Maze62: a dense and speedy alphanumeric encoding for binary data - <AUTHOR> http://blog.altudov.com/2011/05/16/maze62-a-dense-and-speedy-alphanumeric-encoding-for-binary-data/ <comment><USER2> I'm having trouble thinking of any situations where you're free to use any alphanumerics, but you absolutely can't use anything else. The closest thing that comes to mind is DNS, and that's a 36-character set, not 62.

Ascii85 (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base85>) uses a similar concept, but using the majority of the printable ASCII characters. It gets a hard-to-beat 20% expansion on binary data (4 bytes in 5 chars) without requiring bigint math.

<comment><USER3> I'm pretty sure the canonical use case for this would be for including complex binary data in a URL. A URL shortener might be a good example.

<comment><AUTHOR> Another thing people don't talk much about is copy-paste. Double click on an alphanumeric will select the entire thing, whereas other characters might cause selection to end prematurely, and differently so in different text editors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think this has the drawback that if you want to look up, say, bits n through m, you'd need to process the whole string up to that point. Lookup would be O(n) rather than O(1). Is that a problem? (I don't know, maybe people only use base64-like encoding in places where they'd just read the data in once at the beginning, convert it to a better internal representation, and never touch the base64 version again.)

On the other hand, if it is a problem, how's this idea: Use strings of 129 base-62 digits to represent strings of 128 base-64 digits. I pick 128 because it might be convenient, and 129/128 is close to optimal:

      arc> (* 129 (log 62 64))
      128.01522067331783

Or if decoding 128 digits at a time when you just want a couple is excessive, you could use 17 base-62 digits for 16 base-64 digits (which has a space inefficiency of 1/16th, or 6.25%), or 9 for 8 (inefficiency 12.5%), or whatever.

<comment><AUTHOR> Random access was not a priority, yes. In fact it didn't even occur to me, not even for a moment :)

As to your proposed algorithm, yes, it could work. It's discussed in passing a bit earlier in this thread, here's direct link: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2554726>

Not sure about comparative space efficiency of this vs Maze64, but we're likely splitting hairs at this point :), it should be very close. Yes it could work. Converting 128 characters from base64 to base62 would cost N^2 time, where N is 128. Not sure if it's a big deal. Just another approach.

<comment><USER4> Hmm, and one could extend this chunking approach to Maze62. Consume 12 bits (aka two base64 integers), but if the resulting number is in the range [62^2=3844 to 64^2-1=4095] or [0 to 64^2-62^2-1=251], then add that extra quotient bit to the next input (from which you'll consume only 11 bits). That would make the worst case only take 12/11ths as long, or 109%, instead of 6/5ths as long, or 120%, as the best case (which would be the same as before).

One could extend it upwards as far as desired (probably approaching log_64(62) worst-case and average-case space compared to base64[1]), though the integer arithmetic would become a pain eventually. 12/11 or maybe 18/17 (105.8%) or 24/23 (104.3%) is probably good enough for most purposes. The relatively hardcore might use 60/59 (101.7%), which x86_64 machines can still do with CPU arithmetic (an integer multiply of two 64-bit integers stores the results in two 64-bit registers, and you can then do an integer divide on that, which stores the quotient and remainder in those registers).

[1] Average case: I analyze it like this. If you encode n base64 integers at a time, then you'll encode 6n bits at a time, but 6n-1 bits if you're unlucky and get a number in the ranges [62^n, 64^n - 1] or [0, 64^n - 62^n - 1]. These two ranges, taken together, make 2 * (64^n - 62^n) numbers out of 64^n possible n-digit base64 numbers. Thus, on average, you encode

      6n - 1 * [2 * (64^n - 62^n)]/64^n
      = 6n - 2 * (1 - (62/64)^n)

bits for every group of n characters, or

      6 - 2/n * (1 - (62/64)^n)

bits per character. (Note that this analysis only applies while 62^n < 64^n < 2 * 62^n, so taking n -> ∞ gives misleading results.) The original Maze62 proposal has n = 1, and this yields 5.9375 bits per character on average, which is pretty good. (Check this: 5 * 4/64 + 6 * 60/64 = 5.9375.) The next few values are:

      1 5.9375
      2 5.9384765625
      3 5.939432779947917
      4 5.940369129180908
      ...
      10 5.945595231334425

      Theoretical limit:
      6 * log_64(62) = 5.954196310386876

So I guess there's really not much to be gained for the average case by increasing n. But someone pointed out that all-0 and all-1 sequences happen frequently in real situations, so it may be worth it anyway.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a great idea, and it will probably speed up possible native implementations (though likely at the expense of scripting languages).

To deal with large runs of identical numbers (e.g. all zeroes) someone suggested in my blog comments to XOR the input array with a result of a chosen pseudo-random function. This will bring any dataset into the realm of average (5.9375) except for the dataset that is specifically targeting the chosen pseudo-random function. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Claiming this is dense, OK. That's just math. But how can you claim this is "speedy" when you have an unpolished _Python_ implementation in hand? You need to bench against best-of-breed Base64 implementations, not some pure-Python comparison you may write up in the future, and for that you're going to need to go at least C, and I wouldn't be surprised down to the assembler. Just stick with "dense" and claim "speedy" when you've got some numbers.

(I suspect you won't beat or even tie Base64, but I'm prepared to accept that you only got within X% of base64 but that X% is worth it in some scenario. And maybe if you get clever enough you can prove me wrong.)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's speedy compared to base62.

See, the problem is that Base64 is linear is speed, but has large (non- alphanumeric) charset, while base62 has small (alphanumeric) charset but is quadratic in speed (at least in its straightforward implementation, the only one I was able to find).

Maze62 is the encoding that is both constrained in charset and liner in speed. Hence, the title.

Does it make sense?

<comment><USER5> OK, that's fair. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you don't mind using - and _ then the implementation is very simple. I posted an example in Python and CoffeeScript to SO recently for doing this exact thing.

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5940416/compress-a- series...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5940416/compress-a-series- of-1s-and-0s-into-the-shortest-possible-ascii-string/5941361#5941361)

      >>> bin_string = '000111000010101010101000101001110'
      >>> encode(bin_string)
      'hcQOPgd'

      >>> decode(encode(bin_string))
      '000111000010101010101000101001110'

<comment><AUTHOR> FYI, it seems to be known as this: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64#URL_applications>

<comment><USER6> Hmm, looking at python's base64.urlsafe_b64encode(s), padding is still used. So it sounds like it doesn't fully implement the "modified Base64 for URL" spec.

Base64 encoding also seems to result in quite long ascii strings compared to what I threw together.

Or is there a way to use Base64 which would give results of a comparable length?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a lot longer because it doesn't know your have encoded your input data in, essentially base-1. If you to convert it to base-256 (that is, and array of bytes, instead or array of bits as you have now) it would produce the same length. Yes, there is base64 implementation in pretty much any language, though they usually use + and / for the two extra characters.

As wikipedia says, padding can be added or removed as a matter of taste: _From a theoretical point of view the padding character is not needed, since the number of missing bytes can be calculated from the number of base64 digits._

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64#Padding>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My first impression is that this algorithm is going to be much slower than Base64 due to all the branching. This probably won't be visible in Python, but I don't think there's any way to make it really fly when optimized.

There are probably cases where this is acceptable, but I'm inclined to think that Base32 is a better choice if larger size is acceptable, and that Base64 with domain appropriate characters is better where performance counts.

<comment><USER8> Really depends on what you want to do with it, doesn't it? He mentions character limits in URLs as a motivation, and at reasonable lengths for that I imagine Maze62 in Python will be plenty fast....

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> recently, i needed to encode/decode similar data, and base64 with a variable 64 chars seemed to work just as good. say, - or / are problem chars, then make another set of 64 chars which would have a comma and a dot or alike and there you go. keep the sets in a table or somehting and use the first 2 chars as indicator which set of 64 to use for that data.

