the reflexive defense of any and all institutions - that's been working out great for us lately.

<comment><USER8> The story says they wanted a narrower bill to do the same thing, asking for specific records, rather than simply any materials that would be available under the records act.

That said, if they're supposed to be available, I'm not sure why they're not. If anything, one would think that this might cut down on the requests that would otherwise be made.</comment></comment>


Redux is Overhyped - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@shakiba/redux-is-overhyped-3ad6e42b7730#.qjcq7xtc5 <comment><USER2> The author submitted this on Reddit a couple days ago to /r/javascript, then deleted the submission after a very negative reception. That discussion is at [https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/5a4irf/redux_is...](https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/5a4irf/redux_is_overhyped/) . Looks like this is a second try in a different venue, I guess.

There's actually a bit of truth to the article title (Dan Abramov himself has said as much many times), but the article itself is rather short and kind of incoherent.

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here! Thanks for troll comment!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Call it overhyped or whatever, it is a nice _pattern_ ('ve never used Redux but still use the pattern) for separating the data from the actual presentation logic. This provides great convenience when debugging and is a great solution to the mobile lifecycle problem.

If your article was just about saying "it isn't a silver bullet", I don't think anyone with any experience actually working with it would think it's a great idea for simple applications.

</comment><comment><USER4> warning: instance of the (<start> {{architecure}} is Overhyped, <mutter mutter...> always use the best tool for the job <end>) medium article class</comment>


PNG vs JPEG - <AUTHOR> http://lbrandy.com/blog/2008/10/my-first-and-last-webcomic/ <comment><USER2> This could've been stated more strongly: The _only_ time JPEGs are superior to GIF/PNG is for photos (like taken with a camera).

<comment><USER3> What makes them superior to GIF/PNG then?

<comment><USER2> JPEGs are really good at throwing out the right data for photographs. GIF and PNG are non-lossy formats; you keep every single pixel you put down (although for GIFs you do lose fidelity in the color space if you use more than 256). JPEGs will do a really bad job with pixel perfect, but faces/mountains/flowers/... will look nice even compressed very heavily.

<comment><USER3> Okay, gotcha! Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _> [TechCrunch] a supposed technology website [doing things] that make me want to cry_</comment>


Show HN: Review Vogue, my web dev tool that uses nodejs and socket.io - <AUTHOR>

I wanted to learn some nodejs. So I built a handy tool over the weekend, called Vogue. Vogue watches your website's CSS files. Whenever you save changes in your editor, Vogue tells all browsers currently using those stylesheets to re-download the CSS. So each browser visually updates, without having to reload the entire page.
It's near instant, much faster than switching between browsers and reloading manually.
This page has more info, including a 2-minute screencast show Vogue in action: http://aboutcode.net/vogue/
The source is here: https://github.com/andrewdavey/vogue
I'd love to get some feedback (on the code, the website, anything) from the HN-crowd. Thank you. <comment><USER2> The website's colors hurt my eyes, the uneven height of strifes are also fairly annoying. However, the idea sounds interesting, and since it's on github, and I don't have to visit the website ever again, I'll give it a try!

If it does work as I expect it to work, this'll be a very nice addition to my collection of favourite tools.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the feedback. The colors look fine to me (in all the browsers I've tried). What OS & browser are you using? I'm not sure what you mean by "strifes"; stripes perhaps? Why would making the colored stripes the same height be better? Have I misunderstood?

<comment><USER2> Chrome on Debian Lenny (Linux) - it's not a rendering issue, it's just that I find too many background colors annoying.

And yeah, I meant stripes, sorry. Making them the same height would result in less colors on a page, thus would ease it on my eyes :)

Mind you, this is a very subjective opinion.

By the way, the tool works like a charm - tank you!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the follow up. My girlfriend has kindly offered her design skills, so I hope she can make something much nicer soon :)

I'm glad the tool works - let me know if you have any ideas for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> There is a similar solution called Livereload. <https://github.com/mockko/livereload></comment>


Tesla's Model X Was a Mistake - <AUTHOR> http://www.autoblog.com/2016/02/05/tesla-model-x-mistake-opinion/ <comment><USER2> This is overblown and the stock price being low is probably short sightedness (again) on the east coast due to oil prices.

The Model X enabled Tesla to use the same core as the Model S while building and testing some new features during the construction of their giga-factory that will enable the Model 3. It also allows Tesla to stay in the press during that time (demonstrating new features, talking about the new car etc.).

While delivery is a little delayed they've already sold over sixteen thousand Model Xs - I don't agree that it was a mistake.

<comment><USER3> Stock price isn't low at all. TSLA is still considered a bigger company than Fiat / Chrysler... by a significant margin... at its current price.

East Coast guys are thinking "wtf? How can Fiat / Crysler / Dodge / Jeep / Ram / Ferrari COMBINED" be worth less than a company who currently only makes two cars?

<comment><USER4> Imagine if GM owned ExxonMobil. That's a better example of what Tesla is (an energy storage company that sells a product that uses their core product).

<comment><USER5> Except Tesla licenses their battery tech from Panasonic. Says so in the 10-K. Anyone else is free to make a deal with Panasonic

<comment><USER3> Tesla has their own battery technology. But the chemistry belongs to Panasonic, who creates cells.

You combine cells (like the 18650) together to create batteries. The Gigafactory is trying to make 26650 cells, which should be more efficient in cars than the 18650 cells (which were originally designed for laptops)

Tesla's use of 18650 was highly innovative. They "hacked" growth into their company by taking advantage of the scale and scope of laptop manufacturers. But now that TSLA is one of the largest users of Lithium Ion in the world, they need to come up with a more efficient, car-specific cell design now.

