Are We On the Verge of an Energy Breakthrough? - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/are-we-on-verge-of-huge-energy.html

<comment><USER2> Yes, thorium is huge. I don't know what it has to do with the rossi e-cat though, which smells like a scam. I'm flagging this article for being a terrible source on information about either separately, and being a confusing jumble trying to combine the two topics.

<comment><USER3> I'm definitely skeptical of the e-cat but it sounds simple enough to build at home. But yes, the whole 'unexplained scientific pheonmena' combined with we can't show you the design because we don't have patents, combined with we can't get patents because the science is unproven sounds like the typical scam.

<comment><USER2> I just looked into it and it is a claim of cold fusion. They say they've been running successfully for two years now. fucking bullshit. Thorium is too important to be associated with this crap.

<comment><USER3> The really weird thing is it's at the end of the energy producing fusion chain, eg. nickel to copper / iron.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Lest you be lured into trusting Josephson's word because he is a Nobel laureate, be aware that he holds a number of views that are _waaay_ out of the mainstream.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_David_Josephson#Parapsych...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_David_Josephson#Parapsychology)

<comment><USER3> He actually sounds somewhat reasonable that we should examine the evidence more closely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is probably a scam: [http://esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi- Rossi_Energy-...](http://esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Energy- Catalyzer)

</comment><comment><USER6> I found this bit a little jarring: _"Thorium reactors would not melt down, in part because they require an external input to produce fission."_

As we should all know by know, this isn't the only risk for meltdowns. The Fukushima reactors scrammed almost instantly after the earthquake, well before the tsunami, but it was the continual heat production of the fission products in spent fuel which was the real danger.</comment>


A Practitioner's Guide to Net Promoter Score - <AUTHOR> http://andrewchen.co/a-practitioners-guide-to-net-promoter-score/ <comment><USER2> Don't ask for upvotes: "dear HN friends- please read and upvote the latest essay on Net Promoter Score in the /newest section :) Thanks."

[https://twitter.com/andrewchen/status/696777766377623552](https://twitter.com/andrewchen/status/696777766377623552)

</comment><comment><USER3> This post has some useful advice on how and when to implement an NPS survey. As someone who is implementing it for the first time at my company it was helpful to learn that LinkedIn sees NPS as a lagging indicator and that they don't expect to see a meaningful change right after product launches. It takes time for users to internalize the change and thus change their "promote" opinion.

I was a bit surprised that they only survey NPS once a quarter. I'd expect this to be an ongoing weekly survey, especially since LinkedIn has the traffic to get significance quickly from a small % of their visitors.</comment>


Essays and Explorations - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/from-the-diaries-of-john-henry <comment><AUTHOR> Greetings to Hacker News. Sharing a recently completed collection of essays. This probably isn't the forum for such a thing but since Y-Combinator played a part in some of the startup material thought I'd share. Best regards to this community.</comment>


Google Play Services Undermine Privacy of Ireland's Covid Tracing App - <AUTHOR> https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40019492.html <comment><USER2> 309 points for the story yesterday about the app being donated to Linux.

4 points for the story on it being a privacy nightmare.

Fuck.</comment>


Here's NASA's New Design for a Warp Drive Ship - <AUTHOR> http://io9.com/heres-nasas-new-design-for-a-warp-drive-ship-1588948192

<comment><USER2> This has to be bullshit, right? Surely, the Inertia alone would kill people? and wait, I thought we didn't know of anything that could travel faster than light?

<comment><USER3> It's a small group in NASA that has a theoretical idea for a FTL spaceship. It uses a hypothetical material with some properties that no known material has. They don't have a working prototype or anything similar to that.

Now they found a designer that made a few computer generated graphics of the spaceship. This clearly doesn't make the solution of the problems any closer. The nice rendered images are misleading, and this is the reason that caused Kickstarter to ban computer generated image.

The story surface every few months with a different disguise. Latest discussion on the topic: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7872131#up_7874883](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7872131#up_7874883) (39 points, 21 hours ago, 52 comments)</comment></comment>


Policing the digital cartels - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/9de9fb80-cd23-11e6-864f-20dcb35cede2 <comment><USER2> The article brings up an interesting point. While normally collusion is a direct crime - I call up my competitor and we make a deal. Algorithms allow a more nuanced form: Create a set of rules that in practice enforce a cartel.

This subtle change makes proving intent much more difficult. Is it just that these things are so complex we didn't see that interaction? Or was it on purpose.

</comment><comment><USER3> Title: Policing Digital Cartels

<comment><AUTHOR> oh, do I have to post with the exact title?

<comment><USER4> It's preferred, though there are exceptions.

 _Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or link bait._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks, i'm new here :)

<comment><USER5> No problem, and welcome! We've updated the title from "Collusion among machines".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Paywalled.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm greeted with a subscription page and no article.

<comment><USER8> [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cfhR15...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cfhR15V_YzMJ:https://www.ft.com/content/9de9fb80-cd23-11e6-864f-20dcb35cede2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk)

<comment><USER9> Thank you

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> We aren't supposed to post stuff on HN that has paywalls you can't get past. Clicking from Google doesn't do anything for this one.

<comment><USER11> Downvotes for offtopic. Where on the guidelines does it say this?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER10> Your downvote is misplaced, as there is no topic because nobody can see the damned article. The only topic that can be discussed is, in fact, the paywall. Dang has specified that paywalls with workarounds are OK [1]. This implies that those without workarounds are not.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989)

<comment><USER4> _nobody can see the damned article._

That's not true. Agreed that some are having issues, and it's not clear why, and I agree that's a problem. That said, some are not. I don't have a subscription and the web link works for me.

You've gone on about the paywall without acknowledging that you've tried the suggested workarounds which were already posted in the thread.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13377234](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13377234)

It's one thing to express what you've tried and what doesn't work for you. It's another to continue complaining about it without recognizing that it's not a universal problem. Please show some nuance.

<comment><USER10> You appear to be the one and only person that this worked for. As I stated in my original comment, clicking over from Google (which is the entire point of the "web" link) doesn't solve it. I don't know why it solved it for you, but judging from the comments on this article it literally only worked for you. This is a problem on all FT links. From here on out I will simply automatically flag any FT link on HN.

When you say "some are not," you actually only mean "I am not". Please show some regard for other people.

<comment><USER12> > You appear to be the one and only person that this worked for.

It worked for me on my iPhone over T-Mobile's LTE network. It is now working for me at home from Safari on my Mac over Comcast. In both cases, I hit the "web" link, and click on the top result.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


China's Economy to Reap Benefits That Once Flowed to U.S - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-18/china-as-no-1-economy-to-reap-benefits-that-once-flowed-to-u-s <comment><USER2> I know it's wrongthink so say that globalism has seemed like a bad thing, so: I'm a programmer, not an economist. Could somebody explain to me why trying to effect the US's stance as an economic leader using tariffs is a bad idea?

Naively, globalism seems to benefit the ultra wealthy but this seems to be at the cost of the middle class.

Also: globalism seems to benefit the Chinese middle glass at the cost of the American.

<comment><USER3> Theoretically, the argument against tariffs stems from the idea that a market increases the net surplus for everyone involved in the trade. This is because each individual in the economy would be able to focus on their 'comparative advantage' and trade to obtain a larger basket of goods than if they tried to create everything themselves.

The way the US is expected to enjoy this trade surplus (in a world where it is a net importer) is through lower prices for goods. The benefit the US gains from this reduction in prices etc. is meant to on the whole offset the loss in jobs, exports etc that might come from globalism. Whether this happens or not is clearly a moot point.

I believe the issue might be that while the US has enjoyed the surpluses of globalism, it has not redistributed that surplus well. In a tariff world, the need for redistribution is less - factory workers get the money directly in the form of a paycheck etc through their protected jobs. In a non-tariff world, these jobs no longer exist but the government would ideally now offset that loss through investments in education, infrastructure, new job opportunities etc.

Hope this answers why globalism is supposed to work and where it may not be working.

<comment><USER4> I feel this is true only at an individual level, but is not true for a collective level.

Take two choices, you can either buy a 15$ tshirt in your local country, or a 10$ tshirt from another country. At an individual level it makes sense to buy the cheaper one.

But from a country's perspective, those 15$ spent in the economy are earned by someone in the economy to be spent again. On the other hand, the 10$ sent overseas have no effect of money circulation. Saving those 5$ over a t-shirt might cost 20$ in GDP. The calculations need to be done regarding velocity of money, taxation rate, and savings. But I do think that not all money is equal. 10$ spent overseas and 5$ spent domestically is less favorable than 15$ spent domestically.

I think protectionism and tariffs cannot be cast as inherently failures, and are necessary to build an economy.

<comment><USER5> Why is that? I mean you can tell a story where the local $15 shirt benefits the local country more but it's just as a easy to tell a story where the local country benefits more from buying the t-shirt abroad.

If you buy the foreign t-shirt there's $5 more floating around in the economy for you to spend. Plus you have a t-shirt. Plus the local country is likely to stop making t-shirts (which it manifestly is not competitive at) and put that money into something that it is competitive at i.e. away from something that is not productive and into something that _is_ productive which is to say efficient which is better for everyone - even better for the environment as resources are not wasted by inefficiently making goods.

<comment><USER4> I don't think I ever implied that free trade is always harmful. Just that at times tariffs and protectionism may be beneficial.

The onus is on the other side which claims that free trade is always beneficial, and any tariffs or protectionism is harmful.

Their analysis seems to work with the assumption that every participant in the economy practices free trade. That the effect of 10$ spent in USA is equal to 10$ in china, so that they don't have to take money circulation in their model.

I find that assumption very false. 10$ that go to your local country is largely spent as tax to the country, rent, food, and healthcare services in the local economy. If you send 10$ to China, they won't be spending it on American restaurants, housing, or healthcare. Clearly USA should have some preference to say 10.1$ being spent in USA vs 10$ in china.

It is fairly easy to see what I mean, and why "free trade is always good" is only true for the whole system, not individuals or groups of individuals (countries).

<comment><USER5> What happens to $10 sent to China? It's dollars after all. Do they use it to buy Chinese goods? They need Yuan for that so they'd have to exchange it for Yuan from someone with dollars. At some point that money would come back to the U.S. in exchange for good because ultimately that's what dollars are for - purchasing U.S. stuff.

To some extent the dollar is a reserve currency; people are willing to use it in place of their own currency so in some sense it will never come back to the U.S. To the degree this happens it's the equivalent of people taking paper from the U.S. and giving goods in return - which is to say, it's hard to understand how the U.S. loses on that deal.

<comment><USER4> I'm not talking about the currency, but it's monetary value. As such, you can imagine australia and China trading in us dollars. Is free trade always beneficial for Australians?

If you still want to consider only usd and USA and China trade. Then usd is not just for purchasing us stuff. It is also a reserve currency that china holds.

It wasn't a question of currency at all, any wealth/money sent in a different economy is a loss to the original economy. A sizable gain in efficiency can offset that, but not every gain in free trade is of the required size, which is why tariffs should be desirable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have a hunch that the cluster and agglomeration effects that has fueled China's growth will slow as their economy becomes more advanced, and I can envision a fracturing of the global economy where the U.S and China stand as the two main axises based on what type of industry you're in.

What advanced economy will want to purchase Chinese aerospace or semiconductor products knowing all that we know regarding backdoors and their reputation for spying? Now of course, the US traffics in the same sorts of tactics but once China and the US are on level playing fields there will be other factors that determine whether or not you invest in China or the US: an alignment of political systems seems to me as an important factor.

As an analogy, as a renter I've furnished my apartment with Ikea almost exclusively: it's cheap, good enough, and I have no problem throwing it all away when I have to move. But once I settle down into a home, I'll want a product that is more stable, and has more built in quality to it. China is great for low to mid level manufacturing, but are you really going to trust the current regime for investment in mission critical systems?

</comment><comment><USER7> Until the people in corrupt countries are storing their wealth in Yuan and not dollars, the US is still in control of the biggest prize. There is a reason that the richest people in the world (especially the Chinese) spend a lot of time and effort getting some large fraction of their wealth into western jurisdictions, and in particular Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions (UK, USA, Canada, Australia). Those places have the longest history of respecting the rule of law and property rights(Switzerland excepted). How long can a political system last when a huge fraction of the wealthiest people living in it are afraid of it?

<comment><USER8> This. The dollar and euro are the rocks of stability in the currency market. To convert your money to yuan is the same as giving your money to the Chinese Communists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > China probably has become the world's biggest economy and will reap the > benefits that once flowed to the U.S

Ain't nobody gonna use the Yuan as a reserve currency when the rule of law there is so tenuous.

<comment><USER10> The US has hardly won any trust when they demonstrated how their word and their policies are just barely good for the length of a presidential term.

At least China is relatively stable and predictable. Which coincidentally are important qualities of a reserve currency.

<comment><USER9> Did the American legal system break while I wasn't looking? Wake me up when rich Americans start moving to China to protect their wealth and for protection from local government whims.

<comment><USER10> What does a nation care about the legal system of the country behind their reserve currency?

Furthermore, most "tax havens" are hardly known for their strong goverments and legal systems. Quite the opposite. Not that it matters, since this discussion is really about the reserve currencies of nations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Isn't Michael Bloomberg going to run for president? Just a hypothesis, but I think that might explain why I see so many negative articles continue to churn out of Bloomberg.

IMO, looking like a good time to start buying US stocks if you have the cash via dollar cost averaging.

</comment><comment><USER12> This wouldn't bother me very much, except for the absolutely horrendous corruption, racism, and colonialism that China seems to promote. Look at what they're doing to the Uighurs and imagine a world where they're the world's biggest superpower and no one is willing to tell them to stop. A world with China setting global policy will be a complete nightmare dystopia for anyone who isn't Han Chinese.

</comment><comment><USER13> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q49NOyJ8fNA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q49NOyJ8fNA)

</comment><comment><USER14> This country has a massive ego problem. Maybe if we can accept this we can stop posturing and actually do something.

<comment><USER15> By this, do you mean turning ego into something productive, or getting rid of it so that resistance to change can stop and growth can happen? Meanwhile, as far as attitudes go, I'm more disturbed by the pervasive zero-sum mindset coupled with ego. This leads to "if we are to win, they must lose," or even "if we fail, let's drag everyone down with us!"

</comment></comment><comment> village-idiot I'm sure internal political divisions will probably hasten this process. It's mildly comforting to know that we're not the only empire to self-destruct, but only mildly.

The only potential salvation here is China's debt. There is a possibility that China is sitting on a massive load of unmaintainable debt in their municipalities, with authoritarian regimes more capable of cooking the books on debt & growth than a democracy. They might flame out in the next decade, which would let the US retain its leadership.

<comment><USER16> > China is sitting on a massive load of unmaintainable debt in their > municipalities

Isn't the US sitting the same level? We raise the ceiling of what we feel is allowable debt every year or so to kick the can down the road?

<comment> village-idiot Yes and no.

Yes, the US has a ton of debt, and we definitely need to reduce our accumulation of it soon. No in that the US debt is out in the open, as is our growth numbers.

The important thing with debt is the growth rate in interest payments. Those can go up by changing rates, and by changing levels of debt. As long as your GDP out-grows your interest payments, there is no reason to stop. It's once your interest payments start outgrowing your economy (and thus your ability to tax & cover the payments) then you end up in a world of hurt.

With China, there are two distinct possibilities:

1\. They're lying about their GDP growth.

2\. They're lying about their debt.

They're been accused of 1 for a long time. There are some researchers using light emission to estimate GDP, who claim that China's GDP might be 25% lower than they claim [0]. Meanwhile they might have up to $5.8 trillion in debt tied up in their local government. This _doubles_ the "official" debt level of the Chinese government, a massive level of fraud if true.

Combined, the Chinese debt to GDP ratio might be as high as 150%. This is alarmingly high, much much higher than the US has ever reached. Keep in mind that China currently is paying a higher interest rate on its federal debt too compared to the US.

[0] [https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/new-study- shin...](https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/new-study-shines-light- literally-on-chinas-and-russias-fake-gdp-data/) [1] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy- debt/china-...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-debt/china- local-governments-hidden-debt-could-total-58-trillion-sp-idUSKCN1MQ0JH)</comment></comment></comment>


C++ Programming and Brain RAM - <AUTHOR> http://bitquabit.com/post/c++-programming-and-brain-ram/

<comment><USER2> I like the author's pragmatic approach to evaluating C++ as a programming tool. The question is not, as it is so often posed, "Is C++ too complicated?" (What does that even mean? Too complicated for what?) The question is, "Is C++ so complicated that it diverts too much of my attention and mental resources away from solving the problem at hand?" I personally agree that over the history of C++, the answer to that question has gone from "no" to "most likely so." More and more, C++ is becoming the hammer that forces you to take your eyes off the nail all the time. It seems to me that the areas in which the advantages gained from using C++ outweigh this disadvantage are shrinking fast.</comment>


How the Pentagon Comes Up with Code Words and Secret Project Nicknames - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29353/how-the-pentagon-comes-up-with-all-those-secret-project-nicknames-and-crazy-code-words <comment><USER2> _" Llama Fury" was a week-long Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) training exercise_

It's notable that the more obscure/technical the task, the more likely it is that amusing random combinations will apply. For more politicized things it's always names that 'just happen' sound super-patriotic like 'Valiant Shield' or 'Enduring Freedom'. I guarantee that if the invasion of Iraq had been called 'Llama Fury' there would have been a proper exit plan on a sensible timeframe.