</comment><comment><USER10> Cool stuff. Can you post a few examples of the encoding?

</comment><comment><USER11> why is base62 quadratic?

<comment><USER12> Naive implementation certainly is, as it involves one multiplication (of number whose size depends linearly depends on number of previously processed bytes) for each input byte and one division for each output byte. But on the other hand I have this feeling, that more effective implementation is possible (and actually used by modern compression algorithms like RAR and LZMA).

<comment><USER11> but couldn't you have a stream algorithm with modular arithmetic?

[edit: i thought i had a good demonstration of this. actually, two. but both were wrong. so it does seem to be non-trivial...]

[edit 2: open stack overflow question: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3545931/efficient- algorit...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3545931/efficient-algorithm- for-conversion-between-numeral-system) ]

<comment><AUTHOR> If we could, we wouldn't call it base62, as base62 normally means converting the entire "bigint" (all bytes of input data as one big number) into base-62 representation. At least that's how baseXX has been used to far (I searched the web before doing this), and I am in favor of sticking to that naming convention. Agreed?

Now, whether we could come up with such streaming algorithm I'm not sure. I tried solving this problem, and this is what I came up with. Maybe I haven't tried hard enough to go the other route... I guess you could simply slice the incoming stream into a set of chunks, each small enough to make bigin base62 conversion fast (which is square of the size of the chunk), and yet large enough to obscure the occasional loss of space at the chunk boundaries... I guess that would be an option...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How modern chips are made? - <AUTHOR> I understand the basic of chip manufacturing, you have a stencil with the chip in "big" size, you illuminate it, it goes through a lens to hit the wafer with pre applied photo sensible material.
Now, modern CPU have billions of transistors and it raised a few questions I was unable to answer properly after a few researches online.
- How is the chip designed, I mean, "placing" a billion transistors by hand is not feasible, so how does it works to create the design and simulate it?
- When the design is ready, how are stencils built? Even using lasers, engraving billions of traces seems unreal. Is there another technique used?
- If we consider we have the stencil, how are the different materials created with such high precision? How can the distance between the lens and the table be adjusted with so much precision? There must be a trick. The lens has to be ultra precise, the wafer perfect... I mean, we are speaking of a few nanometers in required precision, or I must be missing something.
My general understanding is quite well summarized in this article: https://www.geek.com/chips/from-sand-to-hand-how-a-cpu-is-made-832492/ <comment><USER2> [https://youtu.be/NGFhc8R_uO4](https://youtu.be/NGFhc8R_uO4)

This talk on YouTube is the most in depth explanation of IC manufacuring I have seen. I highly recommend it to anyone, no matter their background. You really gain an appreciation of how insanely complex modern computers are.

It's from 2012 but he talks extensivly about how (2012-)future chips will be made. And most of the information is still applicable.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a good video explaining modern craft of chip making

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6dRt0xOqDs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6dRt0xOqDs)

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha, I didn't see that one comming.</comment></comment>


Use Simple Words and Phrases - <AUTHOR> https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/words/use-simple-words-phrases/ <comment><USER2> I have been reading "On Writing Well" recently, and the same mantra is echoed throughout that book. Simple and easy words above more complex and seldom used words.</comment>


Jeffrey Epstein's Harvard connections show how money can distort research - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/jeffrey-epsteins-harvard-connections-show-how-money-can-distort-research/ <comment><USER2> This article is awful and does a terrible job explaining the facts, and specifically blurs the timeline in a way that paints a different picture than the facts.

[https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2020/report- regarding...](https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2020/report-regarding- jeffrey-epstein-s-connections-to-harvard)

Does a far better job.

1\. Jeffrey Epstein gives 9 million dollars to Harvard researchers. 6.5 was for PED, with an additional 23.5 from his foundation. This funds PED's creation

2\. Jeffrey Epstein gave $200,000 to Department Chair of Psychology, he applied to be a Visiting Fellow. The Chair supported his application, and Epstein was granted Visiting Fellow status for the 2005-2006 academic year.

3\. Jeffrey Epstein was arrested, so he withdrew his application for being a Visiting Fellow for the 2006-2007 academic year.

4\. Epstein tries to donate to Harvard again, and Harvard denies him due to his arrest record. He makes no more donations to Harvard despite several professors lobbying administration. He does however introduce several professors to rich philanthropists who do make donations.

5\. Epstein maintained a relationship with Martin Novak (director of the PED, which Epstein funded), who let Epstein on campus 40 times between 2010 and 2018. There is no evidence he engaged with any undergrad students. He used these visits to speak with prominent faculty.

<comment><USER3> Agree. People's response to all this is so strange. It seems clear to me that this guy was legitimately interested in supporting science, _and_ was a sexual predator. For some reason people really can't handle the idea of him being both things simultaneously. The world is actually just complicated sometimes.

There is a long history of great scientific advancements being made by otherwise unsavory people. Werner Von Braun, Ronald Fisher, Francis Galton, just off the top of my head. By all accounts these people legitimately loved science and reason _and_ also held otherwise abhorrent views, and in some cases took abhorrent actions. This is just an ambiguity we have to live with.

<comment><USER4> In 2007, with the support of luminaries like Steven Pinker and Alan Dershowitz, Epstein managed to finagle from Alex Acosta a non-prosecution agreement for human trafficking that ultimately resulted in a country club sentence that allowed him, during his short custodial sentence, to work from his own private office for 12 hours every day.

The problem people have with Epstein's "support for science" is that he spent his life collecting influential people, and, in at least once notorious instance but likely many others, deploying the influence of those people to his ends, which included the trafficking of minors for rape. One reasonably asks, "was Epstein actually trying to fund science at Harvard? Or was brokering donations for programs he could brag about having a hand in getting off the ground just an easy way to create social bonds with the world's most influential people?" One then looks at what Pinker did for Epstein in 2007 and, probably, quickly finds the answer to that question.

This was also the problem with the MIT Media Lab's policy of denying named donations for Epstein while allowing him to broker donations behind the scenes. They were getting money from powerful people, because of Epstein's work. But MIT and the Media Lab's management missed what Epstein was getting out of the deal.

<comment><USER3> I agree that one may reasonably ask that. But there are much easier ways to acquire power and influence if you are extremely wealthy.

The only reasonable conclusion you can draw about the man is that he was both legitimately interested in furthering science _and_ interested in acquiring personal power. That doesn't make anything he did any better, and we shouldn't say things like "well, he did all this sexual abuse, _but_ he also funded science". I'm not advocating that.

But I also think it's overly reductionist and cynical to say that he was funding science for the sole purpose of insulating himself from legal prosecution for abusing women. It's just a ridiculously inefficient way to do that, if that's your only goal.

My broader point is that I think we need to be better about handling moral, not ambiguity, but...ambivalence? Epstein is not a morally _ambiguous_ character, but he did do more than one thing in his life. Some of those things were good, some of those things were bad. The bad things unequivocally outweigh the good things, but it doesn't mean we have to erase them, or find some way rube-goldbergian way to re-evaluate them as actually sinister.

Which is also not to say that we shouldn't think carefully about the kind of power/legitimacy conferred by Epstein's activities. I think that's a legitimate and important discussion. But i'd find the inability to handle multi-dimensionality in some of these discussions strange.

<comment><USER4> He was insulating himself from criminal charges for abusing _children_. He raped children. He had children trafficked so that he could rape them, and then hand them off to his influential friends to rape again.

<comment><USER3> Werner Von Braun was an actual nazi. He was also a great scientist. The world is just complicated sometimes.

The idea that all his science funding was an elaborate ruse to insulate himself from prosecution is just not a very well grounded view. His chosen method of insulation was terribly inefficient with respect to time and money. He would have gotten a much better ROI by investing in politicians directly, the fact that he chose to focus more on science than politics makes it pretty clear that he had a genuine interest/passion for it.

