Patent War Adds Front in U.S. - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324170004578633702773124388-lMyQjAxMTAzMDIwODEyNDgyWj.html <comment><USER2> "The group said a veto would upset decades of settled expectations and undermine the enforceability of valuable patents."

This would be a good thing in my opinion.

</comment><comment><USER3> And thus, too big to fail rears its head again. If we ignore laws surrounding patent restriction enforcement due to Apple's products forming the bottom line of many mobile operators offerings, then it stands to reason that the lesson learned here is it's better to become so entrenched that nobody -- not even the government -- can pull you out, rather than forming a competitive patent portfolio.

Intel proposed that product bans be implemented only under "extraordinary circumstances" but here we are, a patent war in full swing. Normalcy is cast aside in favor shifting and hidden allegiances.

<comment><USER4> I find it much more infuriating about "too big to fail" that nobody gives a shit about small startups who get bullied into bankruptcy by this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It might just be me, and since this is Apple vs. Samsung I am sure there will be lots of heated viewpoints on the topic, but to me it seems that this is going to be largely political. Apple is going to seem like a US-based company trying to move its operations back to boost the US economy, whereas Samsung is the external threat from overseas that is going to stifle the domestic market. I am not from either country, but that is how I see this playing out.

</comment><comment><USER6> Considering that Apple has moved to ban Samsung products from US Shelves, why can't Samsung do the same to Apple? Oh yeah, because the law sucks in both cases. So... neither should be able to ban each other's products.

Hopefully something reasonable will come out of this.</comment>


Saudi officials were 'supporting' 9/11 hijackers, commission member says - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/12/911-commission-saudi-arabia-hijackers <comment><USER2> Commission report also includes that the US destroyed vast amounts of information following the attacks and the US refused to allow numerous individuals to testify before the commission too.

So, sure, it's important what the Saudi's did, but why stop with them?

<comment><USER3> Stop looking backward nxzero. Stop it. Obama says we can't do that. Its bad. He's not doing it. Why are you? We gotta move forward. Its time to heal and put the past behind us. As a nation. You don't want to be looking backward as a nation do you nxzero? Do you? Forward. As a nation. Look there.</comment></comment>


Elevator Pitch at a Corner Store - <AUTHOR> http://pdobson.com/post/14023084602/elevator-pitch-vol-1

<comment><USER2> Works of fiction rarely disappoint, unlike reality.</comment>


Book imagines what animals might look like if humans went extinct (2018) - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Book+imagines+what+animals+might+l...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Book+imagines+what+animals+might+look+like+if+humans+went+extinct&t=ffab&ia=web)

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this supposed to link somewhere?</comment>


With Facebook No Longer a Secