Spirit (Mars Rover) Sol 18 Anomaly - <AUTHOR> http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00000702/

<comment><USER2> Lesson for engineers: build lots and lots of debugging hooks and panic buttons into your systems. You'll need them.

I find it interesting that the initial problem amounted to what was basically a memory leak. It affects Martian rovers just as much as Firefox!

I also find it amazing that as of now, the Mars rovers have been working for over 2000 sols. For what was initially supposed to be a 90-day mission. When the blog post was written, they were at 937 sols and the author thought _that_ was long.

<comment><USER3> > Lesson for engineers: build lots and lots of debugging hooks and panic > buttons into your systems. You'll need them.

Exactly... Especially when your hardware is 30 million miles away :)

> I also find it amazing that as of now, the Mars rovers have been working for > over 2000 sols.

Me too, although when I looked it up, I found out that Spirit has been stuck in a patch of soft ground since May... NASA engineers have been testing plans on earth to get it unstuck. Photos here:

<http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/>

(start at 5/1). Hopefully they're as good at debugging mud as they are at software!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just thought I'd point out (as a departing JPL intern...) that Spirit just reached sol 2000 on Tuesday, more than five years after its original 90 sol mission.

Even though it is still stuck (Free Spirit!), it's still performing useful science, as is its twin Opportunity on the other side of the planet. Great rovers and a great team at JPL who build and keep them running. I can't wait to see MSL touch down in a couple years.

<comment><USER2> I think that needs to be a new Internet meme: "Free Spirit!" with a link to the Mars Rovers page.

<comment><USER4> Go for it: <http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/freespirit/>

:)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This reminds me of yesterday, when I accidental left a stray : in my /etc/sudoers file and exited my editor. Couldn't get root access! Thanked the developers who invented recovery mode so I could fix my dumb mistake.</comment>


Ask HN: What's the best way to distribute closed beta invites? - <AUTHOR>

I'm about ready to launch a mobile/social webapp and wanted to get people involved in a closed beta. I was wondering if people could recommend good places to give away beta invites as well as any tips people had for handling them. Thanks... <comment><USER2> InviteShare

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, will do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> i'll take one,

narf at milk shakes dotorg

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I'll make sure you get one.</comment></comment>


Elon Musk's SpaceX Readies First Astronaut Launch by Private Firm - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-spacex-readies-first-astronaut-launch-by-private-firm-11590231601 <comment><USER2> I'm just a fan of SpaceX and have no skin in the game whatsoever, and I get butterflies whenever I think about this launch. I still remember the sinking feeling I had watching the CRS-7 livestream like it was yesterday, but having human lives at stake is a whole different ballgame. All the best to SpaceX tomorrow (or whenever the launch actually happens).

<comment><USER3> > have no skin in the game whatsoever

Well, aside from your taxes being blown on an orbiting astronaut aquarium. Virtually no science, or anything else of value, is done on the ISS.

<comment><USER4> Come on :) . How we're supposed to learn how to fly to space.

It could be done way more effective, yes. Yes, it's a political question.

<comment><USER3> > How we're supposed to learn how to fly to space.

Space is too big for people to go anywhere within human lifespans. Hoping for human space exploration isn't a strategy.

This is similar to the current corona lockdown. Hoping for national US testing and tracing doesn't get you there, so give it a rest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Oh, another junket to the ISS, the ultimate money pit.

Don't forget to take a chain saw, guys!

<comment><USER5> It once had a use.

Remember Skylab? Only 20 or 30 times cheaper. We blew $200B on the Shuttle instead of keeping it in orbit.

<comment><USER4> First generation of stations. Can't bring supplies other than with the crew's ship - no transport spacecrafts docking.

ISS is a couple of generations ahead. Robotic arm, massive solar panels, modular construction, adaptation for unforeseen tasks, reliability in the face of a loss of some transportation options, international cooperation...

<comment><USER6> It's great for Earth observation, but the polar orbit makes it a lot less useful for deep space. Although it's nice having a microgravity laboratory.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


6 Tips For Hiring Star Talent From A Top Hollywood Casting Director - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcocreate.com/1681618/6-tips-for-hiring-star-talent-from-a-top-hollywood-casting-director <comment><USER2> Interesting article, but there's a big reason why I think that for the majority of job searches you can't compare it to a movie casting director.

For a casting director, you are able to consume and evaluate the work of the job candidate.

While that is true for high tech jobs like design or open source software were a candidate can develop a portfolio, I would counter that for the majority of high tech candidates their entire work portfolio is the intellectual property of the companies they work for and outsiders are never going to have consumed/accessed it.

<comment><USER3> I agree... to a point. Certainly, FOSS developers have it easier, as they can show the specific code they wrote.

But just as an actor can audition, developers (and most high tech folks) can demonstrate their skill in person. A lot of those "How would you solve this programming|logic problem?" tests are lame, but at least they do show someone how the person approaches her work.</comment></comment>


Free phone operating system is #1 on FSF High Priority Projects Watchlist - <AUTHOR> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/ <comment><AUTHOR> Reddit discussion:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/5opqg7/free_phone_op...](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/5opqg7/free_phone_operating_system_is_1_on_the_new_fsf/)</comment>


Beware of Bigotry (how my conference talk got cancelled) - <AUTHOR> https://www.yegor256.com/2018/11/13/bigotry.html <comment><USER2> >Doesn't it remind you of the time of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich?

>I will not hide their names. Just like Nazi criminals these guys should be known, visible, and prosecuted, as soon as possible.

I don't have much to say about them cancelling the talk. I mean, it is what it is. Times change and if you want to keep up with the rest of society, you follow the changes in norms of what is acceptable behavior and etiquette.

Why are you comparing this to the USSR, Third Reich or Nazis though? Please read some actual history before you make these hyperbolic and childish statements. I mean, do you understand why people might not want you to speak at their conference when you compare something trivial and pathetically irrelevant to a historical event that led to the death of millions of people?

And please, Bobby Fischer would never make it in this day and age with those comments. Times change.

</comment><comment><USER3> He claims it's "bigotry" that someone cancelled his talk after he _literally_ wrote he is proud of being sexist. Not just bigotry, sorry, but reminiscent of "Nazism."

Sigh.</comment>


Adobe abandons its Creative Suite to focus on Creative Cloud - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/05/06/after-nearly-10-years-adobe-abandons-its-creative-suite-entirely-to-focus-on-creative-cloud/?fromcat=all <comment><USER4> I'm looking forward to switching to Creative Cloud at work - I'll never have to make the case for upgrading again, always getting new features as they're released, and I'm sure my employer will be as happy to smooth out one more expenditure timeline as Adobe will be to smooth out its revenue timeline. Going CC-only makes sense for business.

However, this totally kills my hobbyist usage at home about three to five years from now. I only ever use Photoshop, Illustrator, and occasionally After Effects for my independent design projects, and was finally able to justify upgrading from CS4 to CS6 a few months ago. A few hundred dollars every few years is worth it to pursue my own experimental work.

But I'm not going to justify $50 per month for that, and I have a hard time imagining others justifying it. I think Adobe just priced themselves solidly out of the prosumer market.

(Just to add a little math to this: A $700 upgrade every three years comes to $20/month. If Adobe can offer an a-la-carte Creative Cloud where I can get three or so apps when CS6 finally no longer cuts it, I suppose this will ultimately be a non-issue.)

<comment><USER5> "I think Adobe just priced themselves solidly out of the prosumer market." I think what they did, or at least what they wanted to do, was find a fix for the rampant theft of their products. What this now does is open up the domestic image processing market, while businesses can be milked for all they're worth. I'll stick with Photoshop CS3 until it stops working.

<comment><USER6> And by "fixed the rampant copyright violation" you mean "closed the top of the funnel to newcomers". I don't know a single college student or new home experimenter who paid for Photoshop, but I also don't know a single professional user who didn't pay for it.

Photoshop has always been way too expensive for hobbyists or people just dipping their toes in the water. The people who pirated it and got serious about it eventually bought a copy, but the people who said "that's nice" and uninstalled it never would have paid for a copy anyway.

This will make their numbers look good in the near future, but I'd stake cash money that it's going to screw with their long-term user base.

<comment><USER7> I really dislike the "it brings new users" argument for piracy. If it made business sense to provide a free entry to their product they would. Pirates aren't somehow doing them a favor and its moral acrobatics to pretend like they are.

For students they have heavily discounted licenses and I know a few low- quality(I don't know anyone worth their salt who pirates it), professional graphic designers who use pirated copies. It is lost revenue and if they wanted to provide demos that should be up to them not the pirates.

<comment><USER8> It's a mistake to use the "if it made business sense ... they would" line of thinking when interpreting the decision-making of any organization, especially large established ones.

As Marc Andreessen has noted:

 _"The behavior of any big company is largely inexplicable when viewed from the outside. I always laugh when someone says, "Microsoft is going to do X", or "Google is going to do Y", or "Yahoo is going to do Z". Odds are, nobody inside Microsoft, Google, or Yahoo knows what Microsoft, Google, or Yahoo is going to do in any given circumstance on any given issue.