</comment><comment><USER3> Its smart to automate this. So all meaning is removed and you avoid leaking intelligence. You don't want to call your operation to invade Kuwait DESERT STORM or something.

<comment> blaser-waffle I thought of a book like that. Foreign spies try to figure out who is running a sensitive operation by running a Leadership/Targeting operation to figure out who is running the show. It means they need to find out who decided to name the operation "OP SUPER SAIYIN" and "OP BRIGHT BLOTTER" or something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder if other governments have similar methods for their secretive code names or different methods entirely? The one that popped into my head (perhaps only because it sounds so whimsical, but yet the goals were so completely contemptible) was 'Operation Cherry Blossoms At Night' \- a plan that was formulated by Imperial Japan during WWII (but never acted upon) to perform attacks of biological warfare on southern California.

EDIT: For those interested - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cherry_Blossoms_at_N...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cherry_Blossoms_at_Night)

</comment><comment><USER5> I have always wondered this. I've always been somewhat enamoured with the stern and mysterious two-word nicknames of classified programs, such as the ones listed: 'HAVE BLUE', 'ACID GAMBIT', 'AUTUMN RETURN', 'SENIOR TREND'... Maybe I'll write my own generator for these.

<comment><USER6> I did this in bash a while ago. [https://github.com/JeremyGrosser/codenames](https://github.com/JeremyGrosser/codenames)

<comment><USER5> Very cool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My favorite, relayed to me by an ops planner in the business of such things, which I'm told was briefed up to the president, was Operation Double Dutch Rudder. The content I cannot discuss, but at one point said ops planner found himself low-crawling in-country to deliver a projector on his back to the HQ tent. Can't make this stuff it up. By the name, you can estimate the year of action.

<comment> blaser-waffle Dutch... so Reagan?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Probably not good for the government, but I always thought you should use porn terms -- that way if your project leaks, nobody can talk about it in public, and you will never, never, never rank for it if somebody does.

</comment><comment><USER9> Reminds me of Rainbow Codes[0].

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

</comment><comment><USER10> One code word I heard that is as plain as it can be is "Point Luck" used in Midway Battle.

</comment><comment><USER11> I have heard some pretty amazing nick names in my previous life, but I cannot share them. Oh well.

<comment><USER12> In the government or at a technology company?</comment></comment>


Starbucks, Coffee, and Coworking - <AUTHOR> http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/06/17/starbucks-were-just-not-that-into-you-but-we-could.aspx

<comment><USER2> "Starbucks needs to do some corporate soul searching. Take a look at American Express. It doesn't sell credit, it sells membership. Coca-Cola doesn't sell soft drinks, it sells refreshment. Starbucks, what do you sell … besides coffee? What do you stand for? Ambiance? Community? Social consciousness? Until you figure this out, count on losing both customers and shareholders."

This is totally wrong. In my opinion, Starbucks knows exactly what they stand for. They don't sell coffee, they sell a "lifestyle". If Starbucks were just a shop that sells coffee, it would've never become the giant it is today. People go to Starbucks to experience the hip, yuppie, modern ambiance. Not just for the coffee.

<comment><USER3> Indeed, what's so curious about this article is that Starbucks was the poster child for selling the experience versus the coffee, and has been used in many case studies to demonstrate exactly that point.

<comment><USER4> I think the idea is that, basically, the Starbucks "experience" is what city life _in general_ now feels like for these people. Starbucks is no longer differentiating on personality, because now everything else is _just like Starbucks_. they need a new schtick.

<comment><USER5> Exactly; and ironically enough, more indie coffeeshops have opened up recently precisely because Starbucks set their price point expectations so high that they get good margins out of it, versus $1 drip coffee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I kind of think of Starbucks as that early innovator that did a lot of footwork, (massively) introducing something new to consumers, that was ultimately destroyed by new entrants in the market. Think what AOL did with home internet access.

Starbucks made coffee not just something for adults/people who work but really brought it to a broader group of people with things like Frappuccinos. As a result, they kind of did all the R&D for competitors like McD's and Dunkin Donuts (along with everyone else that is coming out with iced coffee/coffee flavored drinks).

These competitors are able to eat into Starbucks' moat and differentiate by supplying beverages at a lower cost and supplanting it with existing food options. It puts a company like SBUX in a tough bind and I'm not sure how they're going to regain the oomph they once had.

<comment><USER7> They simply pretend to be a new startup. Think up a new name and a new image to compete/compliment starbucks and open stores nearby. Only the stock analysts need know they have the same owner.

Then all the kids who are too cool for starbucks can go to new-cool-bucks, dispising the people who go to starbucks - while putting money in their pocket. It's like people who are too rich to buy VW but will happily drive an Audi.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Funny, I just wrote a blog post yesterday about our extreme bootstrapping ways at Starbucks titled "Two Guys One Cup". We have free wifi because one of us has AT&T DSL at home (and you can log in with multiple laptops at the same time) and we sometimes bring seat cushions to make the chairs more comfortable. <http://grubwithus.blogspot.com>

<comment><USER9> You can get free wifi at starbucks without any AT&T setup at home. The steps:

\- buy a starbucks gift card ($5 minimum)

\- register the giftcard online

\- use the registration info when prompted when you connect to the network at SBUX.

\- you must make at least one purchase each month on the giftcard, e.g. a tall coffee for $1.50.

\- you can only use two MAC addresses on that card. Otherwise they'll lock your account, but you can call and get it unlocked.

\- with said giftcard you also get free refills and free flavorings of some type too, even if you don't use the giftcard to buy the coffee in the first place.

I go to starbucks pretty much every day and that's how I get online there.

<comment><USER10> <http://www.starbucks.com/retail/wireless.asp>

On session per day, limited to 2 hours.

<https://www.starbucks.com/cardrewards/default.asp>

<comment><USER9> That's the stated policy, but it hasn't been my experience. I've done many days at waaay over 2 hours.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Speaking of K-cups and single serve coffee, I recently discovered the Italian moka pot. Wow! Simple, easy to clean, makes good coffee.

<comment><USER12> I loved my Moka for awhile, but in the end it lost out to the ease of the k-cup machine at work. Most days I just don't want to spend 8-10 minutes making a cup (between prep, brewing, and cleanup).

<comment><USER11> This is true. But, if you brew one really strong cup in the morning, you can cut it with boiling water several times during the day to make regular strength coffee.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've been thinking about opening a cafe/coworking place in SF with some friends.

Which of the following would make you most want to work there?

\- great coffee

\- plentiful power outlets

\- comfortable seating

\- community (presence of other hackers/entrepreneurs)

<comment><USER14> Coffee, power outlets, a price that isn't ridiculous like the current co- working spaces in SF. Maybe some sort of programming quiz to keep out the weird "social media consultant" crowd. Also 24 hour access. Most (all?) coffee shops in SF close too early.

<comment><USER15> _a price that isn't ridiculous_

I used to work in a (government-funded) technology incubator, and have heard some of the discussions behind pricing spacing.

It makes no difference to the incubator whether space costs $50 a month, $200 a month, or $1,000 a month. We didn't go with $1,000 because that would make us price-uncompetitive with other feasible options in the region. We didn't go with $50 because we thought our core client group does not want to be bothered by people who think $200 is a lot of money.

Looking at the diversity among people working in San Fransisco, have you perhaps considered that the ridiculous price is designed to keep out the weird startup crowd? From the perspective of, say, a civil engineering consultant, an unemployed 21 year old in jeans and a T-shirt who has had three consecutive all-nighters since his last shower might not be the ideal coworking companion.

<comment><USER14> The co-working spaces in SF _are_ for the weird startup crowd. It turns out most of them are for the weird social media consultant crowd, because that is who runs them and they tend to be cliquey. They aren't business incubator spaces.

I'm pretty familiar with the spaces and people who run them here. One of them has to charge a lot because the space is really expensive. Another one has to charge a lot because they have trouble keeping it full, which I attribute to poor location. At yet another one, the guy is obviously making a profit because he's in a super cheap building.

I don't think the pricing is ridiculous from the perspective of the people running the space. They have to pass costs on. However, the people renting the space aren't getting a good deal unless they love the community. You're just renting a desk, which is free at the library, or a few coffee refills at any of the myriad coffee shops in the city... and you probably live somewhere, so you could just work at home, etc...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Oscar the Cat: Can Reliably Detect Impending Death - <AUTHOR> http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078108#t=article <comment><USER2> Wasn't there a _House_ episode where he debunks exactly this?

