Edward Snowden, after months of NSA revelations, says his mission's accomplished - <AUTHOR> http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/edward-snowden-after-months-of-nsa-revelations-says-his-missions-accomplished/2013/12/23/49fc36de-6c1c-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html <comment><USER2> The Washington Post sat on the Collateral Murder video. [1,2] The New York Times sat on the warrantless wiretapping scandal at the request of the White House. [3] CBS sat on the Abu Ghraib torture scandal at the request of the Pentagon. [4]

What is the Washington Post _not_ telling us?

[1] [https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/15617022129](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/15617022129)

[2] [http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/wapo_denies_allegation_it_sat....](http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/wapo_denies_allegation_it_sat.php)

[3] [http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/the-scoop-that- got...](http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/the-scoop-that-got-spiked/)

[4] [http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/100787/CBS- Let...](http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/100787/CBS-Lets-the- Pentagon-Taint-Its-News-Process.aspx)

<comment><USER3> I think Snowden inadvertently demonstrated the only effective way to get media to publish leaks: Send them to multiple outlets in different countries. Doing so provides publishers with both impetus and cover.

<comment><USER4> I bet it wasn't inadvertent at all. I'm sure he saw it the same way you do.

<comment><USER5> I think the GP meant that the _demonstration_ was inadvertent. As in, Snowden intended to use the strategy himself, but he didn't intend to _teach_ the strategy through his actions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> But what has really changed?

The NSA is under pressure from the public, less so from the intelligence and defense communities. If anything Snowden has caused those areas of government to close ranks even tighter. There's nothing a leader wants more than a highly visible enemy to unite his or her people. There are orders of magnitude more people who hate General Alexander now than there were two years ago. But his own people love him even harder.

The NSA may or may not lose some funding in the coming years. It will probably just transfer over to the NRO or the Office of Intelligence and Analysis or one of the dozen other agencies that we haven't come to know and hate yet. If there's one thing government is good at, it's maintaining the status quo. Public support has never meant much to the intelligence community. These are people who signed up to serve in secret, who have dedicated their lives to what they believe to be just causes. They won't pay a thought to a year or so of bad press.

Snowden's future is unclear. He'll probably be in russia for several more years, if he doesn't overstay his welcome. It's possible that some future president will see pardoning him as a free goodwill card. Or perhaps he'll be able to start a life as an overseas media personality, reaping the benefits of what many see as a heroic action. One thing is for certain: US intelligence agencies will continue business as usual.

Edward Snowden has shown the light, and his work is indeed done. It's up to us to effect real change and shape our government in our own image. Maybe things will change, maybe they won't. But those who dislike what he has revealed have their work cut out for them.

<comment><USER7> Well IMO it's kind of silly to care about the government snooping through my data when huge corporations are the ones who actually own the fiber and can siphon all the traffic they want -- then sell it. You're basically choosing between the US government or a combination of Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and Deutsche Telekom.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "You're basically choosing between the US government or a combination of Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and Deutsche Telekom."

Honestly I'd be more happy with the telecom companies doing it. They can do much less harm with any data they get.

<comment><USER8> I'd prefer it if no one did it. I can imagine a future where your credit rating is influenced by your Facebook profile and it's not a fun one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > "If I defected at all," Snowden said, "I defected from the government to the > public."

He can't run til 2020, but I'll cast an early vote now.

<comment><USER10> They'll probably make him a felon, won't they? (Can you vote for felons in the US?)

<comment><USER11> Yup.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Eligibility)

<comment><USER12> Speaking of which, if he were convicted and then elected President, one could make a reasonable argument that he could then pardon himself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _I didn't want to change society. I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself._

Despite a fair amount of indignation from the public, it seems to me that the majority has accepted the new surveillance reality.

<comment><USER14> The weird invasive thought I keep having is if Snowden could, if at all, be a limited hang-out-OP/MISO (PsyOp) to gauge just how much the public would accept.

There have been enough revelations to see that the NSA got to keep what it is in entirety; mission accomplished.

<comment><USER15> This is definitely tinfoil hat territory. Some very high level people in the intelligence community may lose their jobs or (if things go very well) face charges in the next year or two. If the whole Snowden affair is an inside job then those high level people must have been ignorant of it since they would never accept the personal risk of the shitstorm that has resulted.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, I mean just look how afraid Clapper was of lying, completely knowingly, to the Senate under oath. He must really be afraid of putting himself out there as the threat to his personal freedom is far too great.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's a good moment to think again about the words uttered by, at that moment, vice president Cheney on September 16, 2001:

(at that time published on whitehouse.gov)

[http://web.archive.org/web/20011116191708/http://www.whiteho...](http://web.archive.org/web/20011116191708/http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news- speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html)

" _We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will. We 've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world._ A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful."

And, for the opposing view, also to think about the 2006 speech of then senator Obama:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfX7RI7DGI8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfX7RI7DGI8)

"No President is above the law. I am voting against Mr. Hayden in the hope that he will be more humble before the great weight of responsibility that he has not only to protect our lives but to protect our democracy.

Americans fought a Revolution in part over the right to be free from unreasonable searches -- to ensure that our Government could not come knocking in the middle of the night for no reason. We need to find a way forward to make sure we can stop terrorists while protecting the privacy and liberty of innocent Americans. We have to find a way to give the President the power he needs to protect us, while making sure he does not abuse that power. It is possible to do that. We have done it before. We could do it again."

And as Snowden mentions, the oath the President makes is:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States)

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, _preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. "_

The Constitution.

It's the end of 2013.

<comment><USER17> > We need to find a way forward to make sure we can stop terrorists

Why is this such a trumping goal (or even a goal at all)? It's an impossible task without singnificant imposition on everyone's lives (we're no where close to being able to stop anything, and things are already leaning too far away from the people).

A disproportionate amount of time and resources are already being dedicated to "fighting" terrorism, with diminishing returns and uncountable atrocities done by our government.

<comment><USER18> I never understood this either. Aren't heart disease and obesity much bigger killers (statistically) within US borders? What if they flipped the medical and military budgets for just ONE term, what would happen…

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> His mission yes - giving up the comforts of a stable paying job in Hawaii and exposing himself to tremendous danger from a variety of nation-state level adversaries for life - in the bargain. Amazingly commendable - all for the sake of preserving core Liberty and Freedom as we know it.

What happens next ? Will things go back to businesses as usual?

<comment><USER20> His job is done, now it's up to the rest of us.

<comment><USER21> I wonder if Snowden were aware when planning his mission that his actions would only yield some isolated populist outcrying, a few more people using Tor, some political awkwardness and pretty much nothing else, as appears to be case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Jesus Christ some of the comments on that article. I wonder if there was some way to analyse what percentage of it is astro-turfing and what percentage is real red-blooded Americans just brainwashed into thinking government knows best. Americans you are lost. It's been nice knowing you.

<comment><USER23> >Americans you are lost. It's been nice knowing you.

There are fewer than 500 comments on that site as of right now, that doesn't mean anything about anything.

Sometimes I wonder if people are actually aware that the United States has more people in it than can fit into a single room.

<comment><USER22> It's what would in most industries be considered a reasonable sized sampling. When you then look at this poll then, things start to look grim indeed: [http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa- ph...](http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone- tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/)

<comment><USER24> This is a self-selected sample. People who read the article and thought "meh, whatever" did not bother to leave a comment.

<comment><USER25> Exactly. See also "voluntary response data are worthless" by prof. Velleman (in the tokenadult comment):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2772533](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2772533)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If the "terrorists" are following this whole story, wouldn't now be a prime time for another attack?

This could have the effect of validating the NSA's activities in many Americans' eyes ("see, the NSA is unable to its job without invading our privacy") and we would see a whole new round of new laws capitalizing on Americans' fears of terrorists (which means their terrorism succeeded).

<comment><USER27> The NSA makes the lives of terrorists much harder than it would be otherwise. Terrorists undoubtedly welcome Snowden's revelations--both for revealing tactics, and for creating the possibility that the NSA will be constrained by public outrage.

That doesn't imply that what Snowden did was wrong, though. We trade security for freedom in a thousand ways in American culture, and now we have a chance to debate that tradeoff for digital data.

<comment><USER28> > We trade security for freedom in a thousand ways in American culture, and > now we have a chance to debate that tradeoff for digital data.

This is something really important: it's not out-of-the-box obviously wrong (talk to people who aren't into civil liberties for this perspective) that our communications are monitored. But it is very important that, as US citizens, we have an understanding and a grasp of what is done and what could be done in our name, and _that we regulate its activities_ based upon our choices, _not_ that of shadowy figures telling us we don't have the capacity to understand. As a representative democracy, we have the right to be informed and to select representatives & leaders who take policies that we can agree (up to majority) on.

<comment><USER29> I disagree entirely. The genius behind the the US Constitution was its acceptance of the idea that power, no matter how just, will eventually corrupt, which is why our freedoms were supposed to be rather absolute. I think there are almost no sane reasons to infringe on a basic human right in general: the burden of proof should be on the government to do it selectively, and even then it should be treated with great scepticism.