I don't see why he can't like science for its own sake _and_ be a child abuser. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

<comment><USER4> Epstein is not a great scientist. In fact, he's not a scientist at all.

<comment><USER3> That wasn't my point. My point was that people can simultaneously do evil things and like science.

<comment><USER5> Have you considered the option that Epstein didn't like science as such but liked the influence and air of respectability that hanging out with scientists and being seen as a supporter gave him? It could easily be a form of whitewashing of his reputation that he would not be able to do otherwise. Nothing spells 'good guy' more clearly than large donations to science and education.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Article's details don't truly deliver on headline.

Epstein funded his pet research areas, yes. But all sources of funding including government grants do the same, one way or another. And across all rich funders, the variety of interests is very large, and include areas other more institutional funding bureaucracies ignore.

Also, despite Epstein's (somewhat still-underexplained) wealth & largesse, his money was a drop in the bucket. When the article points out that "more than two thirds of Epstein's donations—$6.5 million—went to PED director Martin Nowak" – an already well-funded researcher, it actually undermines its case. Epstein gave less than $10 million total? And to established programs? How does a tiny bit of funding, from an extreme-outlier bete-noire, to some not- even-fringe programs, make any negative general case against private funding?

That such private funding picks a different mix of researchers than the Harvard Professor writing this article would pick is the point - _don 't_ send all funding through the exact same credentialed-panels of established academia. Accept some curve-ball initiatives from other uncorrelated piles-of- resources.

The article's one tangible example of some favors flowing from a Harvard academic to Epstein's defense – Epstein's lawyer Dershowitz getting some linguistic advice from Steven Pinker – doesn't involve research funding at all. Someone's high-end legal counsel is _being paid specifically to marshal resources & expertise for their defense_. There's no distorting quid-pro-quo with regard to other payments: it's a totally up-front fee-for-advocacy relationship. (And that's even before considering Dershowitz's other alleged entanglements in Epstein matters.)

<comment><USER7> Your argument is logically sound but provably false. Humans are known to compromise their ethics for relatively small amounts of money. For example, Martha Stewart was a billionaire when she engaged in insider trading and then lied about it to the FBI, resulting in her going to federal prison--all to avoid a measly $45,000 loss!

The article makes clear that Epstein was granted physical access to facilities, the title of "visiting fellow at Harvard" in areas of study in which he had no credentials, and getting world-renowned researchers to validate his crackpot theories of racial eugenics due to his wealth.

I mean, you are being reasonable: $10 million in funding is peanuts to Harvard, which has an endowment of almost US $41 billion. But apparently Harvard is willing to lease our their credibility for such "a tiny bit" of money.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Stock_trading_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Stock_trading_case_and_conviction)

[https://www.google.com/search?q=harvard+endowment&oq=harvard...](https://www.google.com/search?q=harvard+endowment&oq=harvard+endowment)

<comment><USER8> Stewart was found guilty of lying to the FBI, not insider trading. There wasn't enough evidence to convict her of the latter.

Ironically, if she'd simply said nothing to the FBI, she would have walked.

<comment><USER9> The point was the small amount that she went to jail for, a drop in the bucket for her wealth

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Maybe someone can word this statement in a way that actually describes the problem better for someone not as well-versed in the ins-and-outs of funding in academia?

 _The Epstein affair brings to light a much larger problem: it undermines the integrity of the research enterprise when individuals can pick and choose lines of inquiry that appeal to them simply because they can pay for them._

People funding research that interests them seems like a pretty innocuous statement by itself. Sure, it's connection to Epstein is blatantly problematic, but if you remove him specifically from the statement, what is the problem being highlighted?

<comment><USER11> They pay for the results they want.

<comment><USER12> Maybe they do, but the article doesn't provide any data to back this up. I would have liked a sample size larger than one

<comment><USER13> It'd be absolute career suicide for any researcher to have their work publicly bankrolled by Epstein or reveal to the public that their research was aiming for specific goals that Epstein was looking for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm just going to point out that to people that have a concern about wealthy people funding research that is how science has been done long before research grants or anything like that came on the scene.

For a long time art and the sciences were funded by wealthy merchants and kings giving money to people like Lenardo Da Vinci to eat while they worked on their ideas.

Also another point, people worry about the corrupting influence of money on research but there is nothing that stops someone with money from setting up a research lab independent of a university and producing their own research. In fact I would think having the research done with a prestigious university would be a better check on the results because the individuals doing the research are tied deeply into their communities and as such their is more oversight and discussion on the topic.

<comment><USER15> What are the greatest advances in science and/or technology?

How were those financed?

Is there any evidence of bias toward or away from specific areas based on moneyed, political, or other interests?

<comment><USER8> A couple:

1\. Einstein was funded by himself.

2\. The Wright Bros were funded by themselves. They were motivated by the idea of getting rich selling airplanes. The government funded alternative, the Langley, flopped (literally) into the Potomac.

3\. Whittle's jet engine was funded (in part) by a little old lady. Government refused to fund it.

4\. The Reich refused to fund jet engines until Heinkel demonstrated a flying prototype. It was financed by Heinkel.

5\. The transistor was invented by Bell Labs funded from AT&T's profits.

6\. The first transatlantic cable was funded by wealthy investors looking to make money off of it.

7\. Several explorers were funded by newspapers in exchange for exclusive story rights.

<comment><USER16> Didn't Einstein do his work during business hours as a government-paid patent clerk?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If people are worried about scientific donors having undue influence, a much cleaner route than trying to stop donations or screen every person is to simply require that donations be anonymous. That way, everyone still has the freedom to sponsor whatever they want, but nobody gets bribed to overlook sex trafficking.

<comment><USER18> I don't think that works in practice. If you donate money with the goal of advancing some agenda, and it's officially anonymous, you'll find a way of letting the right people know it was you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> There's a comment below about Da Vinci, but I'd say that the problem claimed in this article has been around since Archimedes yelled "Eureka" in his bath. The way science has tried to protect itself has always been when research is _published_ , not when it was funded. But it's also a mistake to think that funders have _that_ much influence on research. Scientists usually study what they want and there's been thousands of years of attempts to develop systems to try force them to study what they're paid for that are still not completely effective.

Where did Epstein get his unfortunate ideas? From other scientists! Young researchers very early learn that their main task is the same as start up founders - to inspire people they talk with about their research in order take their money (or recruit them to the lab). I think that truth and societal value are often easiest to convey but obviously not always.

<comment><USER20> _There 's a comment below about Da Vinci, but I'd say that the problem claimed in this article has been around since Archimedes yelled "Eureka" in his bath. The way science has tried to protect itself has always been when research is published, not when it was funded._

This unfortunately comment is filled with bad and dubious comment but this seems notably deceptive. Society has to various extents aimed to protect itself from the very worst behavior and the worst people - and has succeed in to a rather spotty extent, certainly. Still, every stage of science has involved some filtering out of the bad and worst. The increase in science's scale has lessened the degree to which a scientist had to be "respectable" but added filters like objective grant criteria, etc. Still, there's no way a single filtering method can work. You can't count on publications to weed out determined frauds - science counts on a certain ethos from scientists (and counts now less than it should and suffers for this). Science needs a community of honesty and it's significant the number of commentators who can't understand this here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Suppose you remove the wealthy people funding research that interests them. Now you're left with the alternative of doing no research?

<comment><USER22> I chatted with a friend who was in a Harvard class with one of the biology professors funded by Epstein. In like 2015 or so (before Epstein was a huge public deal) someone asked him about it and his response to the class was "What am I supposed to do - tell the sex offender to keep his money so he can spend it on more sex crimes?"