<comment><USER3> I came here for this comment</comment></comment>


Why don't more men take their wife's surname when they marry? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/07/why-dont-more-men-take-their-wives-last-names/565898/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> Interesting. I am marrying my fiancée in less than a month, so I've had time to think about this. I would have loved to take her name, but in the end, we decided that both will carry my name. Basically for this reason:

> _In medieval England, men who married women from wealthier, more prestigious > families would sometimes take their wife's last name, says Stephanie Coontz, > a professor of marriage and family history at Evergreen State College. From > the 12th to the 15th century, Coontz told me, in many "highly hierarchical > societies" in England and France, "class outweighed gender."_

It's not that I am particularly high-born; in fact, I think her family would count as much more high-status than mine. But her family name is very ordinary, and my surname _sounds_ royal and is spelled in a very old-style aristocratic way. I strongly believe this has given me opportunities I would not otherwise have gotten, and it's something we both think it'd be foolish to give up.

<comment><USER3> Say your name were Stephanie Coontz and you were marrying a fellow named England France. You could legally change your name to Stephanie France Coontz (dropping a given middle name or not) and then continue to go professionally by Stephanie Coontz.

<comment><USER4> You can legally change your name to whatever you want as long as you are not trying to escape a debt or prison or something..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've been married for over 4 years now and my wife still hasn't changed her name. She was in college when we got married and it was a pain to change all of the documents halfway through her education so we put it off.

The only time it's even a minor inconvenience is picking up mail in the odd chance that the post office won't leave it in our small apartment mailbox so one of us has to pick it up from the post office.

All the software in the world is setup for different surnames due to long term, live in boyfriend/girlfriend situations, as well as wives who want to concatenate their new name with the old. Marriage has been condensed to a checkbox on every important form and I'm glad it's that way.

We've decided that our children will take my name and my wife will likely change hers then to make it easier for them to remember while growing up, but until then, we're in no hurry.

</comment><comment><USER6> Iceland has a fun system for last names.

You last name is your fathers (or rarely, your mothers) name plus a 'son' or 'dottir' at the end.

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

<comment><USER7> Such a suffix based on the father's name is called a patronymic, and is not just Icelandic, but seen throughout the world, mostly Europe.

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

In Russia and other Slavic nations, the -ich patronymic is used:

>> a man named Ivan with a father named Nikolay would be known as Ivan Nikolayevich or "Ivan, son of Nikolay"

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > * Seventy-two percent of adults polled in a 2011 study said they believe a > woman should give up her maiden name when she gets married, and half of > those who responded said they believe that it should be a legal requirement, > not a choice. *

I find this extraordinary. I've never really thought about it much, I've just known I've always wanted to get rid of "Smith" since I have a common first name as well. I wish there was a freely accessible copy of that study.

<comment><USER9> That is absolutely nuts. Do these people not realise you can change your name anyway? It's one of those really weird positions I don't understand the process of getting to.

I have to assume those people are nutjobs who want to enforce traditional gender roles and have servile women, and see this as an aspect of that, literally having ownership over their identity.

It's kinda horrifying.

<comment><USER10> This seems to be going a little too far, likely the issue is just cultural lag.

<comment><USER9> That holds for thinking it's what someone _should_ do, but wanting to enforce it? That's pretty crazy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My wife and I have been married for almost 20 years. But she has never taken my last name.

When we were engaged, I learned that she wasn't planning on taking my last name, and the thought didn't really bother me —- I felt it was her choice to do as she wished in that regard, and it wouldn't change the fact that we were married.

As it turned out, she already had a number of years of experience as a lawyer with her existing name, and there would have been a reputational cost to the change, so she just wanted to keep her name. Makes total sense to me!

Since then, I've been called "Mr. Geyer" more than a few times, and I'm kind of used to it by now —- maybe about as much as women get called Mrs. Husband- name, when they didn't actually change theirs.

Household-wise, we are the "Geyer-Knowles Family", by dint of alphabetical sorting. We don't have children, but if we did, then they might have a hyphenated last name.

Now, I do have a male friend who changed his last name to match that of his wife after they got married, and the story I heard was that he never liked his last name. So that totally made sense.

</comment><comment><USER12> I wish the US had more provisions for having multiple names. Instead we have to have one single "legal" name that is recognized by the government and we have to change it at great difficulty and expense. Heaven help you if everything doesn't match up. My partner is still struggling because he took his ex-wife's name and his social security card doesn't match his birth certificate anymore. Our system is utter insanity because of assumptions about how many names someone can have...

</comment><comment><USER13> It feels like there has been a trend toward just not changing your last name at all. It's quite a pain due to update everything and deal with the occasional confusion of names not matching.

The messy case that this article doesn't mention is what to do about your last name on divorce. There's less tradition there, and sometimes children get upset at the idea of their parents' names no longer matching theirs.

</comment><comment><USER14> Why do women change their surname at all? In regard to children, using both parents surnames, in whatever order, seems to be fair to everybody.

Please note I'm not advocating for Portuguese or Spanish naming customs per se. I'd like to hear what other HN readers think about this particular option.

<comment><USER15> What do you do after the next generation?

Example: John Smith and Maria Lopez have a daughter named Angel Smith Lopez.

Who then marries Walter Dunkirk Kim.

The daughter would be Angel Smith Lopez Dunkirk Kim? Or some random combination?

<comment><USER16> You pick a name each that you want your children to carry.

Both my wife and I have two surnames, one from each of our parents. We have chosen one of those each and given to our children.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Come on, this is basic database normalization. Men can have multiple wives, but it makes no sense for women to have multiple husbands. So men taking a woman's last name doesn't work.

<comment><USER18> > Men can have multiple wives, but it makes no sense for women to have > multiple husbands.

Sorry for being dense, but is this sarcasm?

<comment><USER17> No. Men can have kids with multiple women at the same time, but women can only have one man's baby at a time, i.e. the best possible option for them. A marriage with N men is one with N-1 cuckolds.

That's why polygamy has generally happened in only one direction throughout history.

<comment><USER9> You are making the (wrong) assumption that relationships are all about reproduction. Marriage has no requirement for reproduction.

The argument is also deeply flawed because "women can only have one man's baby at a time" ignores the fact that relationships last longer than a pregnancy. A woman could have two husbands and have kids with them sequentially, even in a world where the "having kids" part mattered.

<comment><USER19> > You are making the (wrong) assumption that relationships are all about > reproduction.

It's not wrong. It's based in biology.

> Marriage has no requirement for reproduction.

In the same way that getting a law degree doesn't have a requirement of getting a job as a lawyer. But generally, you get a law degree to become a lawyer. The reason marriage was created was for family creation.

> The argument is also deeply flawed because "women can only have one man's > baby at a time" ignores the fact that relationships last longer than a > pregnancy.

What? How is that a flaw? Sure it last longer than the pregnancy because the kid is there.

> A woman could have two husbands and have kids with them sequentially

Right. And a man can have two wives and have kids with them in parallel.

> even in a world where the "having kids" part mattered.

Of course it matters. It's the basis of existence. It's a biological imperative of pretty much every human being.

I can't believe you are arguing against that.

<comment><USER9> It _can_ matter, but it doesn't matter universally. Just because some, or even most, people want to reproduce, doesn't mean that has to be everyone's goal or plan.

People who can't or don't want to reproduce routinely get married. There is no legal requirement for reproduction, and people don't only get married for that reason.

You can't take the root causes for human behaviour and say they apply universally - e.g: humans want to eat more than they need to eat at that moment to stockpile a reserve - this behaviour is no longer relevant in most modern societies. Food is not about just fuelling our bodies today, even if that's the root of the behaviour "based in biology". Human desires and motives are distinct from the evolutionary reasons for them, and pretending they aren't is rejecting reality.

Your view is deeply and fundamentally flawed - it doesn't reflect reality as we see it in practice. Data models where you just throw away edge cases is failing to do the job well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> or you know both can keep their family name without any change, sounds like best solution to me, why change anyone's name because of relationship document?

i didn't even had to think about it since i have western name, my wife has Chinese, so either combination would look extremely strange at least for us (for mixed children i find it acceptable to see western given name with Chinese foreign name, but for someone not mixed it's odd)

<comment><USER8> There is a convenience in having the same last name but I agree, no reason to always change names if one doesn't want to.

I could see this resulting in similar debate over how the children get named though.