...

"The inside of any big company is a very, very complex system consisting of many thousands of people, of whom at least hundreds and probably thousands are executives who think they have some level of decision-making authority. On any given issue, many people inside the company are going to get some kind of vote on what happens -- maybe 8 people, maybe 10, 15, 20, sometimes many more.

...

"You can count on there being a whole host of impinging forces that will affect the dynamic of decision-making on any issue at a big company.

...

"You can't possibly even identify all the factors that will come to bear on a big company's decision, much less try to understand them, much less try to influence them very much at all."_

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4jwZiwL...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4jwZiwL41g0J:pmarca- archive.posterous.com/the-pmarca-guide-to-startups-part-5-the- moby+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari)

<comment><USER7> You are right. I've been away from megacorps for too long. Thinking of them as rational actors is a huge mistake. :)

My point still stands that it is their product and it should be their choice even if they piss it away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you're not a professional designer and are looking for some Adobe suite alternatives on the Mac, may I suggest:

Pixelmator[1] (replaced Photoshop) Currently $15

Artboard[2] (replaces Illustrator) $29

Scribus[3] (Cross platform - replaces InDesign) $Free

These apps serve me well for basic Web/App Art, my resume, and the occasional flier. The only thing I do miss is the Illustrator XAML export plugin for when I work on WPF/Silverlight stuff.

[1]<http://www.pixelmator.com>

[2]<http://www.mapdiva.com/artboard/>

[3]<http://www.scribus.net/canvas/Scribus>

<comment><USER10> The excellent Sketch does it quite well, better than Pixelmator IMO

<http://www.bohemiancoding.com/sketch/>

It's not a look alike of photoshop, it's entirely redesigned and is fabulous and worth it.

<comment><USER11> I used Fireworks for half my career, and when it became obvious that Adobe was letting Fw rot, I went looking for alternatives. It took a little while, but Sketch has finally gotten there. Sketch a purely vector app, whereas Fireworks was a strange but workable hybrid of bitmap and vector. When I need to throw down some raster graphics, I fire up Pixelmator.

<comment><USER10> I too find Fireworks CS4 too useful to dump entirely. Particularly canvas resizing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I love Adobe CC. I would consider it the first thing Adobe has done right in a long time.

A year's subscription is less than what I bill per day and I have access to every app that they produce. I can run it on my laptop, my other laptop, as well as my desktop machine that just gathers dust these days.

As someone who has used Photoshop since Version 3.0, I can say, with some authority I guess, that the current version is really, _really_ good. Except for the crop tool. The crop tool sucks. It sucks so bad I had to write a replacement stand alone app. All they need to do to fix it is put the image resizing step back in, instead of having to do that separately.

Their other apps are also improving in quality from a low point of a few years ago. Premiere is solid, After Effects is way faster than the previous version, Prelude and SpeedGrade are a little inaccessible but once you learn the non- standard UIs are useful tools. Illustrator is still a bit of a drag though. I don't touch InDesign unless I'm designing a photo book for Blurb.

And then there is the whole extensibility of the suite that most people don't get too involved in, but I do. We started out writing some pretty heavy javascript extendscript stuff to do asset prep but have since moved on to Flex + Adobe Creative Suite Extension SDK. Was kind of gnarly to get going, but once going has allowed us to extend Photoshop into a full blown authoring tool for the kind of retail iPad apps we build for clients. What once took us about 2-3 weeks to build, now takes about a day thanks to that.

So, +1 Adobe.

<comment><USER13>
      > I can run it on my laptop, my other laptop, as well
      > as my desktop machine that just gathers dust these days.

I'm not sure how you're doing this - a killer problem for me with CC is that there's a two-machine limit for product activations. I used to own two Photoshop licences so I could run it on three machines, but you can't get multiple Creative Cloud subs under one Adobe account.

<comment><USER14> This two activation nonsense has to end. That was fine before when we all had one desktop. I have been harping Adobe and Unity to allow 3 activations by default. I don't know one developer that doesn't have at least a mac, windows and laptop for testing. It's a silly game to keep moving the activations around when they are below the common threshold. 3-5 activations, one user per use is needed, maybe no activations required on that (isn't that what the cloud is really?). I have no problem having the app shut down on the other machine if I use on another device/computer but being blocked from using if you leave it open on two machines at work is annoying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is quite radical in my mind and very greedy on Adobe's part. How is abandoning the pay once per version of software a benefit to anyone other than Adobe?

I get weary of software that I have to bind to an active account indefinitely.

There are use-cases that are no longer possible.

1) What if I wanted to get my 14 yo artistic niece Photoshop/Illustrator for her birthday? Now I would have to either pay $50 a month (for her), in the assumption she would get value out of it. At what point would I then transfer the subscription over to her should she want to become professional in it?

2) Let's say I bought After Effects with a retina mac and then in a year decide to sell it all on craigslist? Maybe I had a dream of becoming a movie director only to be put on hold because my father went into the hospital and I needed to be there for my mother?

3) A high school with older macs from 5 or 6 years ago has a small lab with Adobe Photoshop that was donated to them through an art grant. It's meant to be used to teach kids about photo retouching and color blending (things that have been in Photoshop for a decade if not more).

I never minded when Adobe adopted strict licensing DRM because it didn't remove use-cases. Maybe someone from Adobe can shed light on how switching to a subscription only model will benefit anyone other than them? Is that not taking a step backwards?

<comment><USER16> This is business. Why is Adobe expected to do anything that would benefit anyone other than themselves?

<comment><USER17> To please customers?

<comment><USER18> And let competitors enter their market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The value proposition for Adobe's software-as-a-service offering is lacking for people who only use one of their products, or who don't already stay on the bleeding edge by paying for upgrades every 2-3 years.

Photoshop is the only Adobe product I use as a web developer, and I've been using it less and less as I do more backend and client architecture and less design implementation. For my needs, Creative Cloud is a really bad deal.

Creative Cloud might be a great _value_ to people who use lots of Adobe products, and good for them. But even if this were a good value to me, I still wouldn't buy it. I do not trust software as a service, at least for software that runs solely on my own workstation. Unless Adobe wants to subsidize the cost of my own hardware, I don't believe that their subscription model benefits me as a consumer.

I think Creative Cloud will present an interesting challenge to the Open Source community. Open Source alternatives to Photoshop have kind of languished in recent years, and I wonder if Adobe abandoning traditional software licensing will spur new free software development.

<comment><USER20> Then pay $20/mo (with year subscription) for just Photoshop. If you need another tool occasionally, pay the monthly fee for it for a single month.

$20 a month it's all that much money for a business product. You may be paying close to that for reliable hosting with all the perks or for some virtual servers for testing.

<comment><USER21> $240 a year for something I use every few weeks, at best, is still pretty absurd.

<comment><USER20> Only if it doesn't provide that much value. In the cases where you use it, if you can't do without it or use another tool, or you view the one time cost of learning another tool too high, then it's worth it. If this pricing makes you re-examine whether you really need to use Photoshop and switch to something cheaper, all the better, since you will probably be happier with something that accomplishes your needs that you feel isn't costing too much (and I imagine whatever you do in Photoshop so infrequently isn't hard to accomplish in many other programs).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> "Convincing users to upgrade was a daunting task that left an impact on product decisions."

Yeah, like having to make useful features that customers would actually want to pay for.

Fuck capitalism, eh? Just pay your taxes and we'll give you what we think you want.

<comment><USER23> You can always use gimp, although I am not sure what a design software has to do with a political system. Adobe probably doesn't get a lot of your taxes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Moving exclusively to Creative Cloud feels like Adobe's way of admitting that their updates have become less and less impressive.

<comment><USER25> Or that customers don't like grandiose updates anymore and expect a continuous stream of small innovations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've been using CC since it came out - the killer feature for me is that you can install CC on all your computers - PC & mac with the same license key. As someone who hops platforms and computers all the time, it's fantastic.

I always used to pirate Adobe software, but the monthly pricing is very reasonable and you get _all_ the Adobe software for the price, rather than web/print/video bundles like they used to. They've really turned around and made this pirate into a customer.

</comment><comment><USER27> I have to admit, the subscription model is way more attractive to me than the one-time model. I'm not someone who uses Photoshop every day, so if I sit down and think "it'd be really handy to use it right now, just this once, for this one thing" ... I'm not going to shell out hundreds to do it. I'm just not. I'll use GIMP if I can or I'll pirate Photoshop if I can't.

I might shell out $50, though, and if I find I'm using it often, great. If not, I'll cancel and I'll have only spent $50 for a legitimate use case.

<comment><USER28> That depends on the use case. The subscription model will be significantly more expensive for people who don't need the newest features. At about $50 per month the $1200 for CS Design Standard are payed off after 2 years. Whereas I'm still using the 6 year old InDesign CS3. And a nearby t-shirt printing shop is using Illustrator 10, from 2001.

<comment><USER27> This is absolutely a fair point regarding the total cost over time, but I'm referring to the first cost, where I don't have the product and am considering purchasing it.