<comment><USER5> That's exactly it. They haven't yet. Right now what they do is assembly. Look up what Chanos said about Tesla.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm not sure this makes sense:

> "Tesla, like most Silicon Valley companies, uses most of its revenue to > finance research and development for new products. Rolling out new products > with minimal required development is crucial to this strategy"

Those sentences just don't follow. They spend lots on R&D and they need to roll out new products with minimal R&D?

And I'm pretty sure the majority of their revenue is spent building the cars. They did around $3.2 billion in revenue and sold 35,000 cars. Unless they somehow have unheard of margins of 50-60%, that means Tesla spends the large majority of their revenue on building vehicles.

To me, this community blog post reads like they started with the contrarian clickbait title, and went from there.

<comment><USER7> It's clumsily worded, but I think what they were going for is something like "Tesla, like most Silicon Valley companies, uses most of its revenue to finance research and development for new products, so profitability depends on maximizing the returns on that R&D investment." The idea was that the R&D necessary for the Model S was intense, and the hope was to be able to extract more value from that investment with another vehicle that largely reused Model S's tech.

<comment><USER8> It's just not a software company and too many people don't get that.

They're building their brand and developing their technology and supply chain with elite vehicles developing the potential for profit explosions when they're ready to release a commodity vehicle to the masses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some decisions taken when designing the X might have been a mistake. But it would be too simple to blame all onto them. While initially, the X was planned as a minor bodywork modification of the Model S, the crazy success of the S gave Tesla the money and the time to make it a larger refinement of the S platform. In the meantime, the S also kept being updated.

So the X is rather still part of the S platform and the real cheaper car will still be the Model 3. In that sense the Tesla plans did not change much. While not many X were delivered in 2015, they seemed to have started mass production literally in the last weeks of the year. They should be building several hundred of them per week now.

That the X is even more expensive than the S is not a bad thing, considering that they have about 20k orders backlog. As long as they can sell any S or X they make, there is no hurry for the "cheap" model. Revenue per car is more important that total car number sold.

</comment><comment><USER10> I agree with most of this analysis.

I think the reason they did the X was that when Model S was brand new they expected the market to 'max out' at ~20k vehicles a year (which wasn't unreasonable looking at other, similarly priced, niche premium brands).

So, they wanted a SUV to sell more cars. Now, as everyone (especially Tesla) knows, Model S has been selling very well. So in hindsight it was a big waste of time/resources. But I can see why the mistake was made.

<comment><USER9> Why was it a waste of time/resources? From all we know, the X might even sell better than the S, the preorders are crazy. Which would make Tesla a much larger company than selling the S only.

<comment><USER11> But they would have sold even more if they ignored the X and prioritized 3 which is the ultimate goal because they need the money

<comment><USER12> Can't prioritize the 3 until the gigafactory comes online. Not point to making lots of cheap chassis if you don't have the batteries to put in them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The one thing that article totally misses is the Dual Motor drivetrain that was developed for the Model X was what enabled the 85D/P85D/P90DL which moved the Model S from "awesome" to "supercar" territory.

Also, there was many similar slow rollout/complexity issues with the Model S first shipped, I'm sure they'll be fine.

</comment><comment><USER14> Over-engineering the Model X is in my view clearly a mistake. Not a huge mistake though.

The big problem for Tesla is scaling up. Producing the model 3 at scale at a 40k price tag is much harder than anything they have done so far. It has taken competing car companies decades to get to the point where cheap reliable cars just roll of the factory line. Just quality control alone is a huge problem at scale. Sourcing all materials at scale is enormously difficult. In manufacturing scale is everything.

In terms of interior design and finish Tesla is way behind BMW. They don't have the factories BMW does or any of the infrastructure and operational expertise. Tesla won't be able to compete in more the price sensitive "3" segment.

Perhaps Tesla would have been better if they only produced fast luxury cars. Too late for that now, though. The stock is priced based on promises of a mass adoption of the Model 3. A promise that they can't possibly deliver on. Unless Elon pulls another rabbit out of his hat. Wouldn't be the first time.

<comment><USER9> While I did not have the chance yet to compare an X to the BMW offerings, it is a notable fact, that Tesla in the meanwhile for both the X and the S is working with the same German companies which supply BMW and Audi. The interior of the X is made by a company usually doing Audis, and the suspension is made by Continental. They also have Bosch components, Harman audio etc. That should put them quite close in quality to the German brands.

<comment><USER14> I've heard many people express disappointment at the fit and finish of the model S (cheap components, water leakage, etc), but nothing quite as harsh as the review in BGR:

> The fit and finish of a Tesla, especially a $140,000 Tesla, is quite frankly > embarrassing. Panels with gaps, cheap plastic components, a decade-old > Mercedes shifter, and none of the high-end amenities of luxury cars. The > doors are, quite frankly, crap. The leather is medium grade at best. The > seats are terrible (disclosure: I have not sat in the brand new Model S > seats, though they are still one piece with no power-adjustable lumbar, > etc).

I don't know if the Model X is better.

[http://bgr.com/2015/01/14/tesla-tsla-sales-market-data- model...](http://bgr.com/2015/01/14/tesla-tsla-sales-market-data-model-s-d/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This may be my personal taste but does anyone else think that it's just ugly? I saw one in person the other day and it really looks like a big snail, especially compared to the sleek looking Porsche and BMW SUVs in the same price range.

<comment><USER16> Are you talking about the BMW X5 and Porsche Cayenne? I think those are rather hideous vehicles. The designers clearly tried to retain some of the sedan branding and looks in front, just much taller, and weren't sure what to do in the back. Heck, a Chevy Suburban looks better! At least it has a consistent design philosophy!

<comment><USER17> BMWs still suffer from Chris Bangle's legacy of flame surfacing.

Personally, I think the Macan is a much sharper interpretation than the Cayenne.

Tessa's design is blander and doesn't really have a brand specific cue other than that horrendous nose. That large piece of plastic over what would be traditionally the inlet just doesn't do it for me.