<comment><USER20> oh well that would be whole other post how we were choosing international name with same transcription in English and most European countries (including our potential destinations for settling), how it could not contain R because wife it's Chinese (who unlike Japanese can't really pronounce it) and didn't want extremely common name like quarter of children in class (i had name like that and it's PITA and don't understand people who don't check statistics and just choose one of the top 10 names) and how the length should balance with my family name and other factors i don't remember now

there really should be some training for people how to choose proper name and they should pass some basic test so their choice would be accepted because their child will be living with such name, not careless parents

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Tradition? Family tree? History? More women want to take the husband's name than vice versa? Because kids traditionally get the father's surname?

Isn't there real journalism that theatlantic can do rather than silly nonsense like this. I expect this from reddit's ELI5 rather than a supposedly respectable magazine. Also is every other headline from theatlantic going to be a question?</comment>


Ask YC: Can you recommend me a good MySQL optimization book? - <AUTHOR> I have seen a lot of blog posts, presentations, etc. about the "bad" way of optimization, but there isn't much in terms of a good way. I'm really looking for a good book, not just a couple of blog posts. A resource on the proper way of doing things since I'm starting to hit a wall figuring it out myself vs. the knowledge of an expert. <comment><USER2> My favorite advanced MySQL book is the O'Reilly one by Jeremy Zawodny (formerly the chief MySQL dude at Yahoo, now of Craigslist):

[http://www.amazon.com/High-Performance-MySQL-Jeremy- Zawodny/...](http://www.amazon.com/High-Performance-MySQL-Jeremy- Zawodny/dp/0596003064)

You can learn the basics of MySQL online or through just about any book, but once you've gotten beyond that and want to learn more, this book is loads better than all the others.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I'll look into it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> not specifically mysql, but 'the art of sql' is pretty good for database optimization and performance</comment>


Python 3.4 Beta 1 Released - <AUTHOR> http://python.org/download/releases/3.4.0/ <comment><USER2> Wow, I haven't heard of pathlib [1] before now, but it looks awesome! In particular, using the slash operator to join paths is brilliant.

        >>> p = PurePath('/etc')
        >>> p / 'init.d' / 'apache2'
        PurePosixPath('/etc/init.d/apache2')

[1]: [http://docs.python.org/3.4/library/pathlib.html](http://docs.python.org/3.4/library/pathlib.html)

<comment><USER3> Scala does something similarly neat with using #| for piping system commands.

Slash for Scala is not used by default though for path joining, but it can be by adding an implicit function:

      implicit def slash(str: String) = new { def /(joinStr: String) = str + java.io.File.separatorChar + joinStr}

      val joinedStr = "abc"/"def"/"ghi"
      > joinedStr : java.lang.String = abc/def/ghi

Shell friendly syntax can be used for stdin/stdout in Scala as well (already in the stdlib with no implicits required):

#< Redirect STDIN

#> Redirect STDOUT

#>> Append to STDOUT

#&& Create an AND list

#!! Create an OR list

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12772605/scala-shell- comm...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12772605/scala-shell-commands- with-pipe/12772628)

[http://alvinalexander.com/scala/scala-execute-exec- external-...](http://alvinalexander.com/scala/scala-execute-exec-external- system-commands-in-scala)

<comment><USER4> There are Plumbum shell combinators in Python [http://plumbum.readthedocs.org/en/latest/](http://plumbum.readthedocs.org/en/latest/)

<comment><USER5> There are a couple of modules that do this kind of thing but Plumbum looks interesting, particularly

[http://plumbum.readthedocs.org/en/latest/local_commands.html...](http://plumbum.readthedocs.org/en/latest/local_commands.html#import- hack)

>from plumbum.cmd import cat

>>cat('tmp.txt') #invokes cat tmp.txt on the system

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Been using python for 7+ years now. Does everyone really think people are willing to adopt 3.x anything...? The reality of it is every place I have worked (and currently working at). Is bound by 3rd party tools and what ever interpreter they built against. Mostly that 2.6,2.7 right now. And it does not look like anyone will be switching anytime soon.

Features look great, cant wait to "play" with them. But that;s about all. Play.

<comment><USER7> I don't understand why you are being downvoted for your data-point. I've not seen 3.x used anywhere in anger either. But I've seen plenty of people embarking on new 2.7 projects. That's just my data-point too.

<comment><USER8> I understand why GP is being downvoted. He presents his anecdote as a general trend, dismissing python3 and its features as play without providing proofs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > a new C API for implementing custom memory allocators

Wow. This'll lead to some interesting hacks, I think.

<comment><USER10> Finally all the hacks done internaly by some big Python company is released in the wild and not by them. Check out the presentation by the creator (in french) [https://github.com/haypo/conf/blob/master/2013-PyconFR- Stras...](https://github.com/haypo/conf/blob/master/2013-PyconFR- Strasbourg/tracemalloc.pdf)

<comment><USER11> I started the development of tracemalloc at Wyplay, but I rewrote all the code for the version included in Python 3.4: complelty different API, you get different data, new implementation, etc. The old code: [https://github.com/wyplay/pytracemalloc/](https://github.com/wyplay/pytracemalloc/)

The PEP 445 (malloc API) also allows to plug hooks on memory allocators at runtime, instead of having to recompile Python for that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> isn't 2.7 the best python still because twisted?

<comment><USER13> The most exciting feature in 3.4 (at least in my opinion) is the addition of asyncio to the standard library, which aims to provide a standard event loop which libraries like Twisted can then use to make themselves interoperable with other async Python solutions:

[http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3156/](http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3156/)

"The event loop is the place where most interoperability occurs. It should be easy for (Python 3.3 ports of) frameworks like Twisted, Tornado, or even gevents to either adapt the default event loop implementation to their needs using a lightweight adapter or proxy, or to replace the default event loop implementation with an adaptation of their own event loop implementation. (Some frameworks, like Twisted, have multiple event loop implementations. This should not be a problem since these all have the same interface.)"</comment></comment>


Guilty plea in Anonymous attack on Scientology websites - <AUTHOR> http://www.csoonline.com/article/524063/Nebraskan_Pleads_Guilty_to_2008_Web_Attack_on_Scientologists

<comment><USER2> Good. Just about the worst conceivable response to Scientology: arm the cult with stories about criminal stunts to help them delegitimize criticism.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder what these people were threatened with if they didn't take the plea bargain. 25 years to life for a hate crime against a religious organization?

(One _year_ in prison for running a script to DoS a website? An entire year of your life, gone forever!?)

<comment><USER4> I'm okay with DoS attacks being punished as vandalism. Still, one year seems excessive.

<comment><USER2> There's "vandalism" and there's "vandalism". A year for spraypainting a wall is crazy. But what about for sneaking into a company's garage and slashing all the tires on 20 or 30 service vehicles?

DoS is more like the latter than the former.

<comment><USER3> This situation is more like convincing everyone in the neighborhood to slash one tire, and then punishing the two people that got caught for the entire group's action.

One person running "while /bin/true; do wget -r scientology.com & done" is not going to do any damage. When 1000 people do it, though, it does cause damage.

Should the two people that got caught be liable for the damage done by the other 998? (I say no. In many cases, the law seems to disagree.)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Waze for Android Auto - <AUTHOR> https://blog.waze.com/2017/07/Waze-for-Android-Auto.html <comment><USER3> Did anybody else find Waze super distracting? I tried it once around Seattle, on/off the freeway and there was just too much. Like, how can we add all the distraction of texting-and-driving, but into a navigation app. Bam! Here's Waze.

I couldn't help but think "Get all this stuff off my screen so I can see where I'm going" followed by "If I actually paid attention to or used this app it'd get me killed".

I'm sure if I'd stopped and played with the settings I could've got it to a manageable level but I really couldn't see the point. You're driving, the social aspect is a dangerous and unnecessary one. Just get me from Point A to B the best you can. Back to Google Maps.

<comment><USER4> Waze has an eagle-kick level killer feature: The "Commuting time distribution graph".

This feature is so damn useful I'd still use waze even if it were a bash script.

<comment><USER5> How can I access this graph in Waze?

<comment><USER4> By choosing "later" instead of "go now" after picking a destination.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Now that it is complete, I'd love to learn more about the work they had to do to port it over.

They've been talking about Waze for AA for over a year, so I'm guessing quite a bit of work had to be done to make this possible. In particular did they need to make any design changes to Waze to make it easier to use via the AA interface?

Unfortunately my 2016 vehicle only has mirrorlink v1.1+. Which unlike mirrorlink 1.0 doesn't actually mirror your phone, instead it is a proprietary app ecosystem with ten low quality paid for apps, even assuming any smartphone still supported mirrolink (which almost none do).

I wish there was just a single open standard in the vehicle industry. Toyota for example is refusing to do AA/Carplay and is starting yet another "standard" called SmartDeviceLink.