A one-time $1200 fee is a non-starter. There's no way I'm paying that much money for a product that I'm not even sure I'll use next month.

$50 (or, as I've been corrected by others -- thanks) $20 to try it out? That's a much easier decision.

<comment><USER29> $20 to try it out?

Its $30 without the annual commitment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Adobe's biggest mistake is pricing.

The cost of Creative Suite bundled in losses from piracy. A Creative Cloud subscription costs pretty much exactly what Creative Suite does--without having to compensate for losses to piracy.

Adobe should have provided incentive to switch by dropping the price. If they can truly eliminate piracy then their profits wouldn't be hurt by dropping the price substantially. Doing so would also generate a lot of good will among users.

Keeping prices high with no other option will just encourage new forms of piracy that much sooner. Until now, pirates could just ignore Creative Cloud. No more. I expect we'll see cracked activation proxies within a few months.

</comment><comment><USER31> This is really bad for artists. Many folks I know picked up copies of CS5 when they were in collage for $400 and have been using them for the last 5 years. Now they will need to pay more per month than a cellphone with a data contract. With Adobe posting massive profits, this is an act of greed and I hope antitrust regulators will look at Adobe with more scrutiny.

<comment> shock-value Yeah as joelhooks said, if these people are using their educational versions to produce products for sale, they are committing fraud. EDIT: Seems to depend which educational version they have installed ... some are ok for commercial use, some are not.

<comment><USER10> No they're not committing fraud (a crime), they're violating their software licence (a tort) at most

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is the story of a dominate company in a market were it's users feel it can't go anywhere else, if they wanted to. It turns to be a good thing.

I think this is going to put a big dent in piracy of adobe products going forward, provide a large window for competitors to provide products to people that don't want a subscription, and give the users some really great benefits of using cloud products.

It's one example of a company moving forward and doing good because it has a mostly captive audience and it's a win,win,win.

<comment><USER33> How does this put a dent in piracy exactly? I think I've heard this sentiment before, but the pirates always figure out a way. Even the article somewhat casually throws away a line that says pirated apps will continue to exist. I'm just saying, if piracy isn't eliminated completely it's wishful thinking to say it will somehow happen less.

<comment><USER32> I have not researched this thoroughly so I am not one hundred percent sure. But I assume the application side of this software will live on a server somewhere and you may only access via a web browser or some kind of client application. This implies that a user will have to authenticate when using the software and that this authentication will be tied to them as a person.

So if their account is being using for wide spread piracy it will be shut down quickly and that individual will personally be out money and not have access to the service. This still allows for small scale sharing --onsies twosies kind of stuff.

However this won't stop piracy of old software only the software going forward.

This makes a lot of assumptions, but I think it's basically correct.

<comment><USER34> > But I assume the application side of this software will live on a server > somewhere and you may only access via a web browser or some kind of client > application. This implies that a user will have to authenticate when using > the software and that this authentication will be tied to them as a person.

That's not how it works. You have the binaries on your machine and then it phones home periodically to auth (at minimum once per month or six months, the FAQ is confusing).

[http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html#how- wor...](http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html#how-works)

> You will need to be online when you install and license your software. If > you have an annual membership, you'll be asked to connect to the web to > validate your software licenses every 30 days. However, you'll be able to > use products for 180 days even if you're offline.

<comment><USER35> > _You have the binaries on your machine_

Then I love this definition of "in the cloud". Even desktop apps are now "cloud" apps!

<comment><USER34> In Adobe's world: cloud = "Customers never stop paying".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I intensely dislike this.

Artistic careers usually aren't extremely stable, revenue-wise.

Before Creative Cloud, it was possible for an artist to buy all the tools they needed in a boom period, and then keep using them no matter how pear-shaped their income situation got. (Bear in mind that in the film world, for example, clients simply _not paying at all_ is close to routine.)

Now, if your revenue stream dries up, your tools go away, and you're completely fucked.

<comment><USER37> Surely, pay-as-you-go is much more preferable when you don't have a stable income?

It's also cheaper, so just keep the cash in the bank and pay per month.

<comment><USER36> That assumes:

That artists will keep their tools at the latest version at all times - <USER3> don't. Often, they're still using a version of Photoshop three upgrades old. At that point, Creative Cloud is a __lot __more expensive.

That they get paid in advance. They don't, always. Particularly if you're creating something for consumers, you get paid after creation. However, if your tools have gone away, you can't create, which means you can't get paid, which means you can't buy the tools, which means... Yep, you're screwed.

That all artists are really good with money and financial planning. They aren't. I know you'll probably say "well then, they deserve to have no tools". Sadly, I've never seen that artistic ability directly correlates to business sense, and I'd rather that brilliant artists don't end up stopping producing work I enjoy, regardless.

On that note, that dry periods never go on for longer than the old purchase price of Photoshop / duration of dry spell * monthly cost of Creative Cloud. If a dry spell does go on for that long, even if you saved up the purchase price of Photoshop and dilligently pay it month after month, you're screwed.

<comment><USER37> > That artists will keep their tools at the latest version at all times - <USER3> > don't. Often, they're still using a version of Photoshop three upgrades old. > At that point, Creative Cloud is a lot more expensive.

Not true:

Amazon list price for CS6 Photoshop today: £631. CC price for 3 years: £632. With no upfront outlay.

> That they get paid in advance.

Surely if they have a problem with cash flow, it is advantageous to not have to outlay capital? So "pay as you go" makes much more sense. This is why start-ups use the cloud.

> That all artists are really good with money and financial planning.

This is true - but part of making a living by being an artist is also having a decent head for business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I don't get it - am I not going to be able to get an install of Photoshop anymore? If so, then that sounds like a HORRIBLE strategy, since by far not every person is always connected to the internet, never mind high-quality internet.

<comment><USER39> CC is an install. Instead of just buying the product you pay per month. Forget to pay one month? Then the software won't work. So long as you're paying each month you can use it offline.

<comment> jack-r-abbit I'm curious how it can tell if you've paid up if you are using it offline? I would assume if it isn't able to phone home to check your subscription, it would fail.

<comment><USER40> Yes, which means that unless you're willing to expose your money-making machines to the internet (studio workstations generally are not) or are in a position to connect (which is not always the case on deep projects) you don't have a stand-alone app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Education pricing requires an annual commitment, which is a real shame. When I need an Adobe program there's often no substitute, but I only need it very rarely. If they did it month-to-month I'd be happy to buy it just for that month... Since they don't, I guess it's good for me they do 30-day product demos.

</comment><comment><USER37> Wow, I can't believe how many people are against this.

I think it's a great move and will benefit independent designers and creators hugely.

First: the price keeps coming down. Now you can get Photoshop or Premiere for $10/month. That is much cheaper than buying a copy every two years.

Next: I know indie film-makers who have pirated Premiere. They simply don't have any money to pay for it, but have sworn to buy a copy if they ever make any money from it. This complete ends this argument - even those working short bar shifts can afford a copy. So they contribute in the short-term, and we all get a fuzzy warm feeling knowing that programmers at Adobe are getting some of our cash.

The educational discounts are huge. I've always wanted to use Premiere and Photoshop, but have never been able to afford the capital outlay (being a lowly post-doc), and am not a big fan of pirating things. I'm going to sign up today for CC.

I think this business model is a lot more sustainable. It gives Adobe a solid stream of revenue and we all get to use the latest versions.

The only improvement I'd like to see now is perhaps one more drop in price, and then a condition whereby those who have been subscribed for a certain amount of time (say, 18 months or 2 years) and cancel their subscription can keep the suite - perhaps with some limitations, e.g. they're limited to the version that was available when they first subscribed, or only a subset of tools are available...

</comment><comment><USER42> This might be problematic. Photoshop works for a lot of us because it is a stand alone application.

Curious to see what kind of lag issues will occur on a cloud based solution. As mentioned above, it seems more like an anti-piracy issue solution.

While Photoshop is the standard, several other applications exist that do a good job as well. They might lose market share over this move.

<comment><USER43> Think of it like you are forced to rent a car forever instead of buying it. You still get to drive the car, but can never own it outright.

<comment><USER37> Yes, and the car you rent is continuously upgraded to the newest model, and for one price you get a whole range of cars, and the total cost of ownership over a few years is cheaper than buying them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I never use Photoshop, but sometimes I work with graphic designers who like preparing everything as one huge PSD with lots of layer groups, and it feels like an absurd waste of energy to keep subscribing to Photoshop just to export all layers as PNG, since that is all I ever use it for. Photoshop itself can barely do this, HOURS on moderately complex documents.

Maybe this would be a good time to ask, does anyone know of a 100% compatible way to do PSD -> any open layered format, without Photoshop? Maybe this is a business opportunity, to run a web service whose sole purpose is to open PSD files in photoshop with a custom export script, and then export the layers.

<comment><USER45> According to some comments above, GIMP does support PSD files, and I know for a fact that GIMP supports scripting, so you could just write a script to export the layers for you.