<comment><USER18> The Porsche Cayenne has been around for a long time though, and is in need of a refresh. The Macan is sparkling new.

<comment><USER19> The Cayenne looks like it is about to surface with a mouthful of krill.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm not sure what the author is getting at but I think the Model X is a mistake- mostly only because of the falcon doors. 1\. It is too ostentatious for most people - especially in its biggest market- the bay area. You can hide a gold iphone or Rolex watch but you can't hide when you open the falcon door while dropping off your kids to school. 2\. The door also drastically reduces the headroom for the 2nd row and it feels like a Nascar racing car with all kinds of bracing in the back. About making it easy to get into the 3rd row is not really true. It is no different than any 3 row SUVs. The tall fixed headrests also limit visibility in the back rows. 3\. I think Elon is a pragmatist and if he decides to change the falcon doors to regular doors, I think the ModelX will trump Acura MDX and BMWX5 in Sales very easily. Everything else in the ModelX just blows everyone else out of the water.

<comment><USER21> >It is too ostentatious for most people - especially in its biggest market- the bay area. You can hide a gold iphone or Rolex watch but you can't hide when you open the falcon door while dropping off your kids to school.

For a lot of people the whole point of paying $130k for a car is that other people know you can pay $130k for a car.

Also, is the SF bay area really Tesla's biggest market? There aren't that many people in SF compared to, say, Los Angeles.

<comment><USER22> Hmm, now I'm curious what the heat map for, say, > $100k cars looks like, though I'm guessing perhaps something like: [https://xkcd.com/1138/](https://xkcd.com/1138/)

Maybe what I really want is 100k cars per capita?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> High stock prices does not mean a company is doing well.

It just means that people used to think the stock of the company would go up.

Following that: low stock prices does not mean a company is not doing well.

</comment><comment><USER24> I think mistake is a strong word. It clearly wasn't part of the original plan, at least where it was, and did take (and continues to take) a lot of time and effort on the part of Tesla to get it to market already. However, Tesla was moving into SUVs eventually, they would have to, and the X if nothing else provides a ton of useful data and experience to them down the line.

Best idea? Probably not and maybe a little premature too, but the article makes it sound like Tesla's going out of business because of it and I don't think it's nearly that bad.

</comment><comment><USER25> Tesla should get Model 3 out quickly. That's where the meat of the market is at ~30K USD. That's where Tesla will learn what real customer service is.

</comment><comment><USER26> Couch infantry is at it again. Stock price doesn't mean a damn to a company unless it's about to issue more shares. It only has any meaning to people who own its stock. Model X is a good product, and one without peer in the luxury segment. Who gives a shit what some jerkwad analyst thinks about the stock?

</comment><comment><USER27> Kind of early to start making conclusions isn't it? Stumbling world economy and record low oil prices. Not exactly a receipt of Tesla success.

I'd give at least 6 more months before concluding anything.

</comment><comment><USER28> Elon took a risk, it didn't pay off, and maybe hurt Tesla in the short term. They learned a lot of lessons from it and survived, so this should help them in the long term.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think it is amazing that after a decade in the mainstream spotlight, journalists still don't seem to do their homework.

Simpleminded twaddle.

</comment><comment><USER29> Tell me in 3 years if it was a mistake. Until then you're guessing out your ass, hoping to drive traffic to your blog.

<comment><USER30> Not only that, why is he all of a sudden claiming this now, AFTER the stock has tanked? If he felt that way, he should have been talking about it when the stock was much higher. it's easy to say things after the fact.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> So, decent plan, imperfect outcome?

<comment> D-Coder Story of my life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Tesla in general looks like a big mistake to me. Whatever good things Tesla has seen so far is probably because Musk's own personality and PR rather than the actual performance of the car itself.

<comment><USER29> What kind of performance? Consumer Reports rated so highly they had to redo their test (it got over 100%). It's acceleration is near supercar territory or just "really fucking fast" with out ludicris. 98% of owners said they'd buy again. Compared to super cars and high end sports cars it's corning sucks. But, 1)remember S is a 4 door sedan not a sports car 2) like to see any electric car with more than 40mi range do better. And I think it's range is one of the top for production electric vehicles. S has met or beat sales and all Tesla models have large pre and back orders.

So, really, what performance are you referring to?

<comment><USER32> I don't have much faith in Consumer Reports may be they wanted to be in good books of Mr. Musk.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: looking for "war stories" getting OSS into UK (local) government - <AUTHOR>

I have for various reasons become stung into running a fringe meeting at July's Local Government Associations annual meeting. The idea is I perceive a catch-22 in OSS in local govt - for the stuff that governments alone do, no one who can code has an itch so there are no prebuilt packages so OSS is at a disadvantage to proprietary
I want to gee up enough council leaders to agree to stop paying proprietary companies and pool funds to develop open software - and am looking for anyone with experience (good bad indifferent) trying to get OSS off ground in uk government.
Please comment or contact me from my profile <comment><USER2> The biggest trick is in figuring out how to get them to pay for it.

I've found, at least in the US Federal Government, that OSS is usually considered 'good' at all levels. Occasionally there is skepticism, but generally, it's viewed positively.

However, what many OSS apps lack is a backing company to engage for support. A scenario, if you will:

I am the CTO of a federal agency, and I am looking to cut costs over the long run and replace an aging legacy system. I see that OSS_APP_A is a direct drop- in with minimal switching costs, however, OSS_APP_A has no 'RedHat, Inc' behind it. OSS_APP_B however, doesn't appear to be quite as fully featured, and would probably require contracting time to fully switch over, which we can hire 'OSS_APP_B, Inc' to do. If it breaks, we can call 'OSS_APP_B, Inc', and we can hire them to do the work. Also, if it fails, we can blame them and get out of paying on the contract until such time it is fixed.