Further, we have almost no power as a representative "democracy": the public can't recall a representative at all, for example, and it is only done by an internal chamber discussion (it has happened very few times in the history of the US).

Thus, we're really not supposed to "vote away" basic, sane axioms in the first place. The point of the US was to have those rights held firmly in place, and for its citizenry to use their right to bear arms to protect themselves against a government that tried to take them away. It's indicative of the US's culture at this point that stating this position (which is easily backed up by many of the founding fathers' writing) brands you as a "libertarian wingnut" or "on the fringe." Am I advocating violent revolt now? No, because most would not actually know what to revolt against (and probably don't perceive the corporate/government power structure in place in the US).

Then again, any attempt to do the aforementioned has failed in this country. A great example are the Alien and Sedition acts, which were passed conveniently around the time of the French Revolution.

<comment><USER28> It's Christmas Eve, and I'm enjoying my coffee and feel rather disinclined to get into a political argument, so I'll just toss a few thoughts around without intending to respond (I'll chat via email tho'). I agree that increasing power _should_ be treated with great scepticism (But it isn't, honestly. And that's a shame).

Point: Police power is inherently a use of force on the citizenry. The Army is the same, loooosely.

Point: Taxing, coining, patenting are all applications of force.

Point: The 5th amendment clearly lines out uses of force.

Point: The 5th amendment also includes a key phrase, "due process of law", indicating that the government is limited. The 3rd amedment supports this as well, requiring a limitation on quartering in time of war via law.

Point: Law & regulations, period, are the application of the government's use of force to ensure a smooth governing (See Hobbes for a work known in the late 1700s).

Conclusion: The US founders designed the government to have power (Unverified statement based on recollections - _but_ split in such a way that each arm of government was naturally incented to limit the power of the other arms).

Nit: The US is a republic, not a democracy. It's regrettable that a district can't recall its representative wholly on its own. Perhaps that would restrain certain foolishness in the system...

Happy Holidays.

<comment><USER27> I meant to stay out of this but this is a pet peeve: the U.S. is both a republic and a democracy. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

We're not a direct democracy, we're a representative democracy, but that is still a form of democracy.

For an example of a democracy that is not a republic, see the UK.

For an example of a republic that is not a democracy, see China.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Sorry, Ed, but we are nowhere near "mission accomplished".

This debate may have begun with worries about the risks posed by NSA overreach, but it does not end with them. As Bruce Schneier pointed out, the tools of today's spies are the same as the tools of tomorrow's criminals.

Whilst I am not exactly comfortable with the idea of persistent, intimate state surveillance, this discomfort fades into paltry insignificance when I consider the implications of criminal entities controlling the computing devices that I use to analyse and understand issues, make decisions and interact with the world.

I studied Artificial Intelligence as a student. I buy (somewhat) into Kurzweil's view of the future. Today, my computer may be a "bicycle for the mind", but tomorrow, we may have difficulty distinguishing between rider and vehicle.

The security of today's internet; today's computing devices, profoundly affects how securely, how effectively, and how independently I will be able to think in 20 or 30 years time.

We need to start talking more (much more) about the weaknesses and security vulnerabilities inherent in the architecture and design of our public communications and computing infrastructure. This debate has to get detailed and has to get technical. Fast.

</comment><comment><USER31> I am in awe of this man. We all owe him our thanks for bringing this information to the public, at considerable risk to himself.

</comment><comment><USER32> > "Until you've got to pull the trigger, until you've had to bury your people, > you don't have a clue."

Falling to the "you don't know what it's like" argument is never a good sign. You're acting out of pain and so emotionally invested in justifying your actions that you're incapable of communicating an evidence based rationale to an outsider. You can't reach a reasoned resolution like that.

</comment><comment><USER33> Thank you, Edward Snowden. You're true hero.

It's a shame, that your leaders can see in technology only surveillance, war machinery and ways to humiliate and subjugate others.

It's a shame, that USA's participation in computing is still a "donkey work", as tortured (and probably killed) Alan Turing once said.

</comment><comment><USER34> His mission is done, our mission isn't. He gave us the information we need to start banging on doors and saying to our elected representatives, 'is this right? Is this reasonable?'.

Some won't listen, some will, some won't rock the boat, some will. But unless you push you'll never know.

</comment><comment><USER35> You have to admire his willingness to risk everything to give the people a chance to change this broken system.

He is right though the system is broken it gives too much power with too little oversight.

<comment><USER36> At the same time, this is exactly what we should expect of every American put in his position. And others were in his position before him, so you kind of have to shake your head that this wasn't disclosed sooner.

What I find admirable is the way he's gone about disclosing these documents in such a responsible and controlled manner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I just hope at this point that we don't see a high-budget movie starring Justin Timberlake or Jesse Eisenberg playing Snowden.

</comment><comment><USER38> "All I wanted was for the public to be able to have a say in how they are governed".

If these are his words to be remembered by, history will have kind thoughts for him.

</comment><comment><USER39> Amazing that for so many decades under so many leaders, the American intelligence services have relied on the oath of allegiance to the Constitution to preserve secrecy. The Brits do it right by making people sign the Official Secrets Act which both binds the agent to keep secrets and educates them in full detail what that means.

<comment><USER40> Kind of like the Non-disclosure agreement everyone with a security clearance has to sign.

[http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security- forms/sf312.pdf](http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I wish Snowden would roll up his sleeves and start working on the same problem in Russia, where he now lives, and in China, where he stayed briefly on his way to Russia. His mission has hardly begun.

<comment><USER42> The whole argument about Russia being way worse than the US, and Snowden staying there is ridiculous. He isn't staying there as some sort of celebrity endorsement for the tourism program. He's staying there because it is the only place he was able to reach in time, as Russia is one of the few countries too big to be invaded by the US military.

<comment><USER43> He's there because he's a coward with no backbone. If he is so sure of his innocence, he'd be facing the court instead of propping up a government with terrible human rights record.

<comment><USER44> Do you really believe the court system works to determine innocence? Do you believe he would be guaranteed a fair trial? Do you think Manning got a fair trial?

Do you believe that by taking refuge in Russia he's "propping up" their government? How?

Do you believe that giving up a 6-figure salary and life to expose violations of the US constitution is an act of a coward?

Are these opinions harbored by real people, or is this a troll?

<comment><USER43> I believe he'd get a more fair trial than Navalny and Khodorkovsky did.

This one is pretty much obvious. It is a massive PR win for Putin, looking at uninformed online comments such as yours.

I believe he's paid much more by Russian intelligence services for all the secrets he has "exported".

The last question doesn't even deserve a response. If you're this closeminded, you shouldn't argue on the Internet at all.

<comment><USER44> How is Russia not giving fair trials relevant? You suggested he throw himself at the american system, which we both know won't give him a fair trial but will torture him and throw him to jail for the rest of his life whether he's guilty by law or not. And yet you suggest this should be his course of action. You realize this is ridiculous right?

Everyone understands Snowden is hiding in Russia to avoid torture by the US. Everyone also knows Russia does worse than NSA things. There is no contradiction, and trying top highlight a contradiction smells of dishonesty.

You believe he's paid but you have zero evidence for it. Russia gains virtually nothing from it, Snowden can't live a normal life for the rest of his life.

Would you be content with the NSA continuing illegal oversight and building a total surveillance society?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Maybe Snowden was a trial balloon? _They_ wanted to see how far the American public could be pushed? :-)

</comment><comment><USER46> NSA must be thrilled. Like the TSA, the mainstream public has become completely complacent.

Bet they were worried for a whole minute there.

I won't be surprised if like Homeland Security Theater their funding will increase and not decrease after the exposure.

Well at least gitmo was closed. Oh wait. Guess we accomplished less than nothing.

</comment><comment><USER47> I didn't see anyone ask. Does "mission accomplished" mean no more leaks from the Snowden pool?

What was the last leak, then, RSA security?

"By the way, RSA sucks! Mission accomplished."

</comment><comment><USER48> I just can't help but think most people already knew this before he revealed it...but then I remember...so many people are just under a rock

</comment><comment><USER49> I wonder what will happen when his 1 year thing with russia will end...

Maybe canada or south america ?

</comment><comment><USER50> This came to mind when I read the title: [http://i.imgur.com/bPn53M1.jpg?1](http://i.imgur.com/bPn53M1.jpg?1)

<comment><USER51> Ok, but did you read the article? Snowden is talking about the mission of starting the conversation, which he has done.

"'For me, in terms of personal satisfaction, the mission's already accomplished,' he said. 'I already won. As soon as the journalists were able to work, everything that I had been trying to do was validated. Because, remember, I didn't want to change society. I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself.'"

<comment><USER52> This was basically his stated goal when he started this whole thing: getting the public informed and starting the conversation about how much government intrusion into our private lives is _too_ much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Hopefully he'll stop hogging the frontpage then. Just like nobody remembers Julian Assange anymore.

<comment><USER44> Do you want the NSA to keep on spying on US citizens without oversight, to turn over its data to US law enforcement for "parallel reconstruction"?

Do you want to live in a total-surveillance society?

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> The world, especially the intelligence world, is more than black and white. A myriad hues exist, some of them dark and dirty, some grey. Here is a portrait of a man who is color blind. Experiencing the world only through a computer, he lacks the judgement to jump to the right conclusions, and goes thermonuclear only to find that mainstream Americans don't share his disability. He wants to be another Assange, but in the end he is another Manning.

<comment><USER54> You cannot seriously believe that an NSA contractor would be morally colourblind. He was expecting those shades of grey but instead found an agency more focused on spying it's citizens than Stasi.

<comment><USER43> >more focused on spying it's citizens than Stasi

How in the world is it possible to post something as ridiculous as this? Is this what you kids truly believe? Snowden might be colour blind, but you sure are tone deaf.

<comment><USER44> Well, the NSA collected more data on US citizens than the Stasi ever collected on Germans.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


MS introduces new Edge with full-screen popup that can't be skipped - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/TaranVH/status/1278758217074405377 <comment><USER2> I remember the days they were slapped with a hefty lawsuit for bundling IE with Windows. What they are doing now is Beyond Good and Evil.

<comment><USER3> On the other hand the competitive landscape has changed. Apple doesn't let you use any rendering other than safari on mobile devices. Chrome is google's way of controlling the open web. Microsoft can point at these examples. I say, break them all up.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What steps do you take to prevent RSI? - <AUTHOR>

I work from home as a full time web developer.
I've just bought a comfortable chair to help with my back and neck, but the main issue is my fingers.
I've been using my work-issued 13 inch macbook pro for about two years now as my main computer and I'm starting to get pain in my fingers from the trackpad.
So I'm in the market for a mouse to use that's going to be good for me. Any suggestions?
Thanks HNers. <comment><USER2> Regular keyboards and mice are really bad ergonomically, but laptops are even worse in my mind. Just awful to work on.

At work I have a MacBook Pro, but I'm using it with an external keyboard (a Goldtouch split keyboard) and an external pen-like mouse called Ullman Penclic mouse. The keyboard is not a Mac keyboard, so I've remapped a lot of keys using Keymando (works great).

I had really bad RSI problems several years ago, but managed to get it under control, and now I can work without problems. The biggest reason I got better was that I started to use a break program (the keyboard and mouse also helped). On my MacBook I use RSI Guard.

I've written about how I beat RSI: <http://henrikwarne.com/2012/02/18/how-i- beat-rsi/> and about Mac OS X break programs: [http://henrikwarne.com/2012/02/26/mac-os-x-break-programs- re...](http://henrikwarne.com/2012/02/26/mac-os-x-break-programs-review/)

</comment><comment><USER3> To answer the topic, if not the actual problem: Dvorak. I was in the same situation as you, starting to get pain in my fingers from typing; tried a few different keyboards, then tried the Dvorak layout and the pain stopped.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I will consider this. At the very least it will give me an excuse to buy Das Keyboard and some stick-on lettering.

<comment><USER3> It's not worth doing that; just leave the keys where they are. That'll have the same effect as far as you're concerned, and mean people who don't know dvorak can use your keyboard by switching it in software. (When I used a physically dvorak keyboard, I had at least five friends who claimed they could touch-type qwerty. None of them actually could.)</comment></comment></comment>


FireShepherd is the antidote for Firesheep hacking mania  - <AUTHOR> http://www.borntechie.com/entry/fireshepherd-is-the-antidote-for-firesheep-hacking-mania/ EDIT: The Source Code : http://notendur.hi.is/~gas15/FireShepherd/ <comment><USER2> This doesn't seem like a good idea if it works as described in the link (i.e. flooding the network). Not only is it not fixing the real underlying problem, it will probably cause additional problems like network congestion and/or destruction.

<comment><USER3> Fighting fire with fire... burn, sheep, burn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> An arms race! I love it!

(But looking at the code, all this thing does is reimplement wget poorly. It sends an HTTP request to a hard-coded "random facebook server" with a confusingly-long Facebook cookie. That's it, that's all it does. Firesheep may have an input validation issue in the current version, but that is a correctness issue that will be fixed immediately. Then this thing does nothing.)

</comment><comment><USER5> A page about the program itself: <http://notendur.hi.is/~gas15/FireShepherd/>

<comment><USER6> Much better link. As in, it actually has links to the source code. Who wrote the OPs article and didn't both including a link to this page? The genius of some people...

<comment><AUTHOR> In fact the link it's there, at the bottom of the article.

<comment><USER6> I could be mistaken but I think that was added. I didn't see it the first time. I've learned to look for "via" links due to Engadget.

Has no one told them the importance of using contextual links rather than links like Click here to download awesome-crap-0.0.1.zip. This is almost as annoying as when they have links that just link to a self-site- search for the term.

Ugh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I posted my thoughts on FireShepherd to my blog here: <http://codebutler.com/firesheep-a-week-later-idiot-shepherds>

<comment><USER8> From your blog: "Sending out lots of random data, especially over a wireless network, can disturb everyone else on the network and result in their connections becoming slow and/or unreliable. In addition, FireShepherd by default sends all this data out over the Internet to www.facebook.com, placing unnecessary load on their servers."

Your position is laughable at best - you're saying "but think of the users" (you're lagging their connections) and "think of the facebook" (you're wasting their resources) when your own software treats both parties far worse at least in the short term.

Suggesting that an HTTP GET set twice a second to a server that will return a 404 will somehow have a measurable effect on the performance of a public network like a starbucks hotspot is beyond ridiculous. Since a days worth of that traffic would be dwarfed by a single user playing a single 5 second low quality youtube clip - the evidence suggests you either lack a fundamental understanding of practical networking or you're simply trying to trick people into disliking a tool (that attacks your tool).

As far as your concern about facebook's resources, it seems highly disingenuous in light of the fact that your tool automatically makes a series of two or more http requests (that generate real, dynamic responses) to any site (including facebook) you include a handler for any time it sees a new session on the wire. Without any consent, including hijacked session cookies, even if the firesheep user never once clicks to hijack it.

You have every right to release whatever wannabe click2pwn tools you want. You even have a fair point about session infrastructure, though you made it with all the subtlety of a wrecking ball.

You just look like an idiot, though, when you try cry about someone else's tool claiming injury to the very users and sites your own tool victimizes.

You should grow a much thicker skin if you want to play big boy security researcher.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Saw this today: BlackSheep - <http://www.zscaler.com/blacksheep.html>

Similar idea to FireShephard: "BlackSheep, also a Firefox plugin is designed to combat Firesheep. BlackSheep does this by dropping 'fake' session ID information on the wire and then monitors traffic to see if it has been hijacked. While Firesheep is largely passive, once it identifies session information for a targeted domain, it then makes a subsequent request to that same domain, using the hijacked session information in order to obtain the name of the hijacked user along with an image of the person, if available. It is this request that BlackSheep identifies in order to detect the presence of Firesheep on the network. When identified, the user will be receive [a] warning message:"

</comment><comment><USER10> But it doesn't actually fix the underlying problem, only mask it. It's like breaking your leg, taking some Tylenol, and then going for a walk.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's for Windows only.

<comment><USER12> It sounds like something that could be re-implemented in {Perl,Python,Ruby,Java} in a matter of minutes. It's just randomly spamming a carefully crafted cookie that will crash FireSheep.</comment></comment>


The camera that can see around corners - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/mar/20/camera-see-around-corners

<comment><USER2> Discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3733850></comment>


Curata Reader - A Google Reader replacement that I might actually use - <AUTHOR> https://reader.curata.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> To clarify: this isn't my app, I just stumbled onto it today. I've tried feedly, feedbin, newsblur, yoleo, and lector, and so far it's between feedbin and curata.</comment>


How I used machine learning as inspiration for physical paintings - <AUTHOR> https://blog.rememberlenny.com/post/169045188551/how-i-used-machine-learning-as-inspiration-for <comment><USER2> Impressive. But I used machine painting as inspiration for physical learning. And next thing in line is using physical machinery as inspiration for painted learning!

</comment><comment><USER3> Awesome article, I love seeing different art processes. Why ST for RL?</comment>


Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?em

<comment><USER2> I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much. If this is just a matter of science then shouldn't the facts speak loudly enough that those who argue to the contrary wouldn't have much to say at all? And why all the pressure to force through this issue through Congress without proper time for review? Weren't Democrats mad about it when Bush did that for the Patriot Act? I think they were correct in this objection but now they don't seem to mind as much.

I don't know if Krugman is right or wrong about climate change but one thing is pretty clear to me: If you're arguing about science using words like treason and betrayal is out of line.

I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing against it so dangerous.

<comment><USER3> _seem to not want to debate the topic much_

Let's say you are a pilot in an airplane at 30,000 feet and the fuel gage reads 20 minutes from empty. For how long are you willing to debate with your copilot that we need to declare an emergency and land right now? What if the gage is just broken and you think you have 20 minutes of fuel left?

At some point people that feel there is a problem will want to act. And the global worming debate is 20+ years old.

PS: "IPCC First Assessment Report 1990" The panel was established in 1988. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report>

<comment><USER4> right, but immediate death isn't on the line. a decrease in our standard of living over the next 50 years is on the line. since spending billions of dollars decreases our standard of living as well there is a valid debate: which course decreases our standard of living less?

<comment><USER3> You can also slow boil a lobster without causing them to react.

The trick is to react soon enough that the change is minor without over reacting and that's hard. I would propose a ~1% carbon fuel tax which funds wind farms which are then sold on the open market. You end up with a huge change at a small cost.

Option 2, create an semi independent government agency like the post office which takes 1 billion and builds wind / solar / hydro power plants. Use the "profit" of electricity sold to build more power plants and let exponential growth take off. This depends on the expected rate of return and could be accelerated with some debt financing.

In 20 years we may find it was pointless but we will have built infrastructure which is useful. Compared to a 2,980 billion dollar annual federal budget you can get a lot done with a change that's hard for most people to notice.

<comment><USER4> how do we know what infrastructure will be useful in 20 years? we have a solution now, nuclear, we're just too stupid to actually use it.

<comment><USER3> _what infrastructure will be useful in 20 years_

I expect we will still have wind in 20 years and using infrastructure to turn wind into electricity seems obvious. The other real advantages to wind farms is you get energy sooner and it is simpler to scale exponentially. AKA 1billion wind farm = 50 mil profit and next year you have 1.05 billion wind farm which makes a 5.25 million profit so you now have a 1.125 billion wind farm next year... You can do similar things with debt financing, but that's higher risk.

Not to mention a smaller Not In My Back Yard problem. I consider oil mostly a done deal, we are going to burn most of the cheep oil because it's just so useful. But there is far more coal luckily it's far simpler to replace coal power plants than oil in cars / boats. We are also close to the tipping point where the free market is going to switch to wind on it's own, because it's cheaper.

<comment><USER4> if "green" energy was profitable why would you need to subsidize it? people would do it voluntarily.

<comment><USER3> The profit from "green" energy needs to exceed the interest on the loan it takes to build it. Today the loans are still slightly more costly than the profit. It's like 5.9% profit vs 6% cost of a loan. The math get's complex as you need to take into account inflation, the rate of depreciation of your assets, and taxes.

This magnifies the amount of wind farm you can build today. If you had a billion and wanted to donate it to "clean energy" then you could get a loan for 5 billion in wind farms and use your billion to make up the difference. By the time the loan was paid off you would still have some money, but far less than if you had invested it well.

If on the other hand you a billion dollars and built a wind farm without borrowing money then you can keep expanding indefinitely. You would still have less profit but there would be little risk.

PS: With subsidy it is profitable today which is why we are building so many wind farms, but that's just the government handing out money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Climate change poses a clear and present danger to our way of life. How can > anyone justify failing to act?

Virtually complete predictive failure over the better part of the last decade. How can anyone justify acting?

<comment><USER6> For the most part I agree with you. But I'm a big believer in "better safe than sorry" and in that spirit I'd like to see some sensible change. The problem with an extreme position like "the world is going to end" is it makes those who don't agree with you instinctively jump to the opposite extreme.

The truth is the United States had been steadily making progress on reducing our impact on the planet all the way through the Clinton administration. It was only when the Global Warming nuts popped up that the Conservative side felt the need to throw on the brakes.

Now we have two irrational extreme's competing against each other.

<comment><USER7> I think the likelihood that one of our 'solutions' creates a greater problem than we had in the first place needs to be factored into the risk/reward analysis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Krugman should take his own words to heart when it comes to economics.

      But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn't see
      people who've thought hard about a crucial issue, and are
      trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were
      people who show no sign of being interested in the truth.
      They don't like the political and policy implications of
      climate change, so they've decided not to believe in it —
      and they'll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable,
      that feeds their denial.

This exactly describes the way he treats any free-market argument.

<comment><USER9> If that's true, you should have no problem posting an example rather than just asserting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Krugman can't be taken seriously. To call opponents "deniers" is to immediately concede a rational discussion.

I heard the hysterical arguments in college back in the early seventies about global cooling. This group is no more legimate, but much savvier politically.

</comment><comment><USER11> Krugman is a _dismal scientist_ (a.k.a. economist), not a _real_ scientist. His pedantry and demagogy are too much to bear. He can't even predict the effects of economic policy and now he's trying to predict the weather? What next?

Contrary to popular belief, the ice caps are not shriking all the time. Sure, they were shrinking really fast some years ago, and everyone went hysterical because of the rising sea levels and drowning polar bears. But when the ice caps started growing again, no one said a thing. If that isn't cherry-picking, I don't know what is.

<comment><USER12> Your data is wrong. Did you even bother to check?

[http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.htm...](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.html)

"Until recently, the majority of Arctic sea ice survived at least one summer and often several. But things have changed dramatically, according to a team of University of Colorado, Boulder, scientists led by Charles Fowler. Thin seasonal ice -- ice that melts and re-freezes every year -- makes up about 70 percent of the Arctic sea ice in wintertime, up from 40 to 50 percent in the 1980s and 1990s. Thicker ice, which survives two or more years, now comprises just 10 percent of wintertime ice cover, down from 30 to 40 percent.

According to researchers from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., the maximum sea ice extent for 2008-09, reached on Feb. 28, was 5.85 million square miles. That is 278,000 square miles less than the average extent for 1979 to 2000."

And yep, parts (but only parts) of the Antarctic ice cap are growing -- but guess why? Warmer air creating more snowfall.

You people are hopeless. Data, facts, evidence -- none of it sways you. It's like some religion.

<comment><USER11> Funny, but the data I had told a rather different story. Gonna look for the URLs to back it up and I will be right back.

 _"None of it sways you"_ -> please spare me of your attacks. They don't add anything to the discussion and they only weaken your point.

<comment><USER13> Why are your attacks on Krugman more constructive than the GP's attacks on you? Because Krugman isn't posting here?

<comment><USER11> Because Krugman is intellectually dishonest and because he's a public figure. His opinions shape the thoughts of the population. Nobody reads my opinions. Thank goodness I am no public figure.

If you're going to address the public, you should be honest. Krugman is an economist. He constantly sells half-baked, hand-waving arguments as absolute truths. And this is not because he's a "liberal". The same happens with all the "conservative" economists who also write dishonest articles.

Economics is hard. Very hard. An "expert" who tells the public he does not know will be frowned upon. But that's the point: experts don't know everything, and should not claim to know more than they do.

Greenspan himself wrote that when he ran the Fed sometimes they were completely "lost" and made decisions based more on gut-feeling than solid economic theory. Greenspan is pretty much retired now, so he can afford to be frank. Krugman still has a career, so he can't afford that.

<comment><USER14> _An "expert" who tells the public he does not know will be frowned upon. But that's the point: experts don't know everything, and should not claim to know more than they do._

This is the tension in science. You take all of that schooling, and for what? To admit you're as stumped as everybody else?

I mean seriously, when is the last time you saw a science show where they basically said "Beats me"? Instead it's all upbeat and glossed over.

The way we sell science and actual state of science are two completely different things.

<comment><USER11> Science shows are entertainment, mostly. Their goal is to promote Science, and I think they do their job well.

I have had the priviledge of working with some truly top-notch scientists. A common trait among them is how honest they were on the limitations of their knowledge. They were not afraid to say they were wrong, or that they didn't know.

This was in their academic environment. I don't know if they would be that honest when addressing the public. The average person would probably not be able to understand how's it possible that an illustrious professor has spent his entire career studying elementary particles and is still baffled by them. That is due to the fact that the average person does not know what deep knowledge is, and does not need to know.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


High-school teen builds one-man submarine for $2,000 - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/29/tech/innovation/teenager-justin-beckerman-builds-working-submarine/index.html <comment><USER2> This is really neat. I probably drew 100 diagrams of submarine designs as a kid. Kudos to him for actually building one (or four for that matter).

I'm curious if the 30ft depth limit is simply a practical safety limit (if you remember back to High School Physics, 33ft of fresh water = 1 atmosphere of pressure) or if he actually worked out the limits of the drainage tubing/joints/skylight/other components. It would be cool if he did a technical writeup.

<comment><USER3> I also designed a bunch of submarines and wanted to build one for the masses. Until my friends told me I was crazy and I would kill myself.

My final design was using scuba tanks to equalize the internal pressure of the sub with ambient pressure at specific depth.

This was a clever design but limited it's usefulness to 30f as well.

It simplified the construction of the sub but limited its use as it required depressurization following the same rules applied to SCUBA divers. So at 30ft you could be submerged for a while, but any deeper it limited the time you could remained submerged unless you depressurized before surfacing.

<comment><USER4> The odds of killing yourself with this type of project must be pretty high.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> His website is linked from the article, but it's worth looking at because it has video and better images.

(<http://www.justinbeckerman.com/Site/Home.html>)

</comment><comment><USER6> Another teen that has built a submarine is Håkan Lans (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A5kan_Lans>). He built a submarine that took him close to 100 m deep (I find different sources, 90 - 110 m). This was in 1968 while he was 18-19 years old. He subsequently was drafted to FOA, the Swedish defense research institute, and is probably the most famous (to Swedes in general) now living Swedish inventor.