<comment><USER44> Gimp absolutely does not support 100% correct conversion from psd. Layer effects are particularly broken. I have not seen any third party tool that properly handles psd files containing non-rasterized layers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I suspect Adobe will hurt themselves in two ways here — first, their apps are becoming increasingly dispensable, and this will push users to less capable but far cheaper and often more nimble alternatives (perhaps renting CC apps when occasionally needed) and second it will eliminate over-licensing (e.g. In some workplaces Adobe CS was pretty much site-licensed).

It may help with piracy, but I suspect that's a two-edged sword as well.

Personally, I was an "upgrade every two or three versions" user, which let me use CS for significantly less money, so this will probably just cause me to wait Adobe out.

</comment><comment><USER47> It was a similar pricing strategy which in part convinced me to switch from work involving a set of proprietary tools to pursuing opportunities which largely made use of freely available, free software tools I could download and experiment with myself.

The cost for the tools I'd previously been using ranged from hundreds to several thousand dollars. Annually. In addition to the expense, additional and advanced features were only available at a significant additional annual cost.

The vendor was also increasingly focusing its efforts on systems I had little interest in using. Despite a multi-platform legacy, much present use is on Windows systems (I've not used these as my principle environment for over a decade now).

I understand why Adobe would do this, and to a certain extent, subscription- based software models offer benefits: upgrades are already paid-in, and you can move users to the current level with fewer constraints (or with no alternative in the case of web-hosted software).

Operating in multiple markets, with multiple propensities to pay, and freely- available competing products suitable to at least some users, this sets up Adobe for a difficult situation.

Not entirely unlike book publishers: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/business/supreme-court- eas...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/business/supreme-court-eases-sale- of-certain-products-abroad.html)

</comment><comment><USER48> This may not be a good idea for their video products - Final Cut X has over the last two or three updates just got back pretty much all the features that professional editors had been missing and is only $300 on the App Store. DaVinci Resolve is better than SpeedGrade and has a free option. Audio editing has always been in the domain of Pro Tools and Logic so I'm not going to miss Audition. The only thing I would miss is After Effects but CS6 should keep me going for a few years.

</comment><comment><USER49> I have a feeling I'm not a customer that matters for Adobe. I'm a programmer who uses Photoshop only a few times a month, sometimes less. I've personally owned every other version since Photoshop 3 paying ~$199 to upgrade every ~4 years or so. I don't mind paying ~$199 every ~4 years for every other version. I do mind paying $240 every year for a subscription.

So, CS5 will be the last version of Photoshop I purchase. I will not subscribe. I will keep using CS5 until I can't and then I'll start looking for alternatives.

If the price comes down so it matches what I was spending before I'll consider the subscription. Or, if the subscription is on a per use basis so if I don't use it for a month or 2 I'm not charged I might consider it but otherwise no thank you.

I'm also leery of subscriptions in that Adobe can basically kill me anytime they want (or anytime they screw up). In other words, I don't like the idea that if their servers go down, if they are hacked, if I'm travelling abroad with a bad internet connection, if they make a mistake, if they just don't like me, whatever, they can stop me from getting work done.

The subscription probably makes sense for pros that use it every day and always upgrade and stay put in one place. It doesn't make sense for me with my usage patterns. (No, PS Elements is not a substitute, nor is gIMP unfortunately).

</comment><comment><USER50> I'm trying the free trial of CC, but I can't work out how to actually run any of the apps. I click the "Apps" tab at the top but it just says "Learn More" next to everything?

</comment><comment><USER51> In related news, Fireworks continues to be neglected (note the lack of a CC version).

<comment><USER52> According to this tweet, "neglected" may be as good as it gets from here on out. <https://twitter.com/DeeSadler/status/331209193451315202>

Edit: here's a blog post too: [http://blogs.adobe.com/fireworks/2013/05/the- future-of-adobe...](http://blogs.adobe.com/fireworks/2013/05/the-future-of- adobe-fireworks.html)

<comment><USER51> I think everybody knew it was eventually inevitable. Though the conceit in that blog post about "increasing amount of overlap" is decent PR-speak, it's really disingenuous and dances around the fact that there was _always_ a large overlap between Fireworks and both Illustrator and Photoshop.

The big issue was whether Adobe was ever going to be really genuinely willing to address a fundamental tension:

* on one hand, Photoshop has always been a fundamentally flawed tool for screen design (I'd even go so far as to speculate that by now it's cost as much in designer and developer productivity as IE6 ever did).

* on the other hand, it's one of the biggest brands ever and its status as a _verb_ is gives a lot to its owner

I guess today is the day they've announced the other hand wins permanently.

The sad thing is if Fireworks ever had a chance, the creative cloud setup where professionals could play with it extensively at no additional cost might have been the best setup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> The subscription model works for many, but I personally hate the idea of not owning my software. Especially when it's mission-critical software like Photoshop. It's the same reason I don't subscribe to all-you-can-eat music services and instead buy my albums one by one on Amazon. Yes I know it costs me more on average, but I like what I buy to be mine.

Also, does this make it much harder to pirate Adobe products since they require constant activation? If so, I'm not sure if that is a good idea. Photoshop has had a strangle hold on image editing because so many amateurs pirate it at home and then force their boss to buy it at work. It was rumored that Adobe recognized this and actually had no problem with the piracy, realizing that they could make up for it with the high sticker price that legit customers paid. Now that a 14 year old can't pirate PS to muck around with, he might find that other image editors fit his needs and never become a paying Adobe customer.

</comment><comment><USER54> Mixed thoughts on this. I'm primarily a developer, and maybe once every couple of months I need to dive in to do some graphics work or pick apart a PSD from a designer I've worked with.

I paid $700 for Photoshop CS3 on Windows back in 2007, and in 2010 I paid $200 to upgrade to CS5 and switch my license over to Mac. I'll have been using it for 6 years at a total cost of $900, or $12.50/mo. Assuming I don't upgrade for another 2 years, that's $9.38/mo.

With this new system, I'd be paying nearly twice as much without getting all that much more value. Of course I can keep using CS5 for several more years, but my next upgrade becomes a $240/yr decision instead of a $200/3yr decision. It's unlikely that I would pay for it unless no other software can read new PSDs.

Now, Photoshop with rolling updates for $10/mo? I would heavily consider it, although it seems awkward that if I cancel, I'd have to go re-install CS5.

<comment><USER10> You can turn it off and on though.

<comment><USER54> If it's turned off, you can't use the software, right? If I had to do that every time I was pretty sure I wouldn't use it for a while, I'd probably find different software..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have been digging the Creative Cloud for a while in terms of availability not price. If you tried to actually buy Creative Suite you would have a hard time the last year or so even finding that on their site. This was inevitable.

What sucks is them killing apps individually, I thought the creative cloud would allow more obscure apps to be tried without the need to have it supported by it's own sales right away, or some overlap. Fireworks losing out in this does suck. It didn't make sense for Adobe with Photoshop but too bad a competitor doesn't have it.

I think the price is still high for CC, the upgrade price for a year is $30/month but the full price is $50/month after that year, definitely premium pricing. They have to come down or I will bail after this year.

</comment><comment><USER55> The article is misleading. Adobe is not abandoning the Creative Suite at all.

What they did is:

\- rename the suite from "Creative Suite" to "Creative Cloud" \- dropped one- time purchases of their software \- added monthly subscription to the software

Except the payment change of their products they didnt really change anything...

</comment><comment><USER56> If anyone is looking for an alternate photo editor, do check out the open sourced project, Lightzone - <http://lightzoneproject.org/>

For raw images, it wraps around DCRaw.

Lightzone was formally a commercial product, but was open sourced recently. The original author is currently an Apple employee.

It'd be interesting to see if Google do something in this space, especially after their acquisition of the image editor - Snapseed, and its' creator, Nik Software. Nik from what I'm aware, developed/maintained Nikon's raw editor - Capture NX 2.

I think there is definitely room for something disruptive in this space. Looking over some photography forums, people there are certainly looking and talking about what alternatives to Photoshop are out there.

</comment><comment><USER57> Adobe's Creative Cloud scheme is anti-consumer and anti-competitive. Adobe is essentially attempting to leverage the monopoly that Photoshop has in the professional market to lock customers into the whole suite of Adobe products. A lot of people who have to use Photoshop are going to use the rest of the CC products because they are bundled not because they want to. It's quite a burden to thing of 600.00 in adobe charges and then piling on a Media Composer purchase or upgrade. The move to CC calls into question the long term viability of the DNG format and leaves photographers with few good choices for archival storage of RAW files.

Oh well, New Coke was a big hit so why not Creative Cloud.

</comment><comment><USER58> In theory: Brilliant. The software has suddenly become cheaper and I don't have to worry about what computer I install it on. I'm also not having to shell out huge amounts of money for upgrades.

In practice: There is just something I can't deal with when it comes to moving these kinds of tools to the cloud. What happens if Adobe decides to cut the cord 4-5 years down the line? What if they go bust? With CS6, it wouldn't bother me that much. I still have the tool I purchased but I know it just won't be updated. But with this model, I'm suddenly stripped of all my tools and unable to do work until Adobe sorts out the situation or an open-source alternative comes along. Uh-oh

</comment><comment><USER59> This is interesting. My parents had no problem with me saving up for and purchasing CS5 design standard, but they'd almost certainly expect me to give up a Creative Cloud subscription before giving me any financial assistance in college.

Why is it that financial difficulty makes us feel obligated to give up small, frequent purchases rather than sell large items, even when the cost is the same? Like why is it irresponsible to buy Starbucks coffee while in debt but perfectly okay to continue driving a modern car?

On that note, what if Starbucks sold a year's worth of coffee all at once? Would people's consumption be less subject to the economy?

<comment><USER60> > _but they'd almost certainly expect me to give up a Creative Cloud > subscription before giving me any financial assistance in college._

Emm, how about not telling them?

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> I'm not sure how I feel about this.

There's a part of me that's saying that I don't need to continue to pirate Photoshop/Fireworks (I'm not a designer, but I do handle some graphic content for our company), and the other part of me is saying I should still go pirate Photoshop 7 (super lightweight compared to any other PS version.) And, what I mean by that is, not everyone needs to upgrade every version. What happens when shit hits the fan with a version of Photoshop and all the CC customers are forced to upgrade?

<comment><USER62> You never "need" to pirate software. If you're too cheap/poor to buy Photoshop, use GIMP.

Grow up.

<comment><USER63> He just described a scenario where he needs to pirate PS 7.0 because Adobe doesn't offer it anymore and modern versions are inferior.

Unless GIMP somehow covers all his use cases and can read his PSD files without problems? Unless it's changed since I used it last week, that's false.

Basically, there are scenarios where legit customers are stuck pirating. I own licenses for multiple pieces of software that I can now only acquire through torrents because the original vendor doesn't offer the installers anymore (or wants to force you to paid upgrade to a newer version).

<comment><USER62> Do you think he has a license to PS 7.0 and is going to "pirate" it by finding an installer from an alternate source? I did not get that impression.

You're not stuck pirating, you're stuck unable to use the software.

The choices are pay for software or use FOSS, you're doing both communities a disservice by pirating.

<comment><USER63> Doing that is piracy, though. Which is my point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Contrast $50/year for top quality video editing: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5637389>

</comment><comment><USER65> I think the subscription model is far superior. It's great knowing I have a set cost each month for the software and I'll receive all of the updates as part of the subscription.

However, it's too bad the updates are still incredibly slow. I joined when CC started and it's taken almost an entire year just to get Retina Macbook support, and there are still a number of apps that don't have it, like Bridge.

I'm glad to see them focusing on the service even more.

<comment><USER60> > _and it's taken almost an entire year just to get Retina Macbook support, > and there are still a number of apps that don't have it, like Bridge._

Well, it's not like updates come out of thin air, or that shoving more engineers and money at them makes them come out faster. Especially more so for complex software.

<comment><USER65> Ya good point. I guess I would expect more considering this is basically the most popular software in the world for creative work. The sad part that I didn't mention above is that not one piece of the software is optimized for Retina. It's runs like a dog and is easily the worst performing piece of software on my Retina, which I find to be crazy.

All they did was simply update the interface to support it...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> For me, it seems like the upper management is incompetent. They just read IT news about the cloud and other buzzwords without knowing what Cloud means in that context. For example, Microsoft does not offer Visual Studio on the cloud, they offer Azure that is a complement for their offerings.

PS: I am not arguing that Microsoft is right on all their offerings, only using them as an example.

</comment><comment><USER67> Two questions...

1\. Does this apply only to the Creative Suite, or all of the suites (e.g. E-Learning Suite)?

2\. Where does that leave current customers who are on the 2-year upgrade plans? Are we shit out of luck, or can the cost of that plan be applied as credit toward Creative Cloud?

I know this isn't the Adobe Support forum, but just thought I'd throw this out there in case anyone here knows.

</comment><comment><USER21> Always fun to watch a company kill off a huge chunk of its revenue stream for the sake of "stopping piracy". Idiotic.

</comment><comment><USER68> The word "cloud", in this case, just being an excuse to shift away from piracy to a subscription model.

</comment><comment><USER69> I wonder how much effort they will put into making it hard to crack -- if they put most of the logic in the cloud, they could do a great job (you'd have to fully re-create the software, or do some crazy proxy service to multiplex a bunch of users to one legitimate account.

</comment><comment><USER70> I'm most interested to know if CS apps on CC are still available via COM. Does anyone know? I've gotten into the habit of driving CS apps from Python via win32com for publishing workflow purposes.

</comment><comment><USER71> $50p/m, OK I might have considered this, however as a UK citizen the equivalent is $72p/m which irks me greatly, why does the UK get this unfair pricing, do the bits cost more to send?

<comment><USER72> UK pricing includes VAT (20%). US pricing doesn't include taxes because they vary by state (not a US citizen, but I've been told that's the reason).

<comment><USER71> Interesting point, that does make sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Also, if you are doing low level graphics Snag It can be a good alternative for minor jobs.

<http://www.techsmith.com/snagit.html>

</comment><comment><USER73> Note that they still keep the regional pricing. I can understand a small difference, but 60% (EU) is complete nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER74> I enjoy owning my tools.

I am pretty annoyed that this option is going away. I guess it's more of a perception thing than anything.

<comment><USER75> You can try Krita and you can own it! :) <http://www.krita.org>

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> If they start mining our creativity data, the internet has officially jumped the shark.

</comment><comment><USER77> What about all the CS Plug-In developers? Does this essentially kill them off?

<comment><USER78> No, there's a number of small businesses that are doing CS plugins, including myself with <http://thimbleup.com> .

If anything this makes plugin development easier in the same way developing an iOS app is easier with nearly forced updates. When interviewing design shops, many of them stuck to an 'every other year' upgrade path, so many of them still used CS5 - which meant I also have to buy multiple revisions of CS to support/test everyone.

I'm a bit concerned personally though since this also kills the used market for Adobe products going forward (CS6 sells for only $700 if you look for just used licenses), although I'm hoping the reduced support costs of going cloud will make their products maybe cheaper in the long run.

My only possible concern would be the cloud-based plugins like layervault competing with Creative Cloud's features, but they could serve support for the non-Adobe crowd and support pixelmator/acorn users.

<comment><USER77> You make some good points. I prefer to just buy outright versus the monthly fee.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> Adobe is going to lose plenty of money and customers over this. I don't want to deal with trying to upload large files on 512 kbps upload. It's a truly stupid idea.

<comment><USER80> I'm currently working on a 3GB PSD, with the fastest connection I could purchase, that will take 11 hours for me to upload. It would also consume 15% of my storage capacity on their Creative Cloud with one document.

Suffice to say I won't ever be using the "cloud save" crap.

<comment><USER81> Yep, until we all get fiber-quality uploading, we will never have true cloud performance for design files. 9 megabits a second means it would take about 51 minutes to upload that on a decent cable connection. And that's still way too long. A fibre 250/250 would be done in a minute and a half.

Personally I want streaming documents and live changes. At least some kind of collaboration features to go with my "cloud" ;-)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is the annual Nautilus subscription worth it? - <AUTHOR> I see Nautilus articles get linked here fairly regularly, but I hadn't known much about the publication until today. I like the idea of what they're doing (thematic and multidisciplinary scientific writings), but wonder if it works in the long run. Any subscribers here that recommend the switch to active readership? I'm hesitant to give more of my time to online publications since it's so easy to get sucked into reading rubbish, which is why I'm seeking some external validation before opening my wallet and schedule. <comment><USER2> Nautilus is worthy of your support. The Wikipedia article enumerates its successes and some of its failings,, for example, not paying authors in a timely way. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus_(science_magazine)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus_\(science_magazine\)). Personally, I think there is a need for a journal like Nautilus and therefore subscribe. Paid subscriptions and donations are needed to provide the economic base to pay for quality authors.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have been impressed with the quality of the science writing in Quanta magazine:

[https://www.quantamagazine.org](https://www.quantamagazine.org)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, that's right. I see a lot of Quanta articles floating around too. Do they offer a paid service, or anything? Or do they make anything available in ePub formats?

<comment><USER3> Apparently Quanta is fully supported by the Simons Foundation:

[https://www.quantamagazine.org/about/](https://www.quantamagazine.org/about/)</comment></comment></comment>


White to move and win: beautiful van Breukelen puzzle (c. 1987) - <AUTHOR> https://en.chessbase.com/post/solution-to-a-truly-remarkable-study <comment><AUTHOR> For a YouTube walkthrough, see agadmator at

[https://youtu.be/8wCJalNkTEI](https://youtu.be/8wCJalNkTEI)</comment>


Ask HN: What is the social responsibility of an engineer in tech organizations? - <AUTHOR>

Given the growth of computing over the last decades, software and hardware engineers (and tech companies generally) have increasingly disproportionate power to have impact.
Edward Snowden is one recent (if extreme) example of an engineer wrestling with what their moral code and related responsibilities. Beyond Snowden, many of the tools at the NSA were built by other engineers who likely saw tremendous value to the protections the NSA provided, or at a minimum did not feel comfortable speaking out.
There are less obviously pernicious examples that are faced by engineers on HN every day. For example, you design hardware at an Internet of Things company and collect data that will be resold to third parties with little transparency to the consumer. Or (more topically) your company creates a tool to subvert TLS for the purpose of tracking user behavior, so that ads can be served or users tracked.
How do you set your own code of conduct/moral principles as an engineer for the products you work on (privacy and beyond)? What inspirations have set these moral principles? How and when do you communicate disagreements to your team? <comment><USER2> I am very emphatic that my ethics are of paramount importance.