I think the issue is that there is always something in return. If you accepted money and it was truly anonymous and Epstein never talked to the professors or whatever than it would be hard to say its bad. But clearly people (good or bad - but always rich) are getting a lot of prestige, access, bragging rights, or whatever from these type of donations.

<comment><USER23> I'm with the professor on this one. This practice of shaming organizations because they received cash gifts seems odd to me. Seems like another kind of "first world" angst that I'll be struggling to explain to friends in other countries. It's not like they were naming a building after him.

As for always getting something in return, in economics you must always consider the alternative. The man had millions of dollars. For millions of dollars you can get "something" from all directions. Harvard's refusal to take his money would not have made him nine million dollars poorer. And as long as Harvard-donor-bragging-rights are just as available to anyone as a multi- million dollar beach house would be instead, I don't see why it matters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> >but we have broad evidence that the interests of funders often influence the work done.

As opposed to Government, drug company and institutional funders; they NEVER influence the work done.

Epstein was an evil asshole, and Harvard is a disgusting, sinister institution, but concentrating on rubbish like this overlooks the insane, ridiculous, overt and pervasive problems with science research funding that don't involve funding by the creepy dude who didn't kill himself, and who the media otherwise seems strangely incurious about.

</comment><comment><USER25> It's a fact that wealthy donors support specific research that interests them.

On the one hand, hasn't research always been funded like this? Wealthy patrons have always supported work that somehow gratified them. And history is replete with despicable personalities who have nevertheless financed good science.

On the other hand, when the patron's interests turn out to be questionable, the research supported by those interests _can_ be examined. It's okay to give it a second thought in light of new information about the patron.

I happen to think this article raises valid questions. For example, I have questions about the idea of buying a visiting fellowship. I have questions about the mechanisms by which faculty become oddly encumbered by donations.

</comment><comment><USER12> > The New York Times concluded that in this case it led researchers "to give > credence to some of Mr. Epstein's half-baked scientific musings." True or > not, it should trouble us that a corrupt man was making decisions affecting > research at a major U.S. university.

True or not? Really? I would have liked if this article shared statistics instead of being so ambigious

<comment><USER26> "Lend credence" is an underhanded phrasing given that it can mean both "consider it more credible in theories" vs "associating with the evil crackpot makes him look more credible". One can argue a responsiblity to avoid both but the two are not at all identical - one is a corruption of their output while the other is essentially a confidence trick like saying a Harvard professor supports homeopathy - ignoring that it was a Philosophy professor and not Biology or Medical. Bad for the institutional reputation but doesn't discredit the work in itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I see a lot of comments are criticizing the article, because it seems to damn the fundamentals of how research is funded. I think that response to the article is justified. That is, yea - science needs a way to be funded, and it should be wealthy people that foot the bill... altruistically.

</comment><comment><USER28> The author, Naomi Oreskes, is a prominent scholar of science history who has written extensively on the corruption of research for political purposes by, for example, tobacco companies.

</comment><comment><USER29> "The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught" \--H.L.Mencken

</comment><comment><USER30> The things the average faculty member would do for a 100k grant are truly disgusting, and would probably make Epstein retch.

</comment><comment><USER31> From my understanding Epstein was an intelligence agent, who worked the honey trap line. Compromising politicians, scientists & actors. This is pretty well laid out by now re FBI Charing documents for Maxwell.

Is this not the common understanding of the situation?

<comment><USER20> Links?

<comment><USER31> [https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press- release/file/1291491...](https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press- release/file/1291491/download)

[https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&obj...](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12265937)

[https://www.scribd.com/doc/267173868/Virginia-Roberts- Affida...](https://www.scribd.com/doc/267173868/Virginia-Roberts-Affidavit)

"19.In addition to constantly finding underage girls to satisfy their personal desires,Epstein and Maxwell also got girls for Epstein's friends and acquaintances. Epstein specifically told me that the reason for him doing this was so that they would "owe him," they would "be in his pocket," and he would "have something on them." I understood him to mean that when someone was in his pocket, they owed him favors. I also understood that Epstein thought he could get leniency if he was ever caught doing anything illegal, or more so that he could escape trouble altogether"

That's probably enough information to get you started.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> What is really distorting research are all those moralistic jerks off

</comment><comment><USER33> > because Epstein was a criminal

Just random thought: Should will be saying alleged criminal or not since he would never have a trial?

<comment><USER34> He'd been convicted before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> > What made it even worse was that Epstein was a latter-day eugenicist whose > interests were tied to a delusional notion of seeding the human race with > his own DNA. Given this stance, it is particularly disturbing that he > focused his largesse on research on the genetic basis of human behavior. > Human genetics is an ethically sensitive and intellectually contested domain > where it behooves us to ensure that the highest standards of scientific > rigor are in place and that nongenetic explanations for behavior are given a > fair chance to compete.

This is a thinly veiled attack on evolutionary biology, which keeps coming up with plausible explanations that are nevertheless utterly disturbing to the self-image of a moral human being and must therefore be suppressed from its consciousness. This is an undue conflation of science (is) and morals (ought). Morals are an artifact of human experience with nature, nature itself is amoral.

For instance, let's ask: Why does rape exist?

Sociologist: _writes twenty paragraphs on patriarchy and rape culture while ignoring the rest of the animal kingdom_

Evolutionary Biologist: It's a successful strategy for reproduction, the selfish gene promotes its continued existence

If the sociologist is right, then rape should disappear in an enlightened culture that has abolished all male dominance (utopianism). If the biologist is right, then rape will not disappear without identifying and muting all gene sequences that might lead an individual to be a rapist (eugenics).

In reality, neither are practical solutions, _both explanations_ are bound to be contributing factors, but with one disregarding the other, we lose the ability to draw rational conclusions and devise functioning systems.</comment>


New ways to perform targeted online research with Usabilla Live - <AUTHOR> http://blog.usabilla.com/new-targeted-online-research-with-usabilla-live-campaigns/

<comment><USER2> Awesome feature! Usabilla is just getting better and better! Love it!</comment>


Compiling to Java as a target language - <AUTHOR> http://matt.might.net/articles/compiling-to-java/ <comment><USER2> Why would anyone compile to Java when it is much easier to compile directly to JVM bytecode?

A lot of languages are doing exactly that, like Mirah, Clojure, ABCL, Scala and many more.

<comment><USER3> is that actually easier? I know its probably way more efficient in the long run, but i really doubt you could write a bytecode compiler as easily as this was written.

<comment><USER4> People think real compilers are complicated, but often writing a native code compiler is simpler than writing an interpreter or translator. Abdulaziz Ghuloum has a great paper called An Incremental Approach to Compiler Construction (<http://scheme2006.cs.uchicago.edu/11-ghuloum.pdf>), which shows how to build a Scheme native code x86 compiler in 10 pages. JVM bytecode isn't that far away from machine code.

Another great example of how straightforward compilers can be is the Tiny C Compiler (<http://bellard.org/tcc/>).

<comment><USER5>
        JVM bytecode isn't that far away from machine code.

It is far away in the case the type system is a complete mismatch, like Haskell. Or in the case of Scheme, if you want to have continuations without a huge performance penalty, you've got to put some effort into it.

For these instances I've see advices on Lambda-the-Ultimate to just go for native-code, as it is easier to experiment since you have a lot more freedom.

That said, building on top of the JVM can have advantages other than being easy to write the compiler.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I disagree with one statement:

> performance will go up, but implementation code size and > complexity will > go up by about a factor of two

Moving from basic compiler optimizations (CSE, let-floating, unused variable elimination) to static-analysis driven optimizations (arity raising, useless variable elimination, super-beta, CFA-driven closure conversion, transducer identification and optimization for concurrency) may only double code size, but the implementation complexity is pretty intense. Those optimizations often are performing global reasoning against a CPS-style intermediate representation, and debugging issues with them can take a while. We do all of the parenthesized operations listed earlier (in Manticore, <http://manticore.cs.uchicago.edu>), and I would claim order of magnitude more time/thought spent on the them.