</comment><comment><USER7> "Hey Ferb, I know what we're gonna do today."

</comment><comment><USER7> I want to know what kind of school he goes to. His productivity makes me wonder if he is homeschooled or Unschooled.

Does anyone know?

<comment><USER8> "Mendham High School student Justin Beckerman builds one-man submarine" -from the article (highlights on the side)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is so cool and I've followed others doing similar "personal" submarines. I hope this continues trending and we see more private exploration of the seas. It's quite an engineering feat, analogous to space travel in some ways. The more work done in the field the more the cost will drop and the more accesible it will become. I imagine one day we'll see the ocean in a much different way.

</comment><comment><USER10> There was a guy at a recent RefreshMiami event who built himself a submarine drone. Thing had a basic AI to let it swim on its own in his pool.

</comment><comment><USER11> Sounds incredibly dangerous, I hope they have some kind of backup or rescue plan. Also without air tanks he could easily suffocate.

<comment><USER12> Relatively little danger, with the proper care and attention (it pumps oxygen from the surface). Also, watch some of his interviews, he seems very competent.

Finally; sometimes a little bit of danger is what makes things worthwhile :)

<comment><USER13> I imagine having a small pony bottle in with him would be enough to return to the surface safely. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pony_bottle>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Awesome. Looks dangerous as hell, but I'm sure he'll be fine.</comment>


Abstract Algebra for developers and people who hate math - part 2 - <AUTHOR> http://poincare101.blogspot.com/2011/12/abstract-algebra-presented-in-non.html

<comment><USER2> This post is probably a hard-sell for people who hate math, but I bet developers will come back to it when the next post on cryptography hits HN.

Good job presenting modular arithmetic as clock arithmetic. The concept is easy to understand. When you start generalize it is when the magic of Abstract Algebra will happen.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback :)

Cryptography entry is coming this weekend :D

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> no comments?</comment>


Un-mixing using lasers to make new crystals - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2018-03-un-mixing-lasers-crystals.html <comment><USER2> Would really like to know what kinds of things end up benefitting from this. Crystals are great.</comment>


Charlie Wolf: Verizon iPhone Will 'Suck the Wind Out of Android's Growth' - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/01/14/wolf-suck-the-wind <comment> joe-mccann The reason his assertion is false as the growth of Android is not tied to a single carrier or device. It has more to do with the OEMs adopting Android over Symbian or WP7. Motorola became cashflow positive by using Android. HTC can't keep up with demand.

Growth is not tied simply to the US market either. Android usage is exploding worldwide specifically with cheap handsets in huge countries such as those in SE Asia.

So Gruber, blinded by his own fanaticism, actually thinks Verizon's iPhone offering is going to compete with 50+ OEMs' adoption and usage of Android? I think not.

</comment><comment><USER2> Full article here: [http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20110112/verizon- iphone-w...](http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20110112/verizon-iphone-will- suck-the-wind-out-of-androids-growth/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I am an android user with absolutely no intention of switching, that said, this is a completely reasonable set of arguments. The iphone will sell on Verizon by the millions and fast, faster than Android, hopefully it will force manufactures and Google to step up their game.

Not sure about the future of pad computing though.

<comment><USER4> Both of my business partners are on Verizon and both just got Android phones (less than 3 months ago).

They are both planning on switching to iPhone pretty much immediately now.

Developers are not typical users; my business partners are much more the norm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone in America look at data points for outside of it?

Android is doing very well in the UK, for instance, where you can get Android on every carrier...

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't get why Gruber cares so much. It's like the iPhone is his own personal creation and that he is brutally beaten every time someone makes a call with an Android phone. But the problem is ... it isn't, and he isn't. He doesn't even work for Apple.

There is room in the marketplace for several types of phones. The iPhone is for those who want a controlled experience where every i is dotted and every t is crossed. Android is for people that are willing to live on the bleeding edge to be able to connect to their OpenVPN at home, even if it means their animations stutter a little bit because of GC. It's also cheaper, which always picks up sales.

So why all this ultra-emotional hate? It's just so _stupid_. Buy the phone you like. Develop apps on a platform you like. If you change your mind, buy a different phone.

Let's debate which color is best. I prefer green. Anyone that likes any other color is clearly dumber than me.

This is stupid, right? So why is it different when we are talking about pocket-sized telephones?

</comment><comment><USER7> I think there is plenty of room for Android devices, at lower price points.

<comment><USER8> Like $2839 for the iPhone over two years vs $2689 for a $50 Android phone over two years?

<comment><USER7> Right, the monthly cost is the same, so the only cost comparison consumers go through is the cost of the actual phones.

When they're standing in the store staring at two phones and the iphone is $200 and the android is $50 (or free) that seems like a big difference, all else being the same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm ready for sales of both to settle at some equilibrium, whatever that is. No doubt there'll continue to be tons of competition/innovation, marketshare fluctuations, and strong rivalry. But I have to think that pretty soon there'll be some degree of stasis reached, and people can start to get comfortable with the idea that they're both valid models, they both have strengths and weaknesses, and they're both going to be very successful for a long, long time to come.

</comment><comment><USER10> _no matter how cheap Android handsets get, the monthly plans are still the biggest cost_

While technically true, are most people really aware of that at the time of purchase? The service is something you pay for down the road, but the phone is something you pay for right now.

</comment><comment><USER11> This sort of talk is common for Americans who are amazingly ignorant of other markets. Even if the availability of the iPhone on CDMA will completely reverse the trend in America, there are many other markets in which Android has a lot of potential.

</comment><comment><USER12> One good thing coming out of all this is that Daring Fireball has become a good link aggregator and a collection point for anti-Android news and views.

</comment><comment><USER13> Can't we just wait and see in 6 months?</comment>


Processing.js v1.0 Released - <AUTHOR> http://processingjs.org/blog/?p=250

<comment><USER2> Processing in java is a really nice project and it would be really nice to be able to run processing visualization in the browser without having to run java applets, but the current lack of support for Internet Explorer (I do not know if it would even be possible to realize, BTW) is really preventing me to invest too much time in it. I have been using Raphael.js instead.

<comment><USER3> How does Processing.js do in IE9?

How much of it works with excanvas in IE <9? <http://code.google.com/p/explorercanvas/wiki/Instructions>

<comment><USER4> excanvas is pretty slow, I would personally prefer to just drop support for IE <9 than to go through the trouble of making sure it works with excanvas.

Also, canvas is just one of the html5 features it uses (there's e.g. also audio).

<comment><USER5> You could also add Google Chrome Frame to the page instead of outright dropping IE <9 support. At least it gives them another option, especially while IE9 is still in beta :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was looking at a couple of months ago - definitely a cool project!

However ultimately I don't see what the big advantages of using processing.js are compared to plain js with html5?

<comment><USER6> Processing is a graphics language that gives you a great abstraction for writing time-based animations with useful primitives. Neither Canvas nor SVG provide the same high-level starting point, meaning it takes more effort to achieve the same effects.

<comment><USER4> Thanks!

I think that is also what the website says, but when I experimented with both it didn't seem like drawing shapes/blitting bitmaps on canvas with js was all that different from doing it with processing, although I didn't try doing any animations.

One downside that turned me off about processing is that the available tools (IDEs, debuggers, profilers) are even worse than what js has - you basically have to use the js tools on the generated js.

Another down side is that the language is less powerful than js, but then again you can also code in js and use processing.js as a drawing library, which alleviates both issues.</comment></comment></comment>


What the Hell Is Functional Reactive Programming? - <AUTHOR> https://www.pandastrike.com/posts/20151130-what-the-hell-is-functional-reactive-programming <comment><USER2> That a a nice read, thanks. The level of detail and examples are cool.</comment>


NASA Discovers A Ring Around The Solar System - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113914677&ft=1&f=100 <comment><USER2> Why do the images from IBEX take 6 months to be composed?

<comment><USER3> AFAIK the IBEX isn't a photographic telescope, it develops its images through energetic neutral atoms and not photons. It takes over 10 hours for light to get from the sun to the heliosphere, so to retrieve particles that are travelling at sub-light velocities and are moving _into_ the solar wind must take considerable time alone, and then it requires building an image from the particle densities retrieved.

Simply put, unless you ask a NASA scientist exactly how and why, the answer is and likely always will be; it just does.

<comment><USER4> You don't retrieve those particles; an admittedly absurd extension of your reasoning would imply that it takes 200 million years to image a quasar, because that's how long it takes to retrieve the photons that form your image.

What we're seeing here is both faint and enormous. Both characteristics make it hard to detect, and it isn't bright enough to capture without a long exposure, plus you can't look at it during the day, and you can't see the side beyond the sun... all characteristics that lead to longer imaging times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Low-level signal = long exposure time

</comment><comment><USER6> Doesn't this make anyone else wonder about the accuracy of statements physisicts make about other galaxies? I mean, it seems to me like if we're still disocvering things like this about our solar system (relatively nearby) then how in the world can anyone be confident about statements made about other galaxies (compratively further off)?

To some degree, I'm sure its just the fact that articles written for non- scientests tend to make them sound more sure than they are, but it still seems strange to me...