On the other hand, I'm not having much luck getting a job, or even a consulting contract, so I'm developing a business that will get its money through crowdfunding.

Consider that even Snowden wants to come home; he's not asking not to be prosecuted, only that he gets a fair trial. So he fully expects to go to prison.

Sometime, my stand on ethics really gets me down. But there are lots of other times that I do not regret it.</comment>


'I'll be in Canada': More students are looking to head north - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/03/27/ill-be-in-canada-more-students-are-looking-to-head-north/ <comment><USER2> See ya.</comment>


Show HN: Correlated - Help us discover surprising correlations - <AUTHOR> http://www.correlated.org/index.html?refer=HN

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd love to get some feedback about how I have addressed the "first-time bounce rate."

In an earlier draft of the site, users had to create an account before they could even cast a vote on the daily survey question.

Now, they can cast their vote -- and _then_ they're asked to create an account, and I give them a concise explanation of why it's important that they create an account (correlations can only be made by tracking their responses to various survey questions over time).

Any suggestions on how I can address the "bounce" problem even more effectively?

</comment><comment><USER2> I especially like the post on your "Coding Blog" that's linked at the bottom, which explains exactly how you make the correlations -- and even gives the SQL you use. We stats nerds eat that stuff up.

I can't give you any points for the rigors of your methods, but I'm assuming you're not planning to present any of these statistics as reliable.

<comment><USER2> The post I'm referring to is here:

[http://coding.pressbin.com/88/How-my-new-site-Correlated- wor...](http://coding.pressbin.com/88/How-my-new-site-Correlated-works/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's like "Freakonomics" for the masses.</comment>


Asynchronous JavaScript: Clearing Up Threading Confusion - <AUTHOR> http://localhost:4000/wizardry/2014/11/22/javascript-async-multithreaded-magic.html

<comment><USER2> I guess this is supposed to link to this: [https://blog.wizardry.io/wizardry/2014/11/22/javascript- asyn...](https://blog.wizardry.io/wizardry/2014/11/22/javascript-async- multithreaded-magic.html)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for clearing the URL confusion:)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wrong url?

</comment><comment><USER5> localhost:4000 lol</comment>


Fleet Management for Kubernetes Is Here - <AUTHOR> https://rancher.com/blog/2020/fleet-management-kubernetes/ <comment><USER2> Fleet has been top of mind for Darren for a while. We were hit pretty quickly after creating k3s with users asking about fleet management.

But getting the design right mean talking to people with loads of different use cases, such as vehicles, medical devices, industrial automation equipment, set top boxes, telco equipment, ATM machines, cash registers and even security cameras.

Lots of work to do, and would love to get some community support during the development of this. This is definitely a project we could see moving into the CNCF in the future.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Darren clearly never sleeps. This is in alpha but is functional. Looking forward to seeing more about this and trying it out across a number of clusters to keep them in sync with helm.</comment>


Another ICO Hacked: KICKICO Loses $8M After Smart Contract Breach - <AUTHOR> https://www.ccn.com/another-ico-hacked-kickico-loses-8-million-after-smart-contract-breach/ <comment><USER2> That's a very poor headline, seeing as the private key was what was compromised, and not the contract.

</comment><comment><USER3> mysql injection, weak passwords, compromised server..usual suspects

<comment><USER4> How can shit like this still be occurring in 2018?

<comment><USER5> Regardless of the year, you have to hire devs who know what they are doing, and that entails paying a real salary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Did any ICO ever result in anything useful?

<comment><USER7> Can we stop with the blockchain trolling please? It only makes you look very ignorant.

Yes, there is a humongous number of scammy projects. But there are also projects working really hard to succeed and they deserve a chance. Right now I'm particularly impressed by what Augur pulled off, it's not certain whether it will succeed long term but credit should be given where it's due.

<comment><USER8> Augur: "Report the Outcome Report the winning outcome of the event after it occurs. Other users can dispute your report if they don't agree."

I think I can spot the weak link in this system.

<comment><USER9> Yes, everyone who's spent two minutes thinking about designing a decentralized prediction market has spotted that weak link. Hence that's what Augur is designed to address.

Think it won't work? Go get your bug bounty, or even put in a massive short and then break it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Fetishization of Sex as a Growth Strategy for Religions - <AUTHOR> http://www.richardprice.io/post/35344606653/the-fetishization-of-sex-as-a-growth-strategy-for

<comment><USER2> _The fundamental moral principles of religions like Christianity, and also many others, are things like: everyone is born with equal rights; treat others as you would treat yourself; try to alleviate the suffering of others._

This is projection.

Secular thinkers conceive of ethics relationally. Kant's categorical imperative. The harm principle. It's all about how you affect other people -- you shouldn't do them harm, and perhaps on a good day, you should do them good. Beyond that, who cares?

This isn't a Christian way of thinking, though. To a Christian, the object of central importance is God. How he views things. How your actions show your love for him. The pursuit of righteousness, for its own sake, because it is important to Him.

This is not just my opinion, by the way. A central prayer in Judaism is the Shema (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema_Yisrael>): "Hear, O Israel: the LORD is our God, the LORD is one,". And Jesus affirms this as the central and most important command, and expands it (Mk 12:19):

        "The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel;
        The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the
        Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
        and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this
        is the first commandment."

The _central_ commands of both religions don't say a thing about other people.

There are a lot of external, moral things we agree upon. But consider, for a moment, even the most famous set of rules, the ten commandments:

        1. You shall have no other Gods
        2. You shall make no artwork to be used as an idol
        3. You shall not misuse God's name
        4. You shall rest on the seventh day
        5. Honor your father and mother
        6. You shall not murder
        7. You shall not commit adultery
        8. You shall not steal
        9. You shall not give false legal testimony
       10. You shall not be jealous of your neighbor's things

Think about those for a second. The secularist is right there with us on 6, 7, 8, and 9. Those are external, measurable, harm-related. But look at the rest of them! 1, 5 and 10 are purely internal; thought crimes, if you will. 2 and 3 are purely religious -- who are you hurting exactly if you break these? -- and 4 sounds like a good idea, but making it a commandment that bears the death penalty seems rather like overkill.

Is it that Christians are dumb for thinking these are important? No, it's that we _think about ethics differently than you_. To suppose Christianity approaches ethics like a secularist is to seriously misunderstand Christianity, and to project your own way of thinking onto it.

<comment><USER3> To expand: in Hebrew and Christian scripture, marriage is used as an analogy for God. For example, the creation story says humanity is created "in the image of God, male and female". God is said to be the husband of Israel; Hosea and others liken Israel to a prostitute or an unfaithful wife. The church is called "the bride of Christ".

Thus, sexual ethics tie directly into core tenets of Judeo-Christian doctrine relating to who God is and how God relates to humanity. Concepts like faithfulness, self-sacrifice, love, authenticity, exclusivity, the joining of two different beings into one coherent whole, and commitment are reflected in both Theology and sexual ethics. This is communicated in Jewish and Christian scripture, and in the writings of Jewish and Christian scholars throughout history.

There are components of Jewish and Christian sexual ethics that can be thought of in terms of harm (cheating on your spouse can harm them emotionally, or physically through STDs), but for the most part it's more appropriate to think in terms of a reflection of God's nature and interaction with humans. For someone whose education in ethics is limited to harm, it can be difficult to see how ethical systems could be built around other concepts, but once you grasp the basic philosophical core, it's pretty straightforward to see how sexual ethics fit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _> > The fundamental moral principles of religions like Christianity, and also many others, are things like: everyone is born with equal rights; treat others as you would treat yourself; try to alleviate the suffering of others._

The texts of most major religions glorify warfare, genocide, slavery, discrimination, and misogyny. Often, they glorify suffering itself.

 _> > If two people consent to engage parts of their bodies in various ways, that doesn't seem to raise any ethical issues of its own._

Sex in modern Western society is wholly different than how it was thousands of years ago. Today we are radically more educated about the workings and consequences of sex, we have access to condoms and numerous other forms of birth control, and we are dramatically less likely to act violently as a result of sexual impulses and emotions. In addition, having a child is more of a personal lifestyle choice, rather than being a decision that affects the entire tribe or community.

</comment><comment><USER5> Actually, there are tremendous practical reasons why a religion would include sexual ethics into its moral code.