Open source is nice, but in government, generally, systems are more critical than others. Swapping out their office suite to OpenOffice is probably a no- brainer, but swapping out Microsoft IIS for Apache is a little scarier, because what happens if it breaks? So they don't use Apache, they instead hire a company like Covalent which offers a little value-add on top of Apache, but basically, they're "someone to blame" if/when it doesn't work.

If there's a particular piece of software you'd like to push, and it doesn't have some kind of formal backing, you might consider that a business opportunity. Though federal sales is hard and trying, it can also be quite lucrative, at least in the US.

<comment><AUTHOR> bmelton - thank you for your reply.

I am guessing you are _not_ the CTO of a federal agency and are just talking rhetorically (otherwise I am _very_ impressed with HN)

I believe federal sales and their equivalent is profitatble because it needs to be to make up for the effort !

I mostly think that there are few drop-in replacements without systems- integration. But what I am hoping to do is to start a culture of ... well paying developers rather than paying proprietary companies. I have a suspicion that a pool of government funds and a community steered openly (sort of like debian project) would allow agencies to say if the debian-alike project acts as developer-of-last-resort we will arrange to pay for OSS devs to come in.

Still in the planning stages, but if you have any specifics please ping me

cheers

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> To be clear this is at the moment a pro-bono thing - darn it, if you are using my tax money to pay for software it had better be free and open.

I am writing up some of this at www.mikadosoftware.com but its hardly a campaign site right now !</comment>


Feedback Ladders: How We Encode Code Reviews - <AUTHOR> https://www.netlify.com/blog/2020/03/05/feedback-ladders-how-we-encode-code-reviews-at-netlify/ <comment><USER2> Just stumbled on this, an interesting convention to use. Thanks for the thoughts.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for reading!</comment></comment>


Itertools in Python 3, by Example - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I presume this is the URL: [https://realpython.com/python- itertools/](https://realpython.com/python-itertools/)</comment>


Reporter's conflict of interest - <AUTHOR> http://scripting.com/stories/2011/09/08/reportersConflictOfInteres.html <comment><USER2> I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense. What about people who are paid to blog? What are they?

The fact is, if one has a financial interest in the topics one is writing about in a journalistic context--whether on one's own unpaid blog or as a paid employee of a newspaper--it is considered a strong ethical practice to disclose such conflicts upfront. In some cases, they may be required by the FTC (ask the weight loss splog industry).

Also, the point about reporters and bloggers having opposing interests is silly. Reporters add value by thoroughly researching a story, not just quoting people who blog. They do not merely facilitate the public quotation of as-yet- unblogged thoughts (nor is everyone who is news- or quote-worthy a blogger). If anything, blogs help reporters discover potential sources with interesting ideas and specialized knowledge.

So the idea that journalistic ethics only apply to paid reporters is an after- the-fact justification to facilitate the outcome Winer wants to see for his friend.

Arrington can't hide from the conflict. If he writes extensively about his investments, it's an unfair advantage to those companies. If he avoids writing about his investments to avoid a conflict, it's an unfair disadvantage to those companies.

There's nothing wrong with self-interested blogging--some of the best investment analysis on Chinese reverse mergers comes from Muddy Waters, where the principals typically have short positions in the stocks they cover, which are disclosed up-front.

The idea that Arrington--or Silicon Valley generally--is somehow exempt from these ethical guidelines is nonsensical.

<comment><USER3> > What about people who are paid to blog? What are they?

Winer actually addressed that with <blockquote> (Also, some people who call themselves bloggers are paid to write. I don't think they are bloggers. But there's nothing I can do to stop them from calling themselves bloggers.) </blockquote>

> Also, the point about reporters and bloggers having opposing interests is > silly. ... If anything, blogs help reporters discover potential sources with > interesting ideas and specialized knowledge.

Again, from Winer <blockquote> I see the bloggers as sources. Not all of them, and not for all reporters. But the people who reporters quote, more often than not these days, have blogs.

The relationship between reporters and bloggers is the same relationship that travel agents have to flights or hotel rooms. Reporters facilitate access to the sources. And to the extent that we can go direct to the sources' blogs, that interferes with #1 above. </blockquote>

> the outcome Winer wants to see for his friend.

I'm pretty sure that neither Winer nor Arrington see the other as a friend.

I don't always agree with Winer but his writing is reasonably clear so if you're going to criticise his ethics, it's bad form to misstate his positions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for linking to this piece. :-)</comment>


The first comprehensive book on child-computer interaction (Free download) - <AUTHOR> http://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~hourcade/book/index.php

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a free book and the first comprehensive book on child-computer interaction. This is written by my former grad school advisor/mentor. He is the smartest, humblest guy that I know. I am pretty inspired that he compiled and summarized the state of child-computer interaction and is offering it as a FREE book.</comment>


Cops must now get a warrant to use stingrays in Washington state - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/cops-must-now-get-a-warrant-to-use-stingrays-in-washington-state/

<comment><AUTHOR> Stingray, the fake cell phone tower cops and carriers use to track your every move -- [http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/184597-stingray-the- fake-c...](http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/184597-stingray-the-fake-cell- phone-tower-cops-and-providers-use-to-track-your-every-move)</comment>


Orthodox Privilege - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html <comment><USER2> Same link from 2 days ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23845579](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23845579)

</comment><comment><USER3> And yet folks who complain about not being able to speak never mention the things they can't talk about.

I'll give you a hint, it's never their field of expertise, and in fact, 9 times out of 10, it's racialized genetics, one of the single most well refuted subjects in the field of genetics.

<comment><USER4> Plenty of them do. Graham is smart enough not to, because the net gain to his life would be negative.

<comment><USER3> None of them even mention the topic, much less the actual belief.