That said, I think I'm _supporting_ Matt's argument of avoiding moving up the complexity order unless you have to!</comment>


Big tech companies have been at the cutting edge of corporate tax avoidance - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59n7e8/silicon-valley-owes-us-dollar100-billion-in-taxes-at-least <comment><USER2> The press likes to single out tech companies lately... but it's well-known every industry is doing the same. Walmart, Exxon and Pfizer are just a few companies that tax-dodge just as much as Google. It's estimated $700 billion in taxes are dodged yearly[1] so singling out "Silicon Valley" seems strange.

[1] [https://americansfortaxfairness.org/corporate-tax- chartbook-...](https://americansfortaxfairness.org/corporate-tax-chartbook- how-corporations-rig-the-rules-to-dodge-the-taxes-they-owe/)

<comment><USER3> > tax-dodge just as much as Google

It isn't dodge. It's "cleverly follow the tax laws that are allowed".

What are top 3 tax loopholes that could get closed? One on hand, it sounds like robbery for companies to not pay taxes. However, if they were forced to pay more taxes and therefore paid less to their employees/hired less... would us consumers really win?

<comment><USER4> >However, if they were forced to pay more taxes and therefore paid less to their employees/hired less... would us consumers really win?

Yes because it would reduce the economic power of corporations vs people.

The point of a tax system is only tangentially to provide goods and services. The main point is for it to stop the infinite accumulation of wealth at the hands of fewer and fewer people.

Capital tends to a gini coefficient of 1 when left to its own devices. Without the visible hand of government to stop that from happening the invisible hand of providence [0] reaches in and does it for us.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Best case - Politicians made rules. Companies took the most economically favorable (to them) interpretation of those rules as they could get away with.

Worst case - Politicians made rules. Companies bought ("Lobbied") politicians and changed those rules to make them as favorable as possible.

There seems to be something similar in both cases.

<comment><USER6> I used to be married to a lobbyist, and the actual events are closer to this: Company lobbyists take a group of legislators out for dinner and drinks approaching the cost of rent for most Americans. Company lobbyists and attorneys (the venn diagram here is almost a perfect circle) write rules. Company lobbyists give company-written rules to legislative staffers on a relevant subcommittee. Company lobbyists attend 4- or 5-figure political fundraiser for legislators and discuss desired rules. The next day, legislator sees the agenda for the week, with a topic relevant to Company, and "draft legislation" already available. Company then takes the most economically favorable interpretation of rules written ~90% by them in the first place.

<comment><USER7> This is why the Tea Party wave was so devastating: not because of their ideology, but because they swept into office with little experience in policy or the topics they were then appointed to committees to govern. Compare to, say, AOC: much maligned, but who sits on an economics committee and has a degree in... economics (albeit a BA).

It's really, really important that our representatives have at least a modicum of knowledge, or else you get a rubber stamp machine instead of a republic.

<comment><USER6> I'm no fan of them, but this paints the incorrect notion that the members of Congress in the Tea Party are a bunch of uneducated rubes and is pretty blatantly false. Current members[0] have the following degrees:

      * BA, Finance + MBA
      * BS, Journalism + JD
      * BS, Political Science + JD
      * BS, Computer Science
      * BA, Forestry
      * BA, Accounting + MPA
      * BA + MS (no major listed)
      * BA, Political Science
      * BA, Political Science + JD
      * BA (no major listed)

That's only about half of them but I got tired of listing them out. Only two of current Tea Party Caucus members do not have a degree, both of them at least attended college, and one of them was actually in an honor society before leaving.

My point isn't to defend them, but to point out the dichotomy one can easily reach from reading your comment (Tea Parties are farmers that can barely read, similarly or less experienced legislators on the opposite end of the spectrum are not) is false.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus#List_of_curre...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus#List_of_current_members)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A 401(k) is also "avoidance". Are we next going to talk about all of the retirees and how much they "owe" us?

If the author wants to suggest a new law, then suggest a new law that would be a net improvement.

</comment><comment><USER9> I bet no one on here is mad at the tax break companies get by offering RSUs, which is how a lot of Silicon Valley dodges taxes as well.

<comment><USER10> people who get RSUs in California pay about 50% (state plus federal) tax on it. Where is that tax break again?

<comment><USER11> My read was that the _companies_ get the tax break. The employees get taxed to shit, but it's still better than not getting the RSUs.

<comment><USER12> I don't think that's true, other than the value of the RSUs being counted as an expense against earnings (like Salary would be).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> From the source: "The Silicon Six and their $100 billion global tax gap, which examines the tax conduct of Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google and Microsoft over the last decade."

One third of their companies are not based in Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER14> Of course, those are clearly all Irish companies.

<comment><USER15> Population of potential US customers: 650 million Population of potential world customers(minus US): 7.1 billion

But sure, let's pretend worldwide subsidiaries of those companies should not turn a profit outside the US.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Imagine what sort of world we could have if the Silicon Six [gave the government more of the $15 trillion]."

The modern concept of wealth doesn't work that way.

If you transfer money from someone not likely to spend it any time soon (tax shelter) to someone who is going to spend it right now (the government), it works almost exactly like inflation.

And often the money isn't held in cash anyway. So, moving it to the government requires divestment. That divestment has consequences that are complex, and it's far from clear that the government would spend it better in every case.

<comment><USER7> That's only with a limited supply of product. Instead, I see a throwaway culture, where we have a surfeit of product such that anything not perfect is thrown away (safe but expired food, appliances with dents in them, electronics with a single broken component, etc.). Likewise, Americans suffer through services that run inefficiently, or go without services that don't exist because there isn't a critical mass of demand for them.

People are pretty good at coming up with good uses for an influx of money without crashing the entire system. That's the whole point of a market-based economy, right?

<comment><USER8> If what you want is inflation... why not just inflate the money supply more directly? What's the point of trying to do so through the tax system?

<comment><USER7> Let me flip that: why would you create more money when there's already plenty to go around, just that it's locked up in tax havens, and only used to allow the wealthy to live, effectively, for free? If inflation is a menace, why would we risk the absolute calamity that would occur if disappeared wealth was repatriated after we'd created a bunch more money?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Maybe I'm missing something super obvious, or I'm preaching to the choir; but why wouldn't it make sense to eliminate all corporate taxes; but also eliminate capital-gains-tax-rates?

I'm not sure you'd have a 100% wash, but it feels like it would be close enough that you could re-jigger rates to capture any short-falls (or drop them if you bring in too much).

It seems like it would:

\- Eliminate the need for corporate tax firms / accountants \- Reduce the incentives for industrial lobbying \- Encourage hiring \- Enable Businesses to save for "rainy days"

<comment><USER3> How would corporations get taxed if you eliminated corporate taxes? You wouldn't want corporations to get taxed on their income/revenue/profits?

<comment><USER17> I'm not the OP but it's fairly simple: corporations wouldn't get taxed. Instead, shareholders would be taxed, as they're the ones who own the company and ultimately profit from the company's activities.

You could do this by increasing the tax rate on capital gains (dividends are already income if I remember US taxes right).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Frankly, I'm happy as long as money is out of the government's hands. Politicians have repeatedly demonstrated they can spend money way faster than they can generate it. What's the point of paying more taxes if they're just going to waste the money? Leave it in the economy and let the market sort it out.

<comment><USER19> That's encroaching into a false comparison. Is the money politician's 'waste' any less in the economy than the money the corporations spend? Of course not, it's still going to trade hands after leaves the government.

I feel there are two real issues here that the article (which is mostly just click bait) doesn't get into.