Prime example: Fidelity within marriage (one of the Ten Commandments). People who cheat on their spouses not only do damage to their relationship, but also increase their own (and their spouse's) risk of being infected with a sexually transmitted disease.

Look at some of the sex-related stuff in Leviticus, like the prohibition on having sex while a woman has her period. Turns out, a woman is at greater risk of getting an STD during this time. So, like the Jewish dietary laws, this prohibition actually helped keep the Jewish people (relatively) healthy.

Or look at the religious rationale for prohibiting prostitution: It treats the prostitute (often a woman) as an object rather than a person with innate dignity, and even in cases where the prostitute is making a seemingly free choice to engage in the transaction, there are often hidden pressures (addiction, mental illness, a pimp) that affect her ability to make a truly free choice.

Those are just three small examples, but there are many others.

<comment><USER6> > So, like the Jewish dietary laws, this prohibition actually helped keep the > Jewish people (relatively) healthy.

The kashrut laws are about morality, and not about the lack of refigeration.

In an effort to live a good and moral life, Jews are told not to eat animals that may have eaten human remains (shellfish eat whatever is in their path, pigs are wonderful for disposing of bodies).

You can get might sick from spoiled lamb or goat, as you can form spoiled pig.

Furthermore, the "no meat with dairy" is an extrapolation of the exhortation not to boil a baby in its mothers milk. So Jews extrapolate and don;t have dairy products when they have red meat.

It is about honoring the Lord, not about spoiled food.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> As a practicing Catholic, no offense, but you're way off base. The point of making things like sex, gluttony, etc taboo is that it's a pleasure that you're putting above God that detracts from the worship of him. In many western societies people tend to think "victimless crimes" are of no consequence. I'd also like to point out that you seem to be working off the assumption that there is no God. If in fact you were operating under the assumption that there is in fact a God or deity, etc. simply this higher order being commanding it is enough to follow his word.

I would also say that on a personal (non-religious) note, I (and many others) consider sex a highly personal and special act that becomes less so the more people it's done with. Valuing modesty isn't such a bad thing, and I believe that being select about who you have sex with makes it more valuable of a gift to share with someone.

<comment><USER8> According to your religion you should not have sex for pleasure , whoever you have sex with ,or that's called luxury. The only purpose of sex is procreation. So there is no value in sex other than making children , and if you are doing it for pleasure it is a sin. ( i dont mind what you are doing , that's just what the catholic church says ).

<comment><USER7> That's actually a common misconception. The church teaches that for sex to "whole" it has to have both the formative (pleasure/love) aspect as well as the procreation aspect. You can certainly procreate outside of marriage (in the literal sense. This is also why they teach against birth control even for married couples. Only in marriage, with the purpose of child bearing is sex "whole".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article is heavily based on what current (esp. western) religions are concerned with _now_.

Religions used to be concerned with lots of different things in the past. For example the supernatural world, like witches and the devil visiting a house, or disease caused by immorality or lack of religiousity. Modern Christianity mostly cares about sex, but in the middle ages, they were concerned with witches, a few hundred years ago they were opposed to democracy, equality before the law, or overthrowing Kings.

 _The fundamental moral principles of religions like Christianity, and also many others, are things like: everyone is born with equal rights_

This has not always been the principle of Christianity. Back in the Day™ some people were born with more rights. Kings had the right to rule over commoners etc. It was a sin to disobey & rebel against your King/Lord/Duke/etc. since they had a divine right to rule. Christianity has only recently (i.e. ~ 100 → 200 years) accepted this "equality" idea that the Enlightenment was about.

</comment><comment><USER10> I believe some of the earliest religions were essentially sex cults that attempted to appease the gods and goddesses of fertility. More generally, the first shamans and priests were those who had acquired some insight into the workings of the natural world, yet, intentionally or not, shrouded them in mystique and ritual, creating barriers of entry to the knowledge they had discovered.

That sex is a particularly strong human motivator would drives religion's appeal to religion consumers while sex's role as a status differentiator would drive the appeal to religion producers. In short, I think the role of sex in religion is less a recent growth strategy than an ancient component that helps explain the religions we have today.

</comment><comment><USER11> First, lets ignore the single most salient aspect (in a historical, biological and social sense) of sex, namely that it produces babies, and all that that implies. Then, pretend to be surprised that systems which have evolved to shape peoples behavior have had a lot to say about sex. Then lets notice that religions can grow by sexual reproduction of members.

Well done, sir. Well done, indeed.

</comment><comment><USER12> The author seems to have forgotten that birth control is (mostly) a modern invention.

<comment><USER13> The author doesn't mention one time that the result of unencumbered sexual activity between adults is procreation.

Religions generally reserve procreation to occur within a structured family unit.

In my personal belief system, the family structure has a fundamental place in our eternal progression and thus the sanctity of family is of the utmost importance. The 'rules' regarding sexual activity are entirely related to the family structure.

I would bet that most religions that have prohibitions on sexual activity do it for very similar reasons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why is this on hacker news...

<comment><USER8> Because marketing is using religious techniques to promote brands , and religions are using marketing mediums to grow( mega churches , on demand salvation , etc ... ). Religion = Marketing = All about the money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Well religion is about control , and religion , in western society use to be a powerfull politic tool. The goal of religion is not to enlighten people about the "unseen world" but to control people's life and "morality", shame them (in case of christianity ) so they can go back to church and ask for forgiveness. Fetishization of sex is not a growth strategy for religion. Most religion growth has been acheive through violence and war.</comment>


Harvey Pekar, Who Chronicled Ordinary Lives in 'American Splendor' Comics, Dies - <AUTHOR> http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/harvey-pekar-who-chronicled-ordinary-lives-in-american-splendor-comics-dies/?hp

<comment><USER2> Mr. Pekar had an amazing ability to show the gritty and hilarious reality of our everyday lives.

He is also so thoroughly Cleveland..

Harvey, you are missed.

</comment><comment><USER3> The "working man's intellectual." My brother and I loved the American Splendor comic as kids, even though some of the adult-oriented content was over our heads. A great writer has passed. I'll never forget Pekar saying of David Letterman, "Guy's just a fratboy". I miss TV like that.

</comment><comment><USER4> I _just_ picked up "Best of American Splendor" and "From Off the Streets of Cleveland" 2 weeks ago, having learned that I was Pekar's neighbor in Cleveland Heights. I moved here from the East Coast only a year ago, and was excited to read a local author and see illustrations of places I was just getting to know. He'll be missed, but thankfully there's a huge catalog of his work to read through.</comment>


Computer Science Education: It's Not Shop Class - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/computer-science-education-its-not-shop-class/

<comment><USER2> Recent HN Discussion:

"Learning Computer Science from Scratch (programming environment)"

[http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116070&org...](http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116070&org=OLPA&from=news)

"Getting Computer Science into Middle School"

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1007889>

</comment><comment><USER3> "Kids going through school today need to be more than mere consumers of this technology, to be functional and literate citizens"

That sounds like a song I've heard before. The details vary, but something difficult, rigorous, and in some way removed from everyday concerns must be taught. It sounds inspiring, but I'm not sure the connection is made between the agenda--every kid in the county takes Algebra I by 8th grade, say--and the goal--an enlightened etc. population.

</comment><comment><USER4> Disregarding the whole "computers vs computer science" thing, I really believe this is a good idea. It's one of the reasons I'm working on Hackety Hack.

Computers touch every aspect of our lives. Understanding the basics of how they work is almost like a modern literacy. I don't think that everyone should become master programmers, however, they should at least understand the most basic things about how they work. We give cursory overviews of quite a lot of things in schools, but I can't imagine one more relevant than computers.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's sad to read the comments on the NYTimes article. Even people who claim to have years of experience in the "field" can't tell the difference between Computer Science and computers. Dijkstra said it all:

 _"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."_

In my most humble opinion, the value of CS education is not to prepare young people for a job in IT. Instead, its value is in teaching young people how to think in an abstract and rigorous manner. This is much more valuable, and it's useful regardless of what one's future career path is.

These days students think they can hack everything. They think they can BS on their homework essays, they think they can BS on their exams, they abstain from precise reasoning because it's too much work. Well, guess what? You can't BS a computer. All those sub-human morons commenting on the NYTimes article, the ones who work in IT and who are so afraid of outsourcing, should keep in mind that CS education is, at its core, _applied philosophy_ and _applied math_. The label "Computer Science" is a misnomer. Yet once again, I blame the Bourbakists. If Turing had lived a few decades before, Theoretical CS would be a part of Math, not a separate field.

<comment><USER3> "In my most humble opinion, the value of CS education is not to prepare young people for a job in IT. Instead, its value is in teaching young people how to think in an abstract and rigorous manner."

How can one disagree with such a goal? Yet surely any education should aim to teach the young how to think rigorously, and abstraction should be one of the tools. What then distinguishes CS education from what the should be doing across the quad in the departments of philosophy/history/literature?

<comment><USER5> Philosophy is mostly games of words that lead nowhere. Wittgenstein wrote all about it. History is interesting, but too ambiguous and too subjective. Literature is to be enjoyed, not to be analyzed. CS is _rigorous_ Philosophy and, hence, it's a good mental exercise that one can't get in other fields of knowledge.