And I'd be willing to bet that it isn't his area of expertise, it's something that he's a curious amateur about and has a hunch, a hunch that has been thoroughly refuted by the experts.

Seriously, all of this "I'm being censored, but I can't tell you about what" bullshit reminds me of timecube.

Same complaint, different window dressing.</comment></comment></comment>


Unnecessary medical care is harming patients physically and financially - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-gawande <comment><USER2> I find it slightly disingenuous to write a comprehensive article on wasteful medical care and yet barely mention the extremely litigious environment that doctors face.

It's not just doctors that remember that one patient that didn't get scanned. Lawyers do, too.

<comment><USER3> The legal complications around malpractice and malpractice insurance are unfortunate, but they only reinforce the already perverse financial incentives that doctors have for ordering more tests and procedures.

The theme for the article was that doctors need to slow down and spend more time listening to patients. If anything that should reduce the legal risks of inadequate or inappropriate care.

<comment><USER4> The disconnect between ideology and reality in some of these discussions is sometimes remarcable. This "perverse financial objective" you talk about is imaginary. My wife is a doctor. She sometimes lives in fear of not having ordered this or that test. What she pays for insurance could probably support the royal family of some small countries. It's absolutely infuriating that doctors in the US can't focus on patient care and have to worry about being sued out of existence. Imagine if you, as a coder, had to exist under similar conditions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > For instance, cancer screening with mammography, ultrasound, and blood > testing has dramatically increased the detection of breast, thyroid, and > prostate cancer during the past quarter century. We're treating hundreds of > thousands more people each year for these diseases than we ever have. Yet > only a tiny reduction in death, if any, has resulted.

I take issue with that. Here are the statistics for breast cancer and prostate cancer (new cases and deaths) by year: [http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html](http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html) [http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html](http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html)

The incidence of thyroid cancer has in fact increased, but it was hardly a killer in the first place.

I find the 'turtles-and-rabbits' analogy to be misleading. Plenty of 'turtles' can undergo a transformation and become much faster (at killing you).

<comment><USER6> Remember, the new cases curve is roughly the _slope_ of the total cases curve. I read your data as more-or-less supportive of the author's claim.

<comment><USER5> If you want to consider that the statement "We're treating hundreds of thousands more people each year for these diseases than we ever have" refers to total cases then well, that's always going to be true.

Besides, I am more interested in the statistics of mortality.

<comment><USER6> > well, that's always going to be true.

unless they die

> I am more interested in the statistics of mortality

"Death rates have not changed significantly over 2002-2012"

<comment><USER5> Routine screening for breast cancer started in the 80's. [http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ld/breast.html](http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ld/breast.html)

<comment><USER6> Sorry, I really want to understand your point but I am unable. You disagree with the thesis that more intensive screening and identification of these health issues (since the '90s) have increased the number of people diagnosed with the disease, but has not significantly impacted the mortality rates. This seems to be aligned to the stats you quoted. What am I missing?

<comment><USER5> I don't disagree with the increase in the total number of diagnosed cases, there is nothing to disagree with. I disagree with calling a reduction in the number of deaths since the 90's by half (prostate) and by a third (breast) "a tiny reduction, if any".

<comment><USER6> OK, but understand that you are also disagreeing with the site you linked itself. Look at the 'data trend' link.

Not trying to be inciteful- kind of a personal issue with me atm, perhaps with you, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Honest question : how much of the unneeded testing is CYA against ambulance chasers?

<comment><USER8> If someone compared a state with low caps on medical malpractice like Texas ($250,000), with other states that don't have such caps you could probably get a fairly straightforward answer.

I don't know how that shakes out. But I do know that various testing companies give kickbacks to doctors in the form of leasing office space from them at far above the market rate so their people can give on-premise 'consultations' on which tests need to be done. Among other abuses.

At any rate, I think the financial incentives that exist in the medical sector and how those incentives align with the patient need, desperately, to be addressed as forthrightly and quickly as possible. But there seems to be a taboo around suggesting that doctors are human and are susceptible to the influence of money as anyone else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The US has excellent medical research, advanced technology, etc. But also extremely inefficient system, about 2x the cost of comparable countries.

\- [http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthc...](http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare- spending-world-country)

\- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_\(PPP\)_per_capita)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I find this article interesting in the light of recent passing of Dave Goldberg, when most of the commentators got on to "please folks see your doctor", even if you are healthy, bandwagon.

<comment><USER10> There are good reasons to see your doctor periodically even if you feel fine. It's a lot easier to treat diabetes and hypertension before they become symptomatic than it is to find you a new kidney.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The current world is medicine is kind of frightening. How many of us would just dig into writing a program after a 15-minute conversation with a client?

<comment><USER12> It's more akin to spending 8 to 10 years writing a program (med school + residency +....) and then it takes 15 minutes to run the program for the individual instance

<comment><USER11> But the article describes (and my own experience has been similar) patients being ignored because the doctor's made up his mind and it's on to the next patient without any time to stop and look at this particular patient's circumstances.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> xkcd-sucks Sweet, now we can also file malpractice suits against the doctors that order tons of covering-their-asses tests!

</comment><comment><USER13> A third-party payer system, such as Medicare, has no incentive to keep costs low.

<comment><USER14> That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. As a Canadian myself, we are constantly seeing the struggle to reduce the cost of providing health care as a proportion of the taxes we pay.

I don't know where this myth comes from -- is it just a misunderstanding of how public health care works, assuming that it's an infinite money pit?

<comment><USER15> It comes from buying into the anti-government propaganda that the hard right has been pumping out for decades.