<comment><USER7> I'm disappointed Toyota went that route. When I was looking for a new car last year, CarPlay was a requirement so had to strike them off. Really wanted to buy another Prius too. It's also keeping me from going tesla too, I'd really love one but I just can't stand manufacturer developed entertainment systems. Ended up with a Passat that supports CarPlay, android auto and mirror link.

<comment><USER6> That's where Ford gets it right. They too are working on SmartDeviceLink, but also offer AA and Carplay so consumers have a choice. Toyota are currently offering nothing usable, and plan to one day only offer SmartDeviceLink.

I love Toyota's vehicles (reliability, looks, features, safety, etc). But when our Prius V gets replaced, we won't even consider Toyota as their infotainment units are antiquated, voice recognition terrible, and smartphone connectivity non-existent.

Toyota reminds me a lot of Nintendo, in the sense that neither company really grasps how consumer behaviour has changed with smartphones, digital services, and the cloud. Toyota are literally losing sales due to their obstinance on this, all to save a few dollars in navigation upgrades.

<comment><USER8> > I love Toyota's vehicles (reliability, looks, features, safety, etc). But > when our Prius V gets replaced, we won't even consider Toyota as their > infotainment units are antiquated, voice recognition terrible, and > smartphone connectivity non-existent.

Have you ever considered getting an aftermarket infotainment unit? Choosing a car by infotainment seems like the tail wagging the dog.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> First time using Apple CarPlay in Honda Civic 2017, and wow!

It's a annoying system at this point. Unless I want to use it as a glorified, big interface for podcast control, it is of no use to me. It cannot run mandatory apps like Google Maps, doesn't have Waze and I am not using Apple Maps.

Also, I cannot play the podcasts when I am using Google Maps for directions. The Maps app is unable to give voice directions, the podcast acts up and soon one or the other of them is stuck.

I gave up and just use a bluetooth based connection to run both of these apps at the same time.

<comment><USER10> I've got CarPlay in my 2016 Golf and it's useless. Why on earth I would want my car to take over the full functionality of my phone is beyond me. The only potential advantage would be running Apple Maps on my in-dash screen if I didn't have a Nav system already, but I do. And frankly, I'd rather just clip my phone to the dash than have all phone controls taken over by my car.

From the folks that use Android Auto with the car, many of the frustrations seem the same. It seems slightly better from a functionality standpoint, but less stable.

Waze may be the game changer. If only I could buy a cheap android phone and add it to my data plan without paying a ton of money extra each month...

<comment><USER11> So I have none of those frustrations as a 2016 GTI owner. Google Maps is wayyyy better than the built-in nav. If I searched for an address on my phone or even my laptop the address is already in my list of recent addresses in Maps and I don't have to even voice search for it. Although voice searching rocks and I dread having to enter an address in my wife's Odyssey nav interface through their knob interface. Then there is traffic routing which is also way better than what comes with the built-in nav. I can voice search and call a business from the same interface while I'm en-route as well.

I do wish that they would add the ability to have a real weather app in the ecosystem. After moving from the west coast to the midwest where they actually have real weather that can be spotty and fast moving it'd be really nice to be able to pull up an up-to-date weather radar view to see what's coming at me.

Now, there are the bugs....such as occasionally when I call someone it switches to the speaker on my phone vs. my car which is really annoying. It used to crash on a semi-occasional basis but I haven't seen that since I upgraded to a Pixel. Occasionally I do have to reboot the phone when it fails to connect. That is probably the most annoying one.

<comment><USER10> Huh. I really like the built-in nav. I particularly like having the turn-by- turn in the instrument cluster display, and the ETA across the top of the head unit screen, etc. Though as an iOS user I don't have the option of Google Maps anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Too bad Toyota is still putting frickin Entune in their cars with no Android Auto or CarPlay support.

I wouldn't be _quite_ as annoyed by it if the damn navigation wasn't missing the address I need to enter damn near 50% of the time (in major cities too, in a 2016 model year car). One day I noticed they had a mobile app and assumed there'd be some easier way to enter navigation addresses from contacts, google maps, etc.. but no...its barely even functional.

But hey, I can check my stocks. so there's that?

 _Edit_ : I went on a little rant tangent there... Great work Waze team. I can't wait to be able to use this.

<comment><USER13> Mazda owner here. Still waiting for they mythical CarPlay/Android auto update that will supposedly come to 2014 and up models. They are using the same infotainment system in 2017 models so I'm still holding out hope.

<comment><USER14> I got to try out Android Auto on a rental Ford Focus last week and now I can't drive my 2015 Mazda 3 without hating it a little.

I'm sure you know that there is an unofficial Android Auto installation available on certain Mazda forums. Unfortunately, they still haven't managed to fix a serious issue with Bluetooth calling.

<comment><USER15> But tread lightly. Mazda has caught on to the AIO/tweaker scripts and are invalidating warranties on the Connect units if they have been modified.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I stopped using Waze as soon as they disabled the ability to set Location Tracking to "Only when using".

There's no reason it should be all or nothing.

<comment><USER17> I'd prefer they give you a choice, but a big part of the Waze concept was that it was a social thing - you keep it on while driving so other people on the same road know how much traffic there is, you report hazards, etc. If you only use it when you are actively navigating then you aren't a true member of their community. (Note that I'm not advocating here one way or the other, just explaining their concept. I'm well aware of the privacy issues.)

<comment><USER18> Perhaps, but it absolutely wrecked my battery life when I didn't kill the Waze app the other day after arriving at my destination. I wasn't moving, but my battery went from ~90% to ~40% in the span of a movie: in my pocket, with the display off.

I care very slightly about the privacy implications (I'm already letting them track me sometimes so I can't be _that_ concerned). What bothers me is that it continued to drain my battery to the point that my phone would have been dead before I got back to my car to head home.

<comment><USER19> I used Waze during my commute a couple months ago. I didn't look at my phone before lunch. When I went to look up what food was in my area that day my phone was already prompting for low power mode. Plugged in to my car my phone battery only maintains charge with Waze running.

Google/Apple maps do not seem to have this problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> What the difference between Waze & Google Maps.

Google owns both and don't they share data on the backend between the two apps (e.g. Traffic data, etc)

<comment><USER21> In my use case, stop light cameras and speed cameras positions. There is an obnoxious grid around DC/Maryland that costs me around $300/year in tickets. To the "why don't you go slower then" crowd - believe it or not, I drive carefully. Aside of the eventual speeding, silly situations like being half- way on the wrong lane while passing a green light can cost you $150 here.

<comment><USER22> > silly situations like being half-way on the wrong lane while passing a green > light

You're not supposed to change lanes in an intersection. It's confusing to people trying to turn and figure out what lane you're in. This is why they fine that activity.

<comment><USER23> Not the gp, but there are situations where that kind of activity is absolutely necessary. Think about driving behind an Uber that stops in the right lane immediately after clearing the intersection, then puts their hazard lights on to wait for a passenger. Your options are either (1) stop behind the Uber, potentially blocking the crosswalk and the intersection when the light changes, or (2) make a lane change in the middle of the intersection and pass the stopped Uber.

<comment><USER24> I thought this scenario is about changing lanes _within_ the intersection, as opposed to just outside of it where you could potentially block the crosswalk?

If I had enough space to get into the crosswalk, I'd do so to hopefully nudge the Uber along where I can safely make a lane change on the actual street. If the Uber doesn't get nudged along and there's no other legal way to move... then I'm "stuck in traffic" quite literally.

It's not absolutely necessary to avoid traffic by breaking traffic laws.

In the DC metro area, lots of times traffic is created by exactly the same scenario. I don't feel bad about it; the root cause was the Uber driver or more traffic up ahead combined with the limitations of human response time.

<comment><USER23> If you're following at a distance, you might see the Uber stop before you enter the crosswalk. The problem with nudging into the crosswalk is that when the light changes, you're now forcing pedestrians out into the lanes which increases the chances that they get hit by a car.

Blocking the crosswalk is also a traffic violation. In the Uber scenario I presented, it's really not a question about if you want to break a law, it's which law would you rather break.

<comment><USER24> > Blocking the crosswalk is also a traffic violation.

"Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic..."

Washington State Law. RCW 46.61.570. [https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.570](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.570)

Your mileage may vary though depending on your legal jurisdiction, but lawmakers generally do not write 'average' laws to be unreasonable in eyes of the average person.

What is "supposed" to happen in lawmakers eyes, is that traffic grinds to a halt. Pedestrians stop crossing the road at that particular point and thus don't get hit by cars, and either the Uber driver intentionally causing all these hardships moves or gets ticketed.

Unless crossing the road, or moving around traffic is a matter of life or death ... no one is supposed to break the law and _everyone_ is supposed to be temporarily inconvenienced. Just because someone else broke the law doesn't give the next people rights to break the law in order to ease their convenience.