1\. Are any of the companies violating current tax code? (i.e if they actually owe more taxes then the IRS should intervene)

2\. How are they achieving these low tax rates? And when/should we fix the possible loopholes.

It's really stupid to get mad at companies following the letter of the law. We should be made at the politicians who refuse to close the holes. And who knows, if it results in companies just spending/reinvesting more money to still avoid taxes than at least it's more in line with the intent of the tax code.

<comment><USER20> The issue is that it's not so much a loophole as it is a structural deficiency in the way international corporations are taxed -- it's supposed to be a tax on "profit" but it's straight forward to structure an international corporation such that its profits happen in whichever subsidiary they want. Then they naturally structure things so that profits accrue in a subsidiary in a low tax jurisdiction.

The key to fixing this is to realize that VAT and corporate income tax are basically the same thing, except that instead of corporate income tax being paid to the jurisdiction where "profit" accrues (easy for a corporation to move around), it's paid to the jurisdiction of final sale (good luck moving all your customers).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's not just SV. One major company I worked for had only one validation requirement on the code we checked in which was the ensure that the copyright header saying that the code was owned by the subsidiary in Lucerne, Switzerland was present. That had to be for IP and tax purposes because nothing else makes any sense to me why that would be so important. It was not a Swiss company. So all the code and business products of value were offshored to some tax-friendly locale. Although I never thought of Switzerland as being particularly tax friendly.

</comment><comment><USER22> Yang2020.com Google Andrew Yang

<comment><USER23> I do like that he seems to be the only candidate who talks about incentivizing corporations to give back, rather than talking about enacting punitive measures on corporations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Well I'd just love for congress to increase the IRS budget again and then maybe they could actually audit a few of those companies</comment>


PhantomJS 2.5.0 release - <AUTHOR> https://bitbucket.org/ariya/phantomjs/downloads <comment><AUTHOR> The announcement about the updated engine (including ES2015 support and native Promises): [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/phantomjs/AefOuwkgBh...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/phantomjs/AefOuwkgBh0)</comment>


Ask HN: Good software for managing a small team of sales engineers - <AUTHOR>

I manage a small team of sales engineers and am looking for software to help me keep track of their activities and the accounts they're working on.  We sell expensive enterprise software that and sales cycles can take many months, or in some cases more than a year, to complete, so each SE will have several accounts that they will potentially work on, but are only active on a handful of them in a given week.
What I need is for them to be able to easily enter their weekly activity and then look up activity based on account or person.
I've looked at various CRM systems (we use salesforce.com, but access is too expensive to provide to the sales engineers) and most of them have more features than I require and don't really have good activity-oriented capabilities.
I've also looked at small-team management software, but they seem to be oriented to task-assignment, prioritization and management, which isn't really what I need either.
Any suggestions? <comment><USER2> Do you already use Salesforce.com for other sales-related activities? What system your sales people use? Is there a central repository for customer information? If yes, then I will suggest consider using the same system.

Do your SE enter or keep information somewhere else too?

As a SE, I can only say that don't force them to enter same information multiple times in different systems for different purposes. Nothing bugs me more than wasting my time entering same information multiple times and spending time on admin tasks, instead of spending more time focusing on customer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, we already use salesforce.com, but the SEs don't have access to it--too expensive.

I've worked as an SE as well, and I'm definitely not looking to add to the team's workload. Right now they're filling out a weekly spreadsheet and sending it to me, which sucks for them and for me. I'm looking for some way to make it easier for them to enter their time and for me to look at the data across multiple weeks, either by account or by SE.

<comment><USER2> Why does weekly spreadsheet suck for them? Are you interested in tracking time or the specific activities SE did with an account?

Any software replacement for spreadsheet for SE will be swapping time spent on filling spreadsheet to filling online form unless software pulls information automatically from what SE already doing in other repositories.

If spreadsheet has standard format, it may be of help to have a file upload tool that imports the data from uploaded spreadsheet to a database. And, if you have database expertise, you can manipulate the data in database whichever way you prefer for reporting purposes or have a few standard reports developed for you.

<comment><AUTHOR> The spreadsheet has a standard format, but using it means that they need to sit down at their computer rather than being able to do it on their phone (i.e. right after a meeting), and that they overwrite a previous instance of the spreadsheet, which leads to mismatches between accounts and activities, which requires me to go back to them and reconcile things wasting time for both of us.

It's possible to use the spreadsheet as basis for upload, but if I'm going to do that, I'll build my own front end too. I'm hoping to find something that will work rather than roll my own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I am working on a software, which may fit your needs. Basically it is a twitter + stackoverflow combo for coworkers. I believe it can help you to see what are they doing, and help them share knowledge. What do you think?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd definitely willing to have a look. Is there somewhere I can get a demo?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Trello is pretty flexible. I love it and my clients find it easy to use. It runs on all devices big and small so they can use it on the road. I wrote a tool (yes I am pimping it, it is what I do these days) called reportsfortrello.com that will show you what they are all up to. Both my site and Trello are free. There are other tools that will track time and tasks with Trello as well. Checkout boardtrail.com and burndownfortrello.com for more solutions.

I hope you find what you are looking for.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll have a look--I had a quick view of trello, but it seemed like it was more task oriented than what I wanted--I really need something that lets the SEs efficiently enter after-activity reports, and provide a quick holistic description of the state of an account on a periodic basis. I'll have a look at the two solutions you mention, thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> [http://www.cynapse.com/cynin](http://www.cynapse.com/cynin)

[http://www.getflow.com/](http://www.getflow.com/)</comment>


Hardening the Internet: Adopting DNS-over-HTTPS as a Standard - <AUTHOR> https://www.pelicancrossing.net/netwars/2019/05/namesakes_1.html <comment><AUTHOR> _" This week's net.wars, "Name change", discusses DNS-over-HTTPS, an arriving protocol that will fix some things and break others, including some of the UK's filtering system, as discussed at this week's ISPA UK conference."_

\-- Wendy M. Grossman @email@example.com [https://mastodon.xyz/@wendyg/102150713765391231](https://mastodon.xyz/@wendyg/102150713765391231)</comment>


Hofstra banned reporters from using hotspots at debate, charged $200 for wifi - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/27/presidential_debate_wifi_ripoff/ <comment><USER2> Assuming they weren't signal jamming, they should be within their rights to prevent people from transmitting on their private property.

My impression is that OP's title is innacurate - 4G was not restricted, but creating your own hotspot was in violation of their policies.

<comment><AUTHOR> edit: updated title.</comment></comment>


Did the universe have a beginning? - <AUTHOR> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf

<comment><USER2> More lunacy. What possible sense can anyone make trying to determine anything "before" the universe? What is the page before the first page of book? Where was I before I existed? This is all nonsense. The universe has existed "forever" because time has no meaning without a universe.</comment>


Instant ~12 GB online encrypted storage - <AUTHOR>

besides dropbox, I opened another account at Wuala from Lacie, and by using the discount codes billow you can pimp up the quota to 12GB.
I hope you find it useful. On OS X you can integrate via MacFuse (32bit kernels only), or use the uploader/sync app. I am not anyhow affiliated with Wuala.

  1. download the app at
  http://www.wuala.com/referral/JC74B7C3CGKPGB4MGP73
  or just http://www.wuala.com
  2. create a new free account
  3. in the user menu > manage account > buy storage
  4. start adding one by one the following discount codes (order doesn't matter):

  PC-MAGAZIN (will make it a pro account)
  I-KNOW-CAROLA
  I-KNOW-DOMINIK
  I-KNOW-FABIUS
  I-KNOW-MARCEL
  I-KNOW-LUZIUS
  I-KNOW-THOMAS
  I-KNOW-DARIO
  I-KNOW-MARIUS
  I-KNOW-JONAS
 <comment><USER2> Where did these come from? Are these Wuala employees or something?