Once you buy into that, you start applying that faulty reasoning to the real world, and you come up with afactual claims like the original poster did.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As someone who has had to fight to get tests which later turned out to be critical, I can't help but wonder we're seeing more articles like this one just as the government, having assumed much more control of the health care system, is desperate to find places where costs can be reduced.</comment>


Tech Workers Get Choosy About Changing Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/tech-workers-get-choosy-about-changing-jobs-1458086282 <comment><USER2> Great Read. Eye opening as in house recruiters jobs are on the line now. And interesting how candidates are asking about finances and stability which all along people should be asking these questions when interviewing for a company to spend the next 5-10 or more years of their live working for this company

</comment><comment><USER3> If you're not asking about the financial legs of a company, you're not doing your deligence and not asking the right questions. If the people in the company aren't answering the questions completely and with transparency, you're talking to the wrong people.

</comment><comment><USER3> PS btw, only at risk of loosing our jobs if we hire people that aren't aligned with the mission and ask these questions.</comment>


A relatively easy to understand primer on elliptic curve cryptography (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/10/a-relatively-easy-to-understand-primer-on-elliptic-curve-cryptography/ <comment><USER2> This is pretty good. You can probably skip to the "Strange Symmetry" section and read from there.

Learning about elliptic curves made a lot of abstract algebra click for me, in ways it hadn't when I was just working with multiplicative groups for RSA and the like. That in turn made a lot of linear algebra make sense for me.

The right place to start with elliptic curves with with standard Diffie Hellman, which you can nail down in 10 minutes with in a Ruby or Python REPL. The first part of this old blog post has a step-by-step:

[http://www.securityfocus.com/blogs/267](http://www.securityfocus.com/blogs/267)

When you get a feel for how DH works with simple multiplicative groups, to get to elliptic curve, you can just sort of abstract DH out from "numbers modulo a prime" to "things that behave like numbers modulo a prime". Think of both residues mod-p and points on a elliptic curve mod-p as subclasses of a parent class with an abstract method like "multiply". As long as you have an object with a compatible interface, you can theoretically do DH on it (though not necessarily securely).

So for ECDH, instead of raising a generator number to a secret power and sharing the residue, we multiply an pre-agreed, standardized curve point by a secret scalar number and share the resulting point.

Another thing I found relieving when I was first learning ECC was to be reminded that most implementors don't write ECC point multiplication from first principles. There are cheat sheets, like the Explicit Formulas Database, where people have already worked out the fastest way to perform basic operations on curves:

[https://hyperelliptic.org/EFD/](https://hyperelliptic.org/EFD/)

For instance, here's the addition and doubling formulas for points on Montgomery curves:

[https://hyperelliptic.org/EFD/g1p/auto- montgom.html](https://hyperelliptic.org/EFD/g1p/auto-montgom.html)

The reason ECC keys are shorter than RSA and DH keys is that there are techniques, most notably index calculus, that can solve problems on simple finite field multiplicative groups but can't effectively solve them with curve points.† That's why we use elliptic curves, of all things, in cryptography: they're a mathematical object that be coaxed into behaving like simple multiplicative groups, for the purposes of Diffie Hellman and Schnorr signatures, that resist a set of mathematical techniques that are driving key sizes for RSA and DSA up.

Adam Langley wrote my favorite intro to curves, here:

[https://www.imperialviolet.org/2010/12/04/ecc.html](https://www.imperialviolet.org/2010/12/04/ecc.html)

There's a little bit of material that you might want to pull from Nick Sullivan's post into this, to have the best possible curve explanation. Both things are worth reading.

† _There are also tricky attacks against some curve structures that attempt to reframe problems against the underlying finite field of the curve._

<comment><USER3> There's also the 31C3 presentation DJB and Tanja Lange did on ECC:

"ECCHacks

A gentle introduction to elliptic-curve cryptography"

[https://media.ccc.de/v/31c3_-_6369_-_en_- _saal_1_-_201412272...](https://media.ccc.de/v/31c3_-_6369_-_en_- _saal_1_-_201412272145_-_ecchacks_-_djb_-_tanja_lange)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So wait, how does a point dot with itself? I get it for two points, but how can a public point dot with itself to form a line? That doesn't make sense to me.

<comment> bogus- Using the tangent line at that point.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_curve_point_multiplic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_curve_point_multiplication#Point_doubling)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> oldy, but a goody!

<comment><USER6> It's kind of cruel to come later downvote an early commenter, who helped rescue a good article from oblivion and put their name to a quick recommendation.</comment></comment>


Smallest Federated Wiki - <AUTHOR> http://fed.wiki.org/view/welcome-visitors/view/smallest-federated-wiki/video.fed.wiki.org/federated-wiki-videos

<comment><USER2> I feel like I would think this was cool if I understood it better. I think it needs a more clear statement of value. Since the videos are mostly just a guy talking, I would consider transcribing them into a tutorial or Getting Started format if you want to promote adoption.

Also, the HTML markup in the "paragraphs" doesn't render on my machine. Some of them, anyway.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately, videos are the best way to learn about this. 1, 2, 5, and 15 are all pretty good and give a solid overview of what's going on.

</comment><comment><USER3> Requires cookies to display anything. Even then, very little was displayed. Disabled ABP, still very little.

Hmm.</comment>


Software compatibility and our own "User-Agent" problem - <AUTHOR> https://www.sigbus.info/software-compatibility-and-our-own-user-agent-problem.html <comment><USER3> _and our linker prints out a slightly strange string in the help message._

Strange, or actually helpful? It would've been more devious if the message it was looking for actually contained more... potentially copyrightable content; here's one recently-mentioned example:

[https://dacut.blogspot.ca/2008/03/oracle- poetry.html](https://dacut.blogspot.ca/2008/03/oracle-poetry.html)

This also reminds me of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_International,_Inc._v....](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_International,_Inc._v._Static_Control_Components,_Inc).

Anyone who has experimented with Hackintoshing may also recall the "SMCDeviceKey", a "magic cookie" that serves a similar purpose of attempting to use copyright as a blocker to compatibility.