When you design an algorithm and implement it in code, the computer will not allow you to be ambiguous and imprecise. You made a wrong assumption? Sorry, your program won't work. No partial credit for you. It's tough, but it's fair.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _And computer science programs, typically elective courses, have suffered in recent years because of budget cuts and the priority given to core courses that are the basis of standardized tests._

This is why I always tend to hate standardized tests. They don't test once ability in the field he would like to study. I think these "tests" must test once aptitude in a field. For example ask someone to make an algorithm for certain task. Now he may not have got formal training in algorithms, but he can certainly make a procedure for something, group repetitive tasks and all such things. This is not only for CS students you can test mechanical aspirants for there understanding of basic physical laws and mathematics behind it.

This idea may not be able to replace the SAT or the JEE/AIEEE we give in india but it does have potential to become part of such exams and let the students showcase there aptitude towards a given field.

Whenever I present such idea to someone I always tend to get a scorn, they say that a student is not always able to decide the field they would like to work in. But I say if he/she cannot decide where to channel there energy they should drop a year just to contemplate there choices and options. Also, we can blame our education system for such inabilities in decision. We are always forced to study everything, but they ever encourage us to give some extra time to our interests.

This is similarly true for ever discipline be it science, arts, commerce. You just have to study everything in detail. I would like a course where I am encouraged to learn the basics of everything and then go into one thing in detail. But here is a word of caution. That one thing should not be a very nano-sized niche. It should be somewhat broad. Like for electronics students it can be something like signal processing,micro controllers/processors, circuit design etc.</comment>


A Navigator for America's Deadliest Cold War ICBM - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30254/this-isnt-a-sci-fi-prop-its-a-doomsday-navigator-for-americas-biggest-cold-war-icbm <comment><USER2> There is similar recent technological development in missile accuracy that has changed the balance between the US and Russia to favor the US. It's completely missing the discussion when there is fret about Russian doomsday weapons. Russia needs more doomsday weapons and movable missile launchers just to match the US.

The Bulletin has great detailed article: How US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The burst-height compensating super-fuze [https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force- moderni...](https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force- modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height- compensating-super-fuze/)

>Our conclusions. Under the veil of an otherwise-legitimate warhead life- extension program, the US military has quietly engaged in a vast expansion of the killing power of the most numerous warhead in the US nuclear arsenal: the W76, deployed on the Navy's ballistic missile submarines. This improvement in kill power means that all US sea-based warheads now have the capability to destroy hardened targets such as Russian missile silos, a capability previously reserved for only the highest-yield warheads in the US arsenal.

>The result is a nuclear arsenal that is being transformed into a force that has the unambiguous characteristics of being optimized for surprise attacks against Russia and for fighting and winning nuclear wars. While the lethality and firepower of the US force has been greatly increased, the numbers of weapons in both US and Russian forces have decreased, resulting in a dramatic increase in the vulnerability of Russian nuclear forces to a US first strike.

<comment><USER3> When (and indeed why) did people start referring to a new generation of Russian weapons as "doomsday weapons"?

<comment><USER2> When and because Russian's started to develop doomsday weapons.

"Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System" seems to be huge salted nuclear bomb similar to the the cobalt-salted doomsday bomb in the movie Dr. Strangelove. The goal of is to contaminate wast areas for long time.

"9M730 Burevestnik" is experimental nuclear powered, nuclear armed cruise missile. The US had similar crazy doomsday weapon development program (SLAM and project Pluto in the 60's). Nuclear powered ramjet is insane compared to ICBM. When you use it, you don't care abut contaminating the launch site or anything between launch site and target.

These kinds of weapons can be used only as retaliation when all hope is lost and you want to kill hundreds of millions of civilians and make wast areas inhabitable. Russian early warning system has deteriorated as well, so they need something like that.

<comment><USER3> So the unintended consequence of ballistic missile defence (which could probably do very little to stop an all out Russian attack) is that your opponent creates even worse weapons that are impervious to ballistic missile defence.

Typically for "logic" in such matter the arguments used by both sides make complete sense but the result is insanity.

<comment><USER2> The goal of the US ballistic missile defense is defend against a limited ICBM attack and regional missile threats. US ballistic missile defense program can't defend against large scale Russian attack. Defending against large scale attack has never been the goal of the program, nor is it a realistic goal.

Russians use the US BMDS it partly as an excuse. Russians can easily compensate against any BMDS development by adding little steeper arch to their ICBM's or adding more countermeasures.

<comment><USER4> Maybe they're worried about their capability to retaliate - US BMDS maybe can not defend against full Russian arsenal but it may be successful against limited retaliation (if most of Russian arsenal gets wiped out in first strike).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Today, ring-laser gyro INS systems with embedded GPS come in tiny packages > and can sustain massive G forces allowing them to be packed into everything > from missiles to artillery shells...Before GPS was available to correct for > drift, it's amazing the lengths engineers went through to make inertial > navigation systems as accurate as possible.

Having your nuclear deterrence depend on GPS staying operational seems...questionable.

</comment><comment><USER3> If anyone likes this kind of thing then there is more on the (remarkable) site of Tatjana J. van Vark:

[http://www.tatjavanvark.nl/tvv5/platfrm.html](http://www.tatjavanvark.nl/tvv5/platfrm.html)

Edit: A different, simpler, INS!

<comment><USER6> > the (remarkable) site of Tatjana J. van Vark

It is indeed remarkable. At first I though it was just a collection of technology images, but then realised she made most of those devices herself. Thanks for the link.

<comment><USER3> She does seem to do restorations of some "interesting" items - such as a V-bomber Navigation and Bombing system:

[http://www.tatjavanvark.nl/tvve/dduck0.html](http://www.tatjavanvark.nl/tvve/dduck0.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's amazing that they were able to call this thing 'Peacekeeper' eith a straight face.

<comment><USER3> It was aimed at Soviet missile silos - you don't need that kind of accuracy to hit "countervalue" targets (i.e. cities) - so there was perhaps some logic to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> What's the point of 40 meters CEP in a high yield nuclear missile ? what's wrong with 400 meters ? 1 Km ?

[edit]

> Very little of the precision of this guidance system is even exploited > during a ballistic missile flight, it is mostly used simply to maintain > guidance system alignment on the ground during missile alert without needing > an external reference through precision gyrocompassing. Most ICBMs require > an external alignment system to keep the INS in synch with the outside world > prior to launch

<comment><USER2> The point is attack against hardened counterforce targets. You need to hit very close to get 10,0000 psi pressure that destroys and buries them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Truly fascinating. I wonder if there would be other uses for one of these systems, however, such as navigating deep underwater.

</comment><comment><USER10> >during missile alert without needing an external reference through precision gyrocompassing. Most ICBMs require an external alignment system to keep the INS in synch with the outside world prior to launch.

I don't fully grasp this.

<comment><USER11> Until someone with real knowledge comes along, here's my take. The INS doesn't know where it is at in relation to the rest of the world/universe/whatever. So you tell it. And the INS sits there in his missile silo, constantly asking, "where am I? Have I moved since last time I asked this question? If I've moved, where does that now place me in relationship to everything else?" Of course, he's in a missile silo, he hasn't gone anywhere. But the INS drifts; small imprecisions add up to the INS _thinking_ it moved when it didn't. So he has to sync with an external system to figure out, "whoops, haven't moved. Better rebaseline."

Where this fancy-schmancy system is so good, you tell it where it's at once, and he can sit in his silo for years without drifting enough to need correction. Again, somewhat educated SWAG. Do not stake your reputation on this by repeating it.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's my understanding too. The key is that this process of baselining takes time, which you don't have either when there's half a dozen 50MT Russian warheads coming your way (TFA refers to the missile sites being a nuclear "sponge", i.e. forcing the Russians to launch on them and use warheads that could be targeted against cities instead) or when you want to destroy them in a preemptive first strike before they can be launched.

<comment><USER12> Slightly OT but with submarine-based systems, the INS positioning is adjusted in part by doing a star sight at the top of the trajectory.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133_Trident_II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133_Trident_II)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> miniaturize it and make it a tourbillon in an extreme high end mechanical wrist watch

</comment><comment><USER14> Nowadays you can buy a toy quadcopter, and get a single chip gyro with on- package computer and performance of mid-cold war ICBM INS.

Microelectronics is a tough industry. Fear of communism can not match the fear of loosing to a commercial competitor in a half trillion dollar industry.

<comment><USER15> Not even close. Single chip gyros and accelerometers are many orders of magnitude less accurate. INAV with microelectronic gyros and accelerometers is pointless except for very short distances with frequent GPS corrections. Double integration is a cruel bitch.

<comment><USER14> I may have stretched that, but proper mems INS can have less than 1 degree per hour drift easily. That is solidly in the MRBM level accuracy.

And what is in the lab now, can go below 0.1

It was long believed that gyroscope precision is limited by its size, but as what latest gyros show, it's not.</comment></comment></comment>