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting, the codes work, it does not seem anywhere as refined as DropBox. Jut redeeming the codes I got a connection error on each one.....

</comment><comment><USER4> You can also use CONNECT-WITH-SUPPORT for another 1GB.

<comment><USER5> I-READ-TOOLTIPS adds another 512MB.

<comment><USER4> Didn't work for me.

<comment><USER2> Me either -- it's instead of the referral code from another person (which gives you a GB)

<comment><USER5> I saw it while I was registering. I didn't realize it was referral code replacement.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


SourceForge Acquires Open Source Data Community Ohloh - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/28/sourceforge-acquires-open-source-data-community-ohloh/ <comment><AUTHOR> I hope they don't take down the language stats... I just integrated those in langpop.com!</comment>


John's Phone: a minimalist cell phone - <AUTHOR> http://www.johnsphones.com/

<comment><USER2> This is a very good idea executed poorly. SMS has become a way of life and you'll be receiving messages that you can not read, also a paper phonebook requires that you carry a pen with you.

Play it again, John, this time with a pager sized (text) display and I'll buy one.

edit: added the (text), it _does_ have a display but can't display text messages.

<comment><USER3> It's also very expensive.

Basic Nokia phones that don't do much more than calls and SMS and that are very simple to operate and very sturdy, can be found (new) for around EUR 20.

<comment><USER4> SMS-lifestyle or not, I'd take the Nokia (at 2/3 the price or less) for the 10+ years of industrial design that went into it.

To be honest, this doesn't seem to be a phone for children or the elderly (neither of which have some sort of cognitive short circuit that keeps them from grasping a simple Nokia while allowing them to embrace the idioms of this particular phone) -- but rather a phone for hipsters who need to very loudly announce that they don't have an iPhone.

<comment><USER5> I like the hipster angle. It affords a better tagline:

"John's Phone: It's not an iPhone or anything. You've probably never heard of it."

<comment><USER6> Pshhh... I was using John's Phone while it was "still" underground.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It did not get a very good review from Engadget:

[http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/06/johns-phone-review-the- wo...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/06/johns-phone-review-the-worlds- simplest-cellphone/)

<comment><USER8> Seems like an okay review to me, if the purpose in buying the phone is to get something that can make phone calls:

> _So, how did it work? Well, to make and receive calls it worked fine. The > ringer was suitably loud and the vibration was strong enough to get noticed > in a pocket. The audio quality during calls was also decent -- not > spectacular but not awful either._

<comment><USER9> I think you skipped the conclusion:

 _So is the John's Phone "The world's simplest cellphone." No. The fact that all three of the device's switches are so frustrating to use is simply unforgivable on such a basic cellphone that's supposedly rooted in "great design." We wish that the company had spent as much time on the phone's industrial design as it did on its slick promotional materials and cutesy graphics. Even then, you'd better be sure that the simplicity is worth the €70 - €100 price tag (depending upon model) -- for that you could take home a fully-loaded 3G featurephone from Nokia. A nod, perhaps, as to why the John's Phone exists._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Where are all the phones that are minimalist in _size_?

We used to have quite small phones in the turn of 90's—00's but now that the smartphones are everywhere, and even for non-smartphones everyone is assumed to want internet and lots of features, the current phones are so big and come with such a big screens that my first Nokia 1611 has _stopped_ looking like stoneage in comparison.

Something similar to MacBook Air but a phone would be cool.

Thickness closer to 5mm than 10mm. Slightly larger than a USB stick. A clamshell design would be a must to make it long enough to reach both ears and proximity to mouth. Something that you can certainly lose in your pocket, something almost invisible.

We could certainly manufacture those these days.

<comment><USER11> There's a reason we don't have those anymore. I remember in '01-'02 there was a small war between manufacturers to get their phones smaller.

What came out were ludicrously small phones that made dialing and usage a pain.

There's a limit to how small phones can get before they get downright unusable. I remember back then some even had voice dialing to compensate, which was - and still is - just a plain bad idea.

<comment><USER12> Still doesn't explain why I can't get a phone which is 4mm thick.

<comment><USER10> A credit-card-sized clamshell that is 4mm thick. (Or 3+3 mm.) Should be good for many.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've seen them, and they are very annoying. Not having an address book is annoying, and not being able to _receive_ text messages is just frustrating. It's an awesome idea, but not for use in real life.

<comment><USER14> Perhaps not for use in _your_ life. I'm not a smartphone user and don't do text messages. I really like the idea of this phone because it strips away all the crap that I don't need.

Granted, if I did have a smartphone, or was a "power user" of my current phone, then perhaps I'd feel the same way as you do.

<comment><USER13> Right, but the problem is not so much about me as it is about the rest of the world. Not being able to write messages is fine, but people expect you to be able to receive text messages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I got my dad a Doro HandleEasy last Christmas. He is actually using it (which is amazing in itself). [http://www.techpin.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/01/doro-handl...](http://www.techpin.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/01/doro-handleeasy-330-and-handleeasy-326-easy-to-use- cell-phones-2.jpg)

<comment><USER16> Do you wear bloomers as well?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I like it, but mostly for the gimmick value. I think to be truly * usable* and _simple_ it absolutely has to have a phonebook / speed dial of some kind.

"If you love it simple" is their tag-line, but I don't really see anything simple about having to reference a piece of paper and then dial a 13 digit number each time I want to call home.

<comment><USER18> It has some sort of speed dial (not very simple to use though I suppose you can always pre-program it for your grandparents). From the quick manual at <http://www.johnsphones.com/support/johns-manual/item57> :

"You can allocate 10 speed dial numbers, each under one of the ten digits. You can allocate a telephone number (in this case, 0612345678) to a speed-dial number (in this case 1) by entering: * * 1 * 0612345678#. Subsequently, hold down the '1' button for two seconds to automatically call the telephone number entered. To delete the speed-dial number in the above example, enter * * 1 * #. If you wish to alter a telephone number allocated to a speed-dial number, simply write over it with the new number."

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I don't think I could survive very long without an electronic address book.

<comment><USER19> It appears to have a paper phone book in the back behind a flap .. awesome.

<comment><USER2> We'll talk about how useful that is when you're in a non-ideal lighting condition trying to find a phone number and typing it in on the front.

I _used_ to remember pretty much all the phone numbers of all my relatives and people I'm in contact with, even the international ones but with the coming of cell phones something else has happened: people switch phone numbers far more frequently today than they did in the past and the ability to re-program the phone but keep the mnemonic the same is actually far more useful than a piece of paper.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's good for old people and aggressive people that frequently like to throw their phones away, because they are cheap. Nobody else will buy it just because its got a "minimalist design".

The iPhone has only one button.. seems even more minimalist.

<comment><USER21> _because they are cheap_

Cheap? You can pick up a cheap pay-and-go phone here in the UK for about £25 ($50) or less :)

And it handles text messaging.

I'm not sure it is even good for old people - from the engadget review it looks very fiddly.

<comment><USER22> *$40

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> What my local operator is offering is this:

ZTE S202

Specs: [http://wwwen.zte.com.cn/en/products/mobile/mobile_detail_291...](http://wwwen.zte.com.cn/en/products/mobile/mobile_detail_291.jsp?mobileName=ZTE-G%20%20S202)

Video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CClXKPRDzLI&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CClXKPRDzLI&feature=player_detailpage#t=94s)

The price is 70 euros. The buttons have nice a tactile feedback, it has a screen and even looks okay.

Sure, this thing has a better branding, nicer website but the product itself is inferior and costs more.

</comment><comment><USER24> Seems like they have a rather minimalist web server as well:-/

</comment><comment><USER25> More expensive than a phone that can do more? Laughable pretentious rubbish.

<comment><USER26> Simplicity is a feature. "Can do more" sometimes means "can't do anything because it's too complicated".