<comment><USER4> Could you elaborate more on the SMCDeviceKey? What value does it store that infringes on copyright? A quick Google search didn't yield much.

<comment><USER5> Something like "our hard work is protected by these words, please don't steal (c) Apple" without spaces or punctuation...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's not only lld, the clang compiler has a similar issue. It pretends to be an old version of GCC (4.2) with the predefined macros __GNUC__ and __GNUC__MINOR__, since a lot of software check for the presence of the __GNUC__ macro or its value to enable modern features. That occasionally confuses software which expects features first introduced in gcc 4.1/4.2 to be present when these macros are defined (see for instance [https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16683](https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16683) or [https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24682](https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24682)).

</comment><comment><USER7> The first thing that came to mind was Poul-Henning Kamp's "A Generation Lost in the Bazaar": [https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2349257](https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2349257)

<comment><USER8> Exactly!

When I first read the passage about libtool I thought it was a joke, and the illusion of order got a cold reality shower:

> the tests elaborately explore the functionality of the complex solution for > a problem that should not exist in the first place. Even more maddening is > that 31,085 of those lines are in a single unreadably ugly shell script > called configure. The idea is that the configure script performs > approximately 200 automated tests, so that the user is not burdened with > configuring libtool manually. This is a horribly bad idea, already much > criticized back in the 1980s when it appeared, as it allows source code to > pretend to be portable behind the veneer of the configure script, rather > than actually having the quality of portability to begin with.

<comment><USER9> And in the modern JS ecosystem, everything got even worse.

With webpack, babel, TS, grunt, gulp, and all together, thousands of tools just glued together.

In the Java world, at least, every few years everyone rewrites the tooling from scratch, so wehad running javac by yourself be replaced by ant, ant by maven, maven by gradle. But, that's it.

In the JS world, you see nodejs launch a python script launch a ruby program launch a perl wrapper for a shell script launching another nodeJS process (e.g. during preprocessing of templates).

You end up with configs that are copy pasted because no one can exactly explain how all the tools work together, much less configure it.

In the C/C++ world everything got a bit better once we got CMake and Ninja, now CMake builds one file, which ninja then reads, and based on which it executes G++. Bazel/Blaze even removes this intermediate step entirely.

<comment><USER10> Your argument isn't internally consistent. Webpack, Babel, TypeScript, Grunt, and Gulp are all implemented in JS (or TS for TS).

Sometimes there are npm packages that are just wrappers for other projects, but those are usually short-lived and end up being rewritten in JS (except for C/C++ libraries, which neatly compile to native extensions directly).

If anything, the common complaint is much more accurate: the tooling is rewritten from scratch too often.

<comment><USER11> Eh. Anything that stands between the raw code you write and the code running on the production serer is a "tool" that has to be managed, configured, etc... The implementation language isn't as important as the fact that the code you wrote requires tools written by third parties executing a sequence of intermediate steps to be in an executable form.

<comment><USER10> Good point, we shoud all just arrange bits of machine code.

<comment><USER9> No, but ideally you'd have 1 program you execute to transform your code into the final build, and that's it. Maybe that program can be modular, but that's it.

Instead of precompiling Typescript and JSX to ES5, with Babel that to ES4, then launching dozens of asset processors to turn your SASS, SCSS, and JSS into CSS, with dozens of wrapped processes...

As mentioned, the Java world handles everything with 2 processes, the C++ world with 3.

Only the JS world manages to run in a single project webpack, gulp, grunt, compass, typescript, babel, and JSX, all transforming the source, leading to build times second only to old-school C++ projects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A fun read if you haven't already: [http://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string- history/](http://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/)

</comment><comment><USER13> Mimicking magic strings is a variant of the adapter pattern - <USER2> you're something you're not for compatibility.

</comment><comment><USER14> _Also, since we cannot update the existing configure scripts that are already generated and distributed as part of other programs, even if we improve autoconf, it would take many years until the problem would be resolved._

I don't know autoconf and this sentence got me curious: why would it not be possible to regenerate existing configure scripts using a fixed version of autoconf? Are those scripts likely to be manually edited after they've been generated?

<comment><USER15> Yes that is possible; the configure script is for the most part autogenerated. But the maintainers of said programs have to actually do so, and users have to actually download the latest version. It would still take many years for fixes to propagate throughout the entire ecosystem.

<comment><USER14> The article talks about the broken linker check being an issue mostly when _adopting lld as part of the standard build system of an operating system_ , such as FreeBSD. For FreeBSD to switch to lld, wouldn't it be enough to fix the version of autoconf available in FreeBSD and use it to regenerate configure scripts in FreeBSD's build system (when building and packaging programs for inclusion in its repositories)?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Maybe this would be a good job interview question for PMs.

If you were creating a new class of software where this could be an issue, what would you do?

<comment><USER17> Any questions of feature compatibility are either tested directly, or requested with an explicit API.

<comment><USER17> With browsers, this wasn't really possible because you needed to give the full response after a single request. But running locally you can test all you want.

The problem is when you can't get everybody to agree on a standard API, so you resort to hacks that make it work ASAP that then lead to more and more hacks till we get the insane user agents of today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > There were two possible solutions. One was to fix the configure script. > However...

> The solution we ended up choosing was to add the string "compatible with GNU > linkers" to our linker's help message.

The right way to deal with things like this is to do both. Do the hacky-but- realistically-shippable thing to get unblocked, and then also contribute towards the "right" solution, even if it's way upstream from you. Otherwise you're part of the problem.

</comment><comment><USER19> _He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee._ \-- Neetch, _naturlich_

You young 'uns may not remember it, but there used to be more systems than Windows, Mac, and Linux, and forced OS updates weren't a thing. Libtool was a way to try to make programs run on most people's computers, by compiling small programs to detect individual features. It was written in a nightmare language called M4, which would generate shell scripts, which would usually generate C programs, which would attempt to compile and run.