<comment><USER25> Do you really think that exception would allow a driver to avoid a fine? Without going to traffic court and discovering that the judge is a close relative?

<comment><USER24> The answer depends on how corrupt your local law enforcement is...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've been beta testing this on my Ford Focus with Android Auto. It's a nice system, but it does make me wish that they made a screenless little android auto device I can leave in the glove box so that I don't have to go through the hassle of plugging my phone all the time and going through the whole dance.

I tend to need to charge my phone anyway but for short trips sometimes I don't even bother launching AA, which is a shame.

Waze has been pretty good though and it works well in the AA environment, which is purposely limited so you can't get into to much of a distracting flow.

<comment><USER27> What exactly do you mean by "the whole dance"? I've found Android Auto to be pretty simple to use. There's just one short USB cord I plug in right next to my shifter and I'm done. Everything comes up automatically. This is on a VW Golf, so maybe it's simpler than it is for you in the Focus?

Most of the problems I've had have been software bugs. Like this morning when I attempted to send a Hangouts message. The assistant voice made it sound like it worked, but nothing every actually sent.

Anyway, I'm not sure a screenless device is really what you want. Most of the appeal of AA is that it uses your regular phone, so it can use your data, read and send message, make calls, etc.

Disclaimer: Google employee

<comment><USER26> I left more specific feedback in another part of this thread.

With regard to the screenless device, I do like having my phone be the centralized device of the entire thing, I just would like to make it a more permanent part of the car so I can just hop in and drive.

I am debating trying a spare SIM and an old device and just leaving it in there plugged all the time, but that just introduces an entirely different set of problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is the one thing I have been waiting for from Android Auto. Super happy to see it!

</comment><comment><USER29> I use Waze daily to get to work and get back to home. Europe is full with speed traps and total unexpected speed limits. For me Waze is a must have app every time I go somewhere with the car.

I can't say I would ditch my iPhone just because of this (or maybe I would?), but I might get an android phone just to use it with Waze in my car if this really works great...

Apple CarPlay is total useless so far, even to play music from my iPhone in the car, I rather use the built in media app from VW. Apple maps in Europe is a total joke. Many times it tells me I should drive into a one way street or it would try to take me into pedestrian zones...

</comment><comment><USER30> I hadn't used Waze in a while but used it twice in the last month. Seems like no one uses it anymore, and it was 2/2 in leading me down a bad, more time consuming path.

<comment><USER31> I very rarely take Waze's advice about alternate routes after being burned a few times, and I have learned to expect that it's ETA prediction will always be optimistic by about 15-20 minutes in my case. I mostly use it to pick between a few well-known ways to/from work and to get more traffic data than Google Maps will show.

The most infuriating thing about Waze is when you hit traffic that it already knew about but _only then_ does it add 5-10 minutes in delay time.

<comment><USER7> Last I used it was a good four years back and it tried to make me take left turns from a small alley into a major high at during rush hour in la. Ended up costing me more time than if I just hopped on the main road to begin with.

<comment><USER32> Google Maps has gotten pretty obnoxious about this lately too.

LA rush hour is bad enough with crowded enough side streets now that the way to outsmart it in my experience is to be _dumber_ than Google and just take the damn highway after all, with the exception of a few certain areas (like "the highway's moving ok overall but the exit I need will be backed up an extra five minutes so I'm going to got off early" type stuff).

<comment><USER7> Actually just got bit by this this morning. Google said to take 405 - sepulveda because there was "no traffic" towards lax. Turns out that's because sepulveda was basically closed for road work. Ended up almost an hour later than I planned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Should I be seeing an update for Waze in the Play store? It says I am up-to- date but I did not have the option to use Waze when I used Android Auto just a couple of hours ago.

<comment><USER33> Me too. I'm on 126.96.36.199 and no update showing in play store. I'm in the UK and hoping I will see it there in the next few hours as I love Waze.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Do they have it for IOS's car play? Though I suppose I don't care all that much since car play is so bad I disable it and just use my phone anyways.

<comment><USER35> Was trying to figure this out myself. After looking at the Car Play website, it doesn't seem like they do, which is annoying.

I'm assuming that Apple isn't playing nice with Google and giving users free choice about which nav apps they can use and that Google would release a Google Maps and/or Waze version for Car Play if given the ability.

Again, these are assumptions, if anybody can correct me on that, I'd love to hear otherwise.

This to me is a big enough deal that I would seriously consider an Android over an iPhone for this reason alone. I never use Apple Maps, it's an inferior product on every level, and I can't understand why Apple seems insistent on the idea that people want to use it. In my experience the only people who use Apple Maps are those who are too lazy to change from the default nav system built into the iPhone or just don't care enough to use a better nav system. It's never people who actively prefer Apple Maps.

<comment><USER36> > In my experience the only people who use Apple Maps are those who are too > lazy to change from the default nav system built into the iPhone or just > don't care enough to use a better nav system.

And people who use CarPlay, unfortunately.

<comment><USER37> Luckily, iOS 11 has brought / is bringing lane-guidance to Apple maps. This is a huge deal for me and makes maps.app _a lot_ more tolerable and driver- friendly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> After the last decade-plus of having car companies try to force you to buy their updated maps, I refuse to buy another car that doesn't include CarPlay support.

I rented a car with CarPlay a couple of months ago and I was surprised at how easy it was to just plug my phone in and get going with it.

</comment><comment><USER39> Doesn't seem to work through the Android Auto app on my phone

</comment><comment><USER40> do yourself a favor and just stick with google maps navigation.

<comment><USER41> in a dense urban environment, like where i live, waze significantly out performs google maps on a day to day basis. its routing is much better for real time issues and is very quick to react to things happening on the road, including cops, stopped cars, hazards, etc. when i am doing less serious driving (i.e., outside of commuting or running late), my car's navigation or google maps works fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Waze always baffled me. No one I know uses it and most never heard of it. Google had pretty sophisticated data/algo of their own when they paid $1+B for this thing. ELI5 - why should any one care about Waze?

<comment><USER43> Waze's primary innovation was to crowdsource near-realtime traffic information. They weren't the first[1], but they were the first to do it on a large scale. Some of it is automatic (e.g. speed, which usually reflects traffic conditions) and some of it is interactive, encouraging users with "points" to fumble with their phones in order to report police sightings, road obstructions, etc.

> _No one I know uses it and most never heard of it._

Intersting — everyone uses it in California, to the point that it strongly affects traffic patterns[2]. Where are you?

[1] [https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/dash](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/dash) [2] [http://www.gq.com/story/waze-ruining-los-angels-side- streets](http://www.gq.com/story/waze-ruining-los-angels-side-streets)

<comment><USER42> I'm in Palo Alto and actually had seen their small office on Hamilton. I do know how it works and tried to myself but found it really cumbersome. The only explanation I can see is iPhone users who didn't have the benefit of Google maps a few years back that propelled Waze's use. As for the valuation - <USER2> they had even 10M active users, Google paid $100 for each of them, knowing that it was inevitable that they'll eventually get the iPhone users anyways.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I wish more apps had CarPlay (apple) support too.</comment>


A New Video Site for Storytellers - <AUTHOR> http://odiun.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Odiun is a new kind of video site that seeks to foster creativity by giving narrative work an outlet to promote and distribute itself, free from the clutter of other content.

We hope to foster collaboration and a community in online video by having creators decide whose work is best using a unique voting system.

It's a new way for artists to distribute online. Check out the site and the kickstarter, still raising money to release the beta.</comment>


How Controllers Maximize SSD Life (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://thessdguy.com/how-controllers-maximize-ssd-life/ <comment><USER2> Given the age of these posts, the many of the numbers used are outdated, but most of the general ideas are still relevant. There are a few other concepts that would be worth mentioning these days even in this kind of high-level overview: Error handling and recovery has gotten really complex; drives will adjust how they perform read and program operations as the flash ages. Some drives do proactive scanning for data degradation to catch errors before they become uncorrectable. There are new ways for the host OS to provide hints about data lifetime and preferred data placement, which can be very helpful in avoiding unnecessary write amplification. In the absence of such hints, some drives have heuristics that try to infer data lifetime information based on IO patterns.

<comment><USER3> Not enough knowledge, in any of the areas involved, but my intuition makes me doubt the longtime security of these complexities, although i really appreciate the results. Or is there no need for trusting the firmware, if all the I/O is encrypted? I am fantasizing all these data patterns could combined with other information lead to the data-storage/-encryption equivalent of branch-prediction-exploits.. ..but maybe it's just half-knowledge combined with the fear-what-you-don't-understand.. ..and of course this wouldn't be in the first layer of attack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Could you make money by producing a cheap "dumb" flash memory where you have raw access and leave all the wear leveling to software by using one of the many available log structured file systems?