<comment><USER7> Not really. They hadn't put this data together before. Now they did, and they found the ring. The conclusions about other galaxies are also based on data. It's not like anyone had previously said that there is no such ring around the solar system, the data just wasn't there.

<comment><USER6> Sure, but I guess my point is that we had only indirect data about the fringe of our solar system before, and now that we have more direct data (i.e. actually sending a satellite out there) we discover something pretty big. The data we have about further away galaxies is even more indirect and the light we get from them is subject to any number of possible phenomena we may not have accounted for. The level of confidence about the conclusions we draw though seems way to high given that its clear there are phenomena we don't know about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Causes a human to wonder how these protective stellar bubbles' interactions with the galactic environment affect the development of (possible) life in star systems.

</comment><comment> matt-kantor Remnants of our solar accretion disk?

<comment><USER9> The stripe is perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field of the galaxy and not in line with the ecliptic plane. The interview I heard here ([http://ww.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyI...](http://ww.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=113914677)) suggests that the hydrogen that makes up the stripe is being continuously accumulated, not leftover from old times.

<comment><USER3> If it's perpendicular to the solar systems trajectory, then it could potentially be an aerodynamics issue not taken into account.

AFAIK the solar system is moving at essentially supersonic speeds through the solar medium, which causes the bowshock, so couldn't this just be an eddy current we've been unable to distinguish either because it's not present in smaller scales, or simply because it's normally small enough to be a statistical anomaly?

The physics of our solar systems action are essentially similar to small body physics, the problem is that they're blown up on scale unimaginable to us. Essentially our comparison of physics is akin to comparing getting up to turn the tv on with a trip to Alpha Centauri and back.

<comment><USER10> Ummmmm... There is almost no air in space, which causes there to be no sound in space. Therefore, the ability to go 'supersonic' in space is highly overrated, seeing as sound simply doesn't even try. This all leads me to believe there's probably not bowshock either.

<comment><USER11> You're right that there isn't much air in space, but bowshock isn't specific to "air". There most definitely is bowshock in space: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_shock>

<comment><USER10> The person mentioned supersonic, so I figured that's what the bow wave was referring to. Doesn't help that I work in aircraft and haven't been keeping up on my space knowledge lately ;) (And I don't work on cool military supersonic things, so my supersonic is rusty too...)

I still maintain you can't do do supersonic things in space. The would imply sound moves in space.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In other news, women now find the solar system 10% more attractive.</comment>


QR code security risks in the car park - <AUTHOR> http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/09/14/qr-code-security-risks-car-park/

<comment><AUTHOR> This pretty much gives guidance on the use of QR codes for any purpose.</comment>


Google under investigation for 'Thanksgiving Four' firings, discouraging unions - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/09/google-under-investigation-from-nlrb.html <comment><USER2> Google has already been convicted in a wage fixing scheme with other Silicon Valley firms. They wouldn't even interview me when I was trying to leave Apple. I made a cool $3k from the settlement.

Guys, hey guys, I'm starting to think the "Don't be evil" thing has always been bullshit, at least when it comes to workers rights.

<comment><USER3> Wait, what, you received a damages payment because a company wouldn't interview you?

<comment><USER4> Because a company _illegally colluded with their competitors not to interview_ them.

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-google- settlement/a...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-google- settlement/apple-google-intel-adobe-to-pay-325-million-to-settle-hiring- lawsuit-idUSBREA4M0MY20140523)

<comment><USER5> Interviews were allowed, but recruiters weren't allowed to make the initial contact with employees.

<comment><USER4> Given the high level attention involved - direct emails between Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt - I'd fully expect that policy to bleed over into "don't interview/hire" to avoid any _appearance_ of having recruited them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting how the article gloss over the fact that, according to Google, the four fired employees were actually stalking other Google employees to check if they were working on projects they didn't like – namely, an in-development cloud services for US border cops. Now that the politics are getting involved, it will get worse before it gets any better.

<comment><USER7> I think you forgot to say "According to Google". Of course Google says they did nothing wrong.

<comment><USER6> True. I added that to my comment, thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> We need a tech worker's union. And technology around communication and setting up strikes etc.

<comment><USER9> No we don't. We are probably the most privileged workers in the world. If we are mistreated, we can quit and get another job down the street, likely with a raise. It's not worth trading for all the bullshit that comes along with unions.

<comment><USER10> Doctors, lawyers and actors all have unions, and their ranks include higher paid, more privileged workers than most tech folks could dream of.

<comment><USER9> SAG doesn't exist for the movie stars. It's for the nobodies and the up-and- comers to avoid getting screwed by excessive unpaid work for "exposure" or who get squeezed into long term contracts before they have star power.

I'd like to see stats on union participation among doctors and lawyers. I'd bet it's vanishingly small, especially for lawyers.

<comment><USER11> SAG protections also benefit movie stars. It was created by a group of stars to challenge the enormous commercial leverage of the studios back in the "studio system" era of Hollywood.

Stars have surprisingly little leverage against studios. Only a few actors can consistently sell a movie regardless of quality--currently, only Dwayne Johnson and Tom Cruise. When stars have leverage in negotiations, it's generally because _other_ putative participants (usually investors or producers) have hinged their participation on the participation of one or more specific actors.

 _I'd like to see stats on union participation among doctors and lawyers. I'd bet it's vanishingly small, especially for lawyers._

Almost all public sector lawyers belong to a union. This includes those working for the county, state, and federal governments in a legal capacity, as well as those working at most major cities.

The same is generally true of doctors working for the public sector. Notably, in contrast to the legal field, there are a number of doctors unions for doctors employed by private sector employers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> They will probably get an extremely high and disproportionate severance package as is American tradition. But nobody even similar will ever get hired again. Instead Google probably will just pay consultants on how to keep employees in line without them noticing. Perhaps internal data sharing will also be restricted more.

</comment><comment><USER13> It is astonishing the continuous attempts by the highest paid workers, in one of the most well-known companies in the world, to keep trying to bring down the "system". The only thing i can think of is "bite the hand that feeds you".

Do the extremely "woke" crowd working in such high tech companies know what could happen to their salaries and perks if they are to be part of a highly regulated industry, or they haven't thought about the second/third order effects yet?

Do these supporters know that they can go work at other places that don't pay $200k+, so that they too can go live like the regular people?

I'm pretty sure that there are N number of refugee camps that could use a basic application built to keep track of refugees. But of course, that doesn't come with 3 chef prepared meals per day and dry cleaning in house.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm pretty sure a union shop vote of software engineers would be defeated 80/20 but it would be fun to see someone at google try. These organizers live in fantasy land!

<comment><USER7> That's true, although I suspect if Google keeps firing people on trumped-up accusations whenever they criticize management, more people may feel they want an organization set up to defend them.

<comment><USER15> > trumped-up accusations

So are you alleging that this...

> We dismissed four individuals who were engaged in intentional and often > repeated violations of our longstanding data security policies, including > systematically accessing and disseminating other employees' materials and > work...

...is trumped-up? I have not seen any articles which dispute that these fired employees were basically tracking other employees work activities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> They'll get hit with some small monetary penalty.

Nothing is going to change until we replace our anti-worker government with pro-worker government.

<comment><USER17> Why should they get a penalty at all? We want things like freedom of speech but not freedom of who we allow inside our private lives?

<comment><USER18> ... uh, what?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't see Google losing.

</comment><comment><USER20> Now that Sundar "McKinsey" Pichai runs the whole thing, you can expect much more of this, irrespective of the outcome of this investigation. In fact, it looks like you can expect more of this at all top tech firms. Just the other day Bezos came out with his "screw the activist employees" thing. Nadella (and MS in general) never really had any sympathy for activist employees in the first place (although they're going full bore on "diversity", openly and unabashedly discriminating against men in their hiring). I also never head any stories of glorious activism from Netflix. That leaves Facebook. I'm pretty sure Zuck is tired of this bullshit as well.

</comment><comment><USER21> That's two cases where politicians jumped the gun to make something that isn't decided yet a decisive campaign issue:

\- Elizabeth Warren Ramps Up Attacks on Apple Card Bias Claims

\- The four got public support from presidential front-runners Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who took to Twitter to bash Google for alleged "anti-union" actions.

What if this turns out to go out with a whimper? The Apple Card bias was something unrelated to gender that got blown up by someone popular, and these firings were carefully vetted and are legally justified?

Will these politicians apologize for jumping the gun? I bet they will point out they were the first when it turns out any other way...

<comment><USER22> The Apple Card bias is a real problem. Who cares whether it's about gender or not? If it's not about gender, the responsibility lies on the bad actor to prove otherwise. The most logical conclusion - based on the events that occurred and the info the general public has - is that it's about gender.

They could have defused the controversy almost immediately by identifying the actual cause and fixing it. Part of the reason the story blew up was that DHH and his wife struggled _at length_ to even get an explanation for the problem or find a human who could fix it. The opacity of that whole machine and its resistance to correction is why it became a fuss. I honestly don't care whether it turns out to be about gender, because the _end result_ of that system is that someone got discriminated against in a way that was indistinguishable from being gender discrimination. In the same fashion, if your pricing algorithm accidentally (due to training set bias or whatever) has a 20% higher chance to overcharge people of color, it doesn't really matter how it got that way. It's a racist algorithm and that doesn't mean you're a racist: It just means you have to fix it.