<comment><USER20> libtool's goal is actually smooth over the fact that dynamic linking is hard at compile-time. It's not a good abstraction and must be deeply ingrained into your project because of this.

I typically do not use libtool but rather have an autoconf macro [0] to determine how to interact with the linker. This has the disadvantage that each "./configure" invocation can only produce either static or shared archives, but not both (since the object files that make those up may require different compile flags). libtool's solution is to compile the object file both ways, but it does not really go well with the autoconf mechanism.

I also have a different set of macros for managing the ABI [1], and I'm not sure how that's managed with libtool.

[0] [http://chiselapp.com/user/rkeene/repository/autoconf/artifac...](http://chiselapp.com/user/rkeene/repository/autoconf/artifact/00e2f95c1836c5e7) [1] [http://chiselapp.com/user/rkeene/repository/autoconf/artifac...](http://chiselapp.com/user/rkeene/repository/autoconf/artifact/b9d44e1a68b091e3)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> User-Agent Sniffing. It's the worst solution, everyone involved will hate it eventually and in the end it amounts to all software just continuously improving the same-yness of the string.

<comment><USER22> so, what's the better solution to detect devices that work in weird, incompatible ways (like safari/ios lying about the vh)

<comment><USER21> As mentioned, it's the solution that works but everyone regrets working.

Lying about the VH is violating standards and should be handled as such. An electrician does not think "but what if the customer suddenly changes their house voltage from 210V to 123V" but rather "anybody doing that is insane and I'm not going to be responsible if they do that".

The fact that we have to do this is a testament to how bad the standards situation has been in the past and still is.

The proper way would be to have one function that every browser supports and which you can ask about such specifics. Writing browser.is-doing("vh-lying") instead of having to work around the idiocracy of the browser in other ways is inarguably better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Didn't MS skip Windows 9 because so many legacy programs out there assume that "Windows 9" means Windows 95/98?

<comment><USER24> [https://searchcode.com/?q=if%28version%2Cstartswith%28%22win...](https://searchcode.com/?q=if%28version%2Cstartswith%28%22windows+9%22%29) (previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8397664](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8397664) )

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Trying to re-solve the User-Agent issue, I think it would be much better if browsers claimed which standards they conform to, with an accompanying version.

EG: www/HTML<=5.1 www/XHTML<=1.1 www/CSS<=3.0 ISO/ECMAScript<=8

The string would be split on the field separator (any non-printing space?). All exact matches for specifications would be compared and the result ANDed. This way a range could be created by having a minimum supported version as well.

<comment><USER26> The issue, as always, is bugs.

I remember back when feature detection was gaining steam as the preferred alternative to user-agent sniffing, and Safari had a showstopper of a bug that meant preventDefault was present and callable but didn't actually do what preventDefault was supposed to do. So you had to fall back to sniffing for Safari to work around that (by hooking up a different event listener with a 'return false' instead of a preventDefault call).

<comment><USER27> I wish people could just say "this browser is broken, we don't support it. Get a fixed version."

Alas, people don't do that in business.

<comment><USER28> Well... what we get instead is "this browser isn't IE, we don't support it. Get IE."; only now it's s/IE/Chrome/g.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> What a sad ending.

</comment><comment><USER30> Uh, that why I use the Opera Mini 4 (or 5) user agent on DIllo: it helps a lot on Youtube (you can watch thumbnails at least, among the comments):

At ~/.dillo/dillorc

http_user_agent="Opera/9.60 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.2.13337/458; U; en) Presto/2.2.0"

<comment><USER31> When I was recently writing a Python script to ping the urls in places.sqlite to check for link rot, I had to change the urllib's useragent to mimick a modern browser, because otherwise lots of web sites redirect me around or return errors (even 404).

<comment><USER32> Yep, one bored day I was playing with the oneom.tk API from python and it took a long while to figure out why I could get a page in the browser but the python API fetch wasn't working. Until I set User-Agent to "Mozilla/5.0" that is.

Why anyone thinks it's a good idea _not_ to send API data to a python User- Agent is kind of beyond me but who knows...can't really complain since they provide data for free and I really was just playing around without actually needing to do anything productive.

Actually found a bug in urllib3 (that I probably should get around to reporting) -- page sends http unless you set Accept to 'application/json' which urllib3 doesn't let you do.

<comment><USER33> urllib3 lead maintainer here. I wasn't able to reproduce your bug, at least with the main development branch, when I passed `Accept` as part of the `headers` dict. If you could file an issue with a reproduction case, I'd definitely appreciate it.

<comment><USER32> Eh, maybe...

http = urllib3.PoolManager()

r = http.request('GET', "[https://oneom.tk/data/config"](https://oneom.tk/data/config"), headers={'Accept': 'application/json', 'User-Agent' : "Mozilla/5.0"})

r.headers['Content-Type'] 'application/json'

r = http.request('GET', "[https://oneom.tk/data/config"](https://oneom.tk/data/config"), headers={'Accept': 'application/json'})

r.headers['Content-Type'] 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'

<comment><USER33> It looks like this API in particular expects all requests to have a User-Agent header, and we don't set one by default. Setting any user agent appears to work; the issue isn't with the `Accept` header.

You can reproduce with curl with the following command:

        curl -v 'https://oneom.tk/data/config' -H 'Accept: application/json' -H 'User-Agent:'

That'll nullify the default curl user agent and should produce the same results you were seeing with urllib3.

<comment><USER32> That makes sense, I kind of figured they were doing something screwy. I'm guessing a blacklist on certain User-Agent settings.

When I was messing with it I could get it to work with curl and (eventually) urllib but urllib3 was no bueno until I tried to reproduce the problem and just copied the header with the User-Agent field from the urllib code.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>