Some people would rather have full transparent overview and control over the state and health of their storage and make their own decisions about handling problems in software instead of talking to a black box.

<comment><USER5> Unlikely.

The cost savings probably wouldn't be as dramatic as you hope. You'd still need some sort of controller for serdes -- NAND flash chips tend to use big parallel busses which aren't suited for off-board connectors -- and, at that point, it's not that much of a jump to make that controller handle wear leveling and error correction.

(Having the storage device handle those tasks is pretty convenient, anyways. It means you don't have to perform error correction on the main CPU -- which is a nontrivial ask -- and it means the SSD can behave as a bootable device.)

<comment><USER6> Wear levelling and error correction are pretty different problems.

Error correction is well suited to hardware, whereas wear levelling in my opinion is not.

My ideal design would have basic hardware error detection and correction (hopefully configurable for how many data bits Vs ECC bits), and maybe with a few heirarchical levels. Wear levelling and management of data layouts would all be done in software.

You could imagine a "bulk read" API which is given a block number to start at, with a bunch of ECC parameters, which would DMA a large block of error- corrected data to RAM, together with information about the error rate in each word/block read.

<comment><USER7> > You could imagine a "bulk read" API which is given a block number to start > at, with a bunch of ECC parameters, which would DMA a large block of error- > corrected data to RAM, together with information about the error rate in > each word/block read.

There are a lot of existing SoCs that have built in flash controller hardware that can interface with an external flash chip and, from a driver perspective, are controlled pretty much the way you describe it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There was this long Ars Technica article from the same year: [https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2012/06/insid...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2012/06/inside-the-ssd-revolution-how-solid-state-disks-really- work/)

I'm not going to assume that the complexity of what's going into these drives was not significantly reduced since, or did it?

<comment><USER9> SDD controllers have grown much more complex since 2012, especially with the deployment of QLC flash cells.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Fun story for me: SSD's AES encryption feature is sometimes implemented in purpose of data randomizing instead of LFSR. (Of couse also for encrypting)

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274369001_Data_secu...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274369001_Data_security_concurrent_with_homogeneous_by_AES_algorithm_in_SSD_controller)

</comment><comment><USER11> Given the rate at which we are progressing on SSD endurance, these methods will become irrelevant. Even 5 years back, the old tech report article showed that for an average user, they could handle a lot of writes.

[https://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance- experi...](https://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment- theyre-all-dead/)

<comment><USER12> That winner of that test, the 840 Pro, uses 2-bit (MLC) cells.

Nowadays, 3-bit (TLC) and 4-bit (QLC) are much more common (not sure QLC even existed back then). So whilst each of these technologies has matured, the drive a consumer may consider today is more likely to be bigger, replacing their HDD entirely, and will probably be capable of fewer writes than an MLC drive from 5 years ago, iiuc.

<comment><USER10> MLC->TLC transition decreases endurance but 2D->3D transision increases much endurance. Current 3D TLC drives handles more TBWs compared to old consumer 2D MLC drives. So industry going to make QLC chips.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A bit off-topic, but speaking of SSDs, how do you compare them when shopping around? I see different brands and models advertising similar features at different price points, and I know enough to look at the throughput, IOPS, but beyond that it's hard to tell how to evaluate differences. e.g. should consumers be weary of QLC? Do the models and brands matter a lot? Can you somewhat trust listed lifetimes? Are there other specs worth paying attention to? How should they be evaluated? Anyone have thoughts/links on comparing modern SSDs?

<comment><USER2> The advertised performance specifications for consumer SSDs are mostly useless. They pick the metrics that produce the biggest numbers, without regard to whether those numbers have any relevance to real-world use. Those numbers are mostly useful for determining what class of controller and flash memory are used, in case the spec sheet doesn't list that information. Likewise for warranty period and write endurance ratings; those are more about signalling product segmentation than about actual expected lifetime.

For consumer SSDs, there's no need to worry about write endurance or QLC NAND unless you know you have a very atypical usage pattern and have actually measured your workload by eg. tracking SMART indicators on your current drive(s) for several days.

Brand matters very little unless you really care about the experience of getting a warranty replacement in the rare event that your drive fails before the warranty expires. I'm not aware of any solid information indicating that certain SSD brands have consistently lower premature failure rates. My anecdotal experience from reviewing SSDs for several years is that all the top-tier brands have at some point sent me review samples that were either DOA or died during testing that shouldn't have killed a drive.

Outside the top tier brands belonging to the NAND flash memory manufacturers, everyone is buying NAND on the open market from the same 2-3 manufacturers and buying SSD controller solutions from the same 2-5 vendors. There are literally dozens of retail models all using the same combination of Phison E12 controller and Toshiba/Kioxia 3D NAND, and the differences between these are almost entirely cosmetic. All the PCIe 4.0 consumer SSDs that have been released so far are functionally identical.

<comment><USER13> This is great info, thank you! Regarding SMART indicators, do you know if they're generally reliable? I seem to recall there have been drives (at least HDD, not sure about SSD) that didn't report correct numbers. In fact, I just checked and my current SSD doesn't report SMART data at all. Have they gotten better over the years?

<comment><USER2> I don't make a habit out of doing sanity checks on the SMART reporting of drives I test. My tests log that data, but I haven't written anything to parse that into useful information. I can't recall noticing obviously wrong or entirely missing SMART data in any drive I've recently tested.

I'm curious what your SSD is and just how old it is, if it isn't giving you any SMART information. (Maybe you need to run `smartctl -s on` before it'll show you the stats it has probably been tracking all along?)

<comment><USER13> Ah I see. It's a PM981, from late 2017. Interestingly, the GSmartControl GUI says it doesn't support SMART. But now that I try smartctl -a, I see a bit of information, though not much. The only things regarding failures seem to be "Media and Data Integrity Errors" and "Error Information Log Entries" (which I'm not really sure how to interpret in terms of what's too high and what's too low). Other stuff is just temperature and other statistics. Not sure if I'm supposed to be seeing more, but I feel like hard disks used to report more than this!

<comment><USER2> NVMe SSDs report a somewhat different set of indicators than SATA drives.

If you want to estimate your own personal write endurance requirements, then you want to keep track of the line that looks like:

        Data Units Written:                 67,509,873 [34.5 TB]

Figure out how much that goes up in a typical day/week/month, and you'll know roughly how much you endurance you need.

When your SSD is old and you want to monitor it for signs of impending failure, keep an eye on the lines:

        Available Spare:                    100%
        Available Spare Threshold:          10%
        [...]
        Media and Data Integrity Errors:    0

(Quoted stats taken from the 512GB PM981 I borrowed to test. It was barely used at the time.)

<comment><USER13> Ah I see, thank you, that makes sense. Sadly it seems this model doesn't publish an endurance specification at all, so it's hard to tell how close I am to its end of life. Interestingly mine actually already has some errors:

      Available Spare:                    100%
      Available Spare Threshold:          10%
      Media and Data Integrity Errors:    10
      Error Information Log Entries:      735

but I guess that's probably normal? A least unless it fails suddenly/catastrophically.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Goldman, Buffett Establish $500 Million Small-Business Program  - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQWV0pN.Y1LQ&pos=1

<comment><USER2> _The program will contribute $200 million to local community colleges, universities and other institutions to provide small- business owners with practical business education. Goldman Sachs will invest $300 million through a combination of lending and philanthropic support to community development financial institutions._

I wonder how this will affect businesses? As a business owner, I could put to work a check much better than a subsidized community college class. Could $300M even put a dent in nationwide SB lending?

I am sure GS is far better than the gov't at allocating stimulus money, but will this really do anything - or is it just a PR move to shake off its $10B TARP funds, 12.9B from a should-have-been-bankrupt AIG, and the access to the FED discount window when it was allowed to turn into a bank holding company and get money at a ridiculous 0.50% interest rate.

<comment><USER3> This is quite interesting. If Goldman can borrow at 00.50%, what will it lend to small businesses at?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's marketing, that's all. If Buffett is envolved, there's nothing "charitable" about it. He is in it for the profits, he doesn't do it any other way (except _after_ having earned profits, giving it away eventually). It's Goldman's chump change to advance their public image and to distract from their bonus payments and provide policy makers with an excuse as to why Goldman doesn't deserve that much scrutiny when it comes to their CDO's noone understands etc.

Edit: See what Goldman does with their "charitable foundation": [http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/11/12/the- goldman...](http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/11/12/the-goldman- sachs-foundations-torrid-2008/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Trying to wash the stink off, by teaming up with the most honest man (not) on Wall Street, and throwing money at the "problem."</comment>