Similarly, if the firings were carefully vetted and legally justified, they could have done a better job of explaining that rationale to the public. As a former Google employee the public rationale was obviously deceptive in some fashion, and undermines any suspicion I might have had regarding the employees in question. I worked with plenty of people at that company who probably deserved to be fired, but when the company behaves _that way_ in public and selects people in a way that coincidentally undermines union organizing, I know who I'm going to suspect.

<comment><USER21> > The Apple Card bias is a real problem. Who cares whether it's about gender > or not? If it's not about gender, the responsibility lies on the bad actor > to prove otherwise. The most logical conclusion - based on the events that > occurred and the info the general public has - is that it's about gender.

And I work with credit risk models and can tell you there is a negligible chance that gender is causing a 20x credit limit increase. No protected variable will have so much influence, and Apple/GS are not even legally allowed to directly reference such variables.

It may be the most logical conclusion for the general public, but all they see is the output of a black box. DHH jumped to conclusions that it had to be something about gender, with n=1.

Who says there is a problem that needs fixing? Demanding that women and men always receive equal limits is not about fairness, it is a very radical notion that makes discriminative credit risk scoring almost impossible.

I am not saying that Apple/GS did not mess up here, and could have been more transparent, but, in their defense: Oftentimes you can't be more transparent (like when Google closes an account for posting something illegal, they have to keep mum, while the user loudly complains online that they got banned for doing nothing), an help desk person is never going to be able to give an explanation for a model decision (this is usually a good thing), and DHH seemed to be barking up the wrong tree all together (what if the different limits were the result of a, completely legal, influencer program or randomized trial?).

It really does matter how it got that way. If 20% of people of color vs. white people have a low income (a non-protected variable), I am perfectly allowed to use that variable to deny them a loan more often, even if the result is that 20% of people of color don't receive a loan. That's not a racist algorithm, however it would be racist if I start ignoring income of certain people as to achieve racial demographic parity in loans.

Similarly, as this is an ongoing investigation now, and they probably anticipated that, Google was probably legally very limited in what they could disclose. I bet some people with all the knowledge of the data - and colleague snooping are shaking their heads at some of the public perception of this case as union-busting.

The opposite of accepting a coincidence once in a while is viewing everything through the lens of intentional discrimination.

<comment><USER23> > It really does matter how it got that way. If 20% of people of color vs. > white people have a low income (a non-protected variable), I am perfectly > allowed to use that variable to deny them a loan more often, even if the > result is that 20% of people of color don't receive a loan. That's not a > racist algorithm, however it would be racist if I start ignoring income of > certain people as to achieve racial demographic parity in loans.

It's not that simple. The principle of "disparate impact" means that you can't, in general, make the decision in a way that adversely impacts people of color just because you didn't directly consider race in your decision.

You can use income in your decision because considering income "is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory interests." Income is directly related to ability to repay a loan, so you need to consider it. You can't just use any old variable you want to. You can't deny people for a loan based on what genre of music they listen to, because that has no justifiable connection to whether they will repay a loan.

<comment><USER21> Everything, including income, is eventually correlated with race. The point I was making counters "does not matter how, just the outcome matters": The model disapproved you not because you are black, but because you have a low income. There _is_ societal racism there that needs addressing with policy and regulation, not by handicapping your model by throwing away non-protected variables. The -perfectly legal-outcome will be that fewer people of color receive a loan.

I know that you can't use just any old variable, but I tried enough to know that music genre would probably be an informative feature (dibs on providing loans to classical - and Judeo-Christian religious music lovers, you are free to underwrite the dubstep - and ghetto rap fans).

<comment><USER23> Music preferences undoubtedly would be correlated with risk. You still can't use them because of disparate impact.

To get away with making a decision in a way that has disparate impact, you need to have a legitimate need to be making the decision that way. In the case of income, you can justify needing to use it in your decision, because income is directly connected to ability to repay. In the case of music preferences, you can't, because there is no direct connection to loan risk.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Freelance web dev best practices... - <AUTHOR> I just started doing freelance web dev and design. But I'm inexperienced. I've been starting everything from scratch, just blank textwrangler and photoshop.
What are some best practices to get fast and efficient? (For instance, should I be developing on WordPress, using custom form templates, etc?)
Thanks. <comment><USER2> Hey, Oldmanstan.

I do freelance web development, project management, and (some) design. Here's a few thoughts I have on my process. These are things I'm doing to stay fast and efficient. Best of luck to you in your work.

# Optimize for Efficiency

When you have a chose of a tool (platform, application, business practice), optimize to the tool that takes you less time to use. If you're thinking about how to develop sites and you're debating between using a CMS like Wordpress or maintaining static HTML files, I default to picking the tool that will save me more time in the long run. In my case, I use Wordpress for 99.9% of my projects because I know it saves me time in building, deploying, and maintaining websites for customers. There was invested time up front, but now I don't have to worry about how much time it will take to add 1 link to the navigation on a 30 page site coded in static HTML. (Hint: Too long.)

The same holds for business practices. If you're thinking about how to market yourself, pick something that has the highest return on your time. A few months ago I was debating marketing strategies to find my next paying customer. I narrowed the list down to:

* Launch a website * Email Chamber of Commerce Members * Go to Networking Events * Call up prospects

I then estimated how much time each activity would take and the expected number of customers I could expect to acquire. I chose to focus on the strategy that I felt would have the biggest probability of success: directly calling up prospects.

# Tools

Here's a few tools that I recommend. They help me stay fast and efficient on the projects I do:

* Basecamp

Cloud based project management software. I just started using this a few weeks ago on a new project and I'm immensely happy. It's removed all the friction of multiple emails and forgotten todos on the client's side. Basecamp acts as a one-stop repository on what needs to be done, the project status, and any resources that you need to take note of.

Do yourself the favor of registering for their free plan and playing around with it. By no means do you have to use this, but keep it in mind if you ever end up with a 57 email chain in Gmail with a client over todos they need to take care of.

* CloudApp

Simple file, image, and link sharing. I use CloudApp to manage sharing screenshots and files with clients. Take a screenshot in OSX, the screenshot is uploaded to cloud's web server and a URL is placed in your clipboard. Simply paste the URL into an email and - boom - your client doesn't have to worry about downloading an attachment. Better yet? Analytics show you when the URL was clicked. Best yet? Just drag files or links to the CloudApp menubar icon and it gives you a short url to send to a client for the client to access the files.

* SimpleNote

Super-awesome cloud based notepad. Syncs to iPhone / iPad devices. Great for jotting down notes or reminders and syncing information across multiple computers / devices. This is my preferred digital scratch pad.

* Wordpress and Wordpress Themes

I love Wordpress because it's powerful enough to do what I want and simple enough so clients don't get confused. I have 5 standard Wordpress themes that I use for 99% of my development work - offering clients a choice between 5 different themes makes it easy to have a balanced discussion about what they want and - bonus - is more efficient.

Ask a client what they want and you get a confusing, hand-wavy response. Show a client 5 example themes, ask questions to isolate what they need / want (what their explicit problem is), and build on the existing themes and you'll save yourself a lot of headache.

One of my first projects was an RFP for the University. The spec and design I submitted won the contract, but the time it took to get on the same page with the client killed my per-hour. Now, when working with clients, we can start with a concrete base design and build up.

* DropBox

I always introduce Dropbox to my non-technical friends as a backup / storage mechanism. Simply put, save the files you're working on in Dropbox. They'll automatically be backed up to the cloud. Accidentally delete something? You can restore the file from the Dropbox website. Hard drive crash? Dropbox has backed up everything to the cloud and you can install Dropbox on another computer and have all your files back.

On the road? Access any file in your Dropbox via the dropbox website.

Using Dropbox is a great time saver if you run into a system performance or a missing file. I was talking to a coworker at my day job on Friday and I insisted that I couldn't work without Dropbox - it's such a part of my project management workflow that I'd be lost without it.

* Freshbooks

Freshbooks takes the hassle out of invoicing. There are a ton of different invoicing apps out there, but I like Freshbooks because it is clean and simple to use. They have a free plan that you can use with up to 3 clients, so don't be worried about spending money at the start.

I love Freshbooks because it makes it easy to prepare a professional invoice / bill for clients. Don't waste time mucking around with templates or desktop apps - just use freshbooks and get it done and get paid in a few minutes.

* Mailchimp

I don't know if your clients have need for email marketing solutions, but if they do I highly recommend Mailchimp. There's a bunch of different email marketing platforms out there - so more hip than others - but I find the Dropbox examples and templates top notch, the support staff super helpful, and the learning curve very low. If you're working with larger lists (personally or for clients), it might not be the best solution, but for beginning freelance web dev and design, it should be fine.

# Books You Should Read

* Spin Selling: [http://www.amazon.com/SPIN-Selling-Neil-Rackham/dp/007051113...](http://www.amazon.com/SPIN-Selling-Neil-Rackham/dp/0070511136)

This is the best book on selling you'll ever read. It's targeted to people working with larger organizations, but the sales strategies it advocates are must-knows. After reading it, I was able to negotiate a $16,000 raise at my day job.