<comment><USER25> I remember getting a £30 ZTE phone on 3 that did texts, calls, and had a fairly rubbish but workable browser. It wasn't complicated, it was small, light, and the battery lasted forever. It was a bit slow but for £30 it's a far better bargain than this John's Phone.

I even made a handy contacts parser for it: <https://github.com/radiosilence/ZTEcontactsparse>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > John's Phone is 10.5 centimetres in height, 6 centimetres in length and 1.5 > centimetres in width (4.1"/2.4"/0.6"). Weight: 95 grams.

If it wasn't too big and heavy, I'd order it right now!

<comment><USER28> If it wasn't big then you couldn't have oversized number keys. If it wasn't heavy then it wouldn't be suitable for people who need oversized number keys, light phones need more motor-skills to handle (up to a point).

Also hardening and a large battery would increase weight (though I don't know if this is how it's heavy).

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I just sent a link along to my mother, who has been wanting a no-frills big- numbered mobile phone that has a long standby time. I think it's perfect for those, like my mother, who don't use SMS, electronic address books, or any other "fancy" features of modern mobile phones. The numbers being big so that she doesn't need to take her glasses out is also very good. The only down side I can see is the review on engadget that said the switches are a bit finicky. But then again, it's not like it's $400 either :)

</comment><comment><USER30> Looks good - but: the battery indicator is very unintuitive: full battery: JOHN ...... low battery: J

why is this? cant it just be "HIGH" and "LOW".

<comment><USER31> JOHN is high

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> agree with most comments here that the pen/paper address book seems a bit out of place. i'd imagine that the swivel door to keep the address book is quite cumbersome and certainly this would add unnecessary weight. also i feel that the simplicity of the design is somewhat ruined with handwritten entries in the address book (see link below for a picture):

<http://www.johnsphones.com/store/johns-address-book/item89>

i'm all for minimalist designs, this phone seems to segment a very niche user base that is only interested in using phones to call people, however small that is, i'm sure there's a market. though the price point conflicts with this as i feel people in this market segment are probably looking for low price as well.

some additional comments, a video on the webpage would be nice showing the interface for navigating through an address book or adding contacts. i think the dial buttons are nice, but imho the slide buttons on the side of the phone are a bit arcane, perhaps individual buttons would be more modern.

i'm actually quite attracted to the general design of the phone, the keypad is laid out quite simply, the lcd at the top is out of the way and quite utilitarian. i'm a smartphone user myself (nokia e72), but i'd love to have this phone if it included bluetooth and i'm quite curious as to the ease of use of the phonebook because i really hate storing numbers by keypad. based on the design, it'd be nice if you offered a higher end john's phone, let's say you added bluetooth, a 5 MP camera, and a micro SD storage slot, you'd have a pretty good shot at getting some premiums for people that are looking for something fresh in comparison to iphone/android.

<comment><USER32> btw, what's the operating system on this baby?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> And no SMS.. :( Would have definitely considered if it had SMS...

</comment><comment><USER34> It's a jitterbug for hipsters.

</comment><comment><USER35> Interesting. I agree with the SMS comments. I almost entirely SMS. Mostly only business and family on Talk.

Two years ago I did a "simple phone" concept. Mine was touched based. Never progressed it, to busy with other things. I find it funny that somebody did.

Here was my rough design. <http://bit.ly/fTz643>

<comment><USER36> after you design something like this, how does one actually go about getting it manufactured?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Already? so soon? I think people need some more time with their smart phones.

I like it that my WinPhone7 pulls phone numbers from my Outlook (office email), Facebook or Windows live. Making an acquintance online and automatically having the number in my phonebook is natural and works.

I think we need some more time with smart before simple gets niche again.

</comment><comment><USER38> I want one but I live in Japan.

I swear, i never thought it would come tothat. Dunno why it won't work if my iPhone works :/

</comment><comment><USER39> This is perfect for my parents. They don't use address book, they won't read or write SMS (need to click too many buttons) and they need to use glasses to see the buttons. I'm really tempted buy 2 for them. Although it's unnecessarily expensive considering I can buy a really good and light non- brand mobile phone for £5-£10

</comment><comment><USER40> I fail to see how this is minimalistic.

<comment><USER22> I agree, the most minimalist thing is making do with what you already have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I had thought that maybe the phone was intended for older folks who need clear, easy, familiar buttons on their phones.

But it seems to be more of minimalist hipster gadget. As such it really does need some form display. I don't know anyone under 50 who doesn't SMS.

</comment><comment><USER42> This would be perfect if it had an amazing antenna hidden in there. It would be the first cell phone I've had since my first car phone that was actually good at being a phone...which would be WILD!

</comment><comment><USER43> What's funny is the phone calling functionality of my iPhone is the one feature I wish I could have removed. I just want internet, text, and iOS and I'm happy.

<comment><USER32> so why not get an ipad with 3g? i wish they made 3g ipod touches, i also agree with you and would like a device like iphone without the calling functionality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Amazing. I need to get one of these for my grandfather.

</comment><comment><USER45> Am I the only one thinking that the screen is on the wrong side and this is a very poor choice UX-wise?

</comment><comment><USER46> Where's the bump on the digit 5?

</comment><comment><USER47> would be a lot nicer without the pen and paper + mirror combo, smaller too

perhaps implement a solid text to speech service for converting texts to auditory messages

</comment><comment><USER48> Slashdot effect in progress. Anyone have a mirror?

</comment><comment><USER32> also as to how these things are designed. i'd love to try hacking one together. perhaps i'll find some info on the blog.

</comment><comment><USER49> Is there a mirror? Page seems to be down :(

<comment><USER50> The phone looks like it has a mirror built in :)

EDIT: Reminder to self - don't try to be funny.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> mirror: <http://www.johnsphones.com.nyud.net/>

</comment><comment><USER46> Where's the bump on digit 5?

</comment><comment><USER52> the large buttons appear to increase the chance of butt dialing.

</comment><comment><USER53> Novel design, although not something entirely new. Swedish telephony equipment manufacturer Doro has for several years had a number of "senior citizen" cellphones on the market in the same geist as John's Phone, some of them even simpler. A few models even include an assault alarm.

This model's design is interesting in how clearly it speaks about what demography it's aimed at: [http://www.doro.co.uk/products/Mobile-phones-and- accessories...](http://www.doro.co.uk/products/Mobile-phones-and- accessories/334GSM/)

</comment><comment><USER54> I always wanted something like the old Nokia 7280 for a second (small) phone for times when I don't want to carry my expensive smartphone but I could never get myself to buy a second phone...

[http://www.livingroom.org.au/cameraphone/images/thumbnails/1...](http://www.livingroom.org.au/cameraphone/images/thumbnails/1_7280.jpg)

<comment><USER55> In terms of simplicity and resistance nothing beats Nokia 3310 (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_3310>), for me at least. I even threw it against a concrete wall once, it all dissembled into several pieces, but after I had re-assembled them back it was as new.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I'd buy one just for the name. :P</comment>


Printbf – Brainfuck Interpreter in Printf - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/HexHive/printbf <comment><USER2> For those unfamiliar with C language, can you provide a good introduction about what is going on here? Do you mean that all logic for Brainfuck is encoded as format strings in printf function?</comment>


Show HN: Emoji-js - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Thomas101/emoji-js <comment><AUTHOR> What does it do?

Is it not obvious? It allows you to use emoji's in your code. Not just in strings, but as variable names too. Checkout the example on github!</comment>


A little bit on Javascript magic inside C# code - <AUTHOR> http://www.beletsky.net/2011/07/little-bit-on-javascript-magic-inside-c.html

<comment><USER2> The question I have (almost always when reading things like this) is what are the real advantages to a language being both static and dynamic?

The only thing that I can think of is that you can have a type system, but then ignore that whenever you want. But even as I write that it feels like I've made a mistake.</comment>