* Influence and the Psychology of Persuasion: [http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Robert...](http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Robert-Cialdini/dp/0688128165)

An amazing book on psychology. It's a great read if you'll be doing marketing and copywriting work and will help you land clients.

# Get Out of the Office

Steve Blank has a wonderful quote (<http://ka1.us/eGONiQ>) about getting out of the building and meeting customers.

> As I got up to leave the room, the CEO said, "I want you out of the building > talking to customers; find out who they are, how they > work, and what we > need to do to sell them lots of these new computers." Motioning to our VP of > Sales, he ordered: "Go with him and > get him in front of customers, and > both of you don't come back until you can tell us something we don't know."

Take the same approach. You don't know what your customers need - only your customers know what they need. If you want to work with small business owners, drop in on 12 of them and have a short (5-20) minute conversation about their needs.

I landed a customer recently just by walking into her shop, having a conversation with her, learning she wanted to do email marketing, and telling her that I had experience marketing to customers through email. In total, I spent 20 minutes of my time talking to a potential customer, learning about her business, and landing a $1,000 project.

# Outsource Meaningless Tasks

Aggressively use your network or online resources to outsource parts of the project.

Need a logo? Go to 99designs.com Need a voiceover? Check out fiverr.com Need a theme for a site? Check out woothemes.com, themeforest.net, or elegantthemes.com Need a photograph? Search flickr's creative commons

# Ignore Entrepreneurial Porn

You don't need business cards. You don't need a website. You don't need a detailed contract. You don't need a logo. You don't need a brochure.

You need customers. Each of those activities stand between you and a paying customer. Take the time to get out and talk to the people you want to work for. Directly ask them what their problems are. What do they wish they were able to do? Isolate what you can do to make their lives easier and then talk to them about how you can help them.

Get out and talk to customers and you'll find customers fast. There's a place for business cards, websites, and logos down the line, but not now. Be aggressive with the things that directly lead to acquiring new customers.

# Closing Thoughts

I hope these suggestions plant a seed in your mind and help you down the road. If you have any questions at all, feel free to ping me on skype (kaisdavis), twitter (@kaisdavis), or by email (email@example.com).

Best of luck in your freelancing!

<comment><USER3> Great points, but I differ on a few:

>You don't need a website.

I may be the exception, but I would be extremely reluctant to hire a contract web developer who did not have a website.

>You don't need a detailed contract.

Agreed in the sense that you don't need 30 pages of "...heretofore referred to as The Client...", but you do need to explicitly spell out a project timeline and payment schedule. I also strongly suggest requiring a 50% deposit up- front.

<comment><USER2> Hi PonyGumbo

> Contract

I completely agree. _DO_ have a document outlining cost, payment, timeline, and what you charge per-hour for support / over-time work.

 _Don't_ overthink it and write out a detailed contract before you even have customer #1.

> Website

I've never put up a website for my work / business, and never had a client ask. What purpose would the site have? I don't think it would be cost/time- effective in terms of lead generation, so it would just be a listing of the skills I have and examples of other work.

I'd rather spend the 1/10/100 hours I'll spend on the site meeting with potential customers and learning about their problems.

Maybe it's the different audiences. I'm working with small business owners on marketing campaigns. You or the submitter my be working with a different audiences who places a lot of value on a website. Me? I think I'd spend 50 hours 'optimizing' it and never get a lead, so I nixed the site and just talked to customers instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Get really good at the basics first, HTML, CSS and Javascript, those are a must. Then choose a back end language, php, python, ruby, etc, and learn them very well. Identify what your best area of development is, back end, front end. Focus on one area and try to delegate the other part. It also really depends on the type of person that you are (creative, technical..etc), what kind of programming do you like to do the most?. What is your ideal situation as a programmer, what would you like to be doing the most. Master a couple of languages and get jobs on that area. If you're gonna go for WordPress get really good at it, don't just customize themes, get to build plugins, filters, hooks, etc.

</comment><comment><USER5> Freelance web dev is a wide open landscape (and getting wider all the time with the addition of things like mobile apps, platforms such as Facebook, etc.) Couldn't even begin to tell you unless you were to be more specific. I suggest you focus on front end or back end. Take a look at the work out there and decide where you want to go. Sometimes the decisions are made for you (looking for a Wordpress developer and sometimes you have full decision making power.)

</comment><comment><USER6> Planning.

<http://versastudio.com/guide/ycombinator></comment>


Scipy 1.0 released - <AUTHOR> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-user/2017-October/037357.html <comment><USER2> Scipy+numpy made it possible for me to mostly stop using the various weird, usually proprietary and often highly specialized data analysis applications that are entrenched in the scientific community, and work with a nice, general purpose programming language instead. It was wonderful!

This is close to a decade ago, it kind of blows my mind that only now scipy 1.0 is released. Not that it matters, I'm still a user, thanks team scipy!

<comment><USER3> Having spent many years writing arcane integration layers to sit between user- facing services and the weird, usually proprietary and often highly specialized data analysis applications that were being used to do data processing, the ability to use the same language for everything saves years of time, effort and complexity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's really momentous that at LAST there is a Windows binary distribution available on PyPI. `pip install scipy numpy matplotlib` finally just works when you install Python on Windows.

<comment><USER5> For years I used Gohlkes installers/wheels[0] to install a great deal of libs on windows easily, SciPy amongst them. For a few packages, it still is the best alternative.

[0] [http://www.lfd.uci.edu/~gohlke/pythonlibs/](http://www.lfd.uci.edu/~gohlke/pythonlibs/)

<comment><USER3> It's still a bit scary to me that one of the lynchpins of Python Data Processing remains, to some extent, to be this page.

<comment><USER6> You only need it if you cannot use a *nix?

So a lynchpins for the Windows Python Data Processing community?

<comment><USER7> Sadly not everyone can live in a *nix environment. Supporting Windows developers is a pretty damn big lynchpin...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Congratulations!

Among many others, AI researchers all over the planet owe a debt of gratitude to these guys. Python dominates in AI research, and deep learning in particular, in part because it has a wealth of libraries like Scipy.

So, THANK YOU!

</comment><comment><USER9> > Many of us are a bit perfectionist, and therefore are reluctant to call > something "1.0" because it may imply that it's "finished" or "we are 100% > happy with it".

I always love to see this attitude/approach in an open source project, especially in such a mature one like Scipy. Kudos to the team!

<comment><USER10> They could adapt TeX versioning scheme (latest release is 3.14159265).

<comment><USER11> I've also seen a similar scheme on this lib. Each release just keeps adding a nine. They're at version 0.999999999 now:

[https://pypi.python.org/pypi/html5lib](https://pypi.python.org/pypi/html5lib)

<comment><USER12> That's mostly a horrible accident though.

In retrospect what we should have done is released version 1.0 about 7 years ago when the parser was more or less fully compliant with the spec at the time and just been prepared to bump the version for backwards-incompatible changes (note that at the time the conventions of semver were not as widely adopted as they are now).

What actually happened was we planned a 1.0 release, and so made a series of "final" pre-1.0 version numbers like 0.90, 0.99,etc. and then kept finding one more thing to do, coupled with a decreasing amount of time working on it, and finally spec changes that we didn't keep up with. There certainly wasn't any TeX-like intent to converge on a number, just a series of decisions that seemed reasonable at the time, but had an overall effect that was ridiculous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Lots of related projects getting that long overdue major version number now. SymPy 1.0 was released last year and I released mpmath 1.0 less than a month ago, both projects 10 years old. SciPy's 16 years is a notch more impressive, though. Congratulations, and thanks to the SciPy developers for their hard work!

</comment><comment><USER14> Scipy and numpy are both awesome. But I've always wondered what causes so many widely used projects to hold off for so long on the 1.0 release?

<comment><USER15> Probably this:

 _Many of us are a bit perfectionist, and therefore are reluctant to call something "1.0" because it may imply that it's "finished" or "we are 100% happy with it". This is normal for many open source projects, however that doesn't make it right._ (from the post)

<comment><USER14> Didn't catch that, thanks.</comment></comment></comment>


Migrating From Rails To Ember.js - <AUTHOR> https://grouptalent.com/blog/migrating-from-rails-to-ember

<comment><USER2> Nice post, thanks!

I recently started to play with Ember on a Rails 4 app for fun. On the other hand, we are moving right now at my job to a more API-style Rails app too, but with Backbone (soon)...

You might be interested in looking at <http://emblemjs.com/> at some point. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> We already have some emblem code in production :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Are you by any chance using the new router (1.0 RC)?</comment>


QuantConnect wants to open source its algorithmic trading engine - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantconnect.com/blog/open-source-algorithmic-trading-platform <comment><USER2> Fantastic news. Awesome piece of software built but a very good team.

<comment><USER3> Thanks @joyanta! We're very excited about the next steps for the community & product

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> cool, opensourcing the platform will give to the world the opportunity to get and create the best backtesting platform for free.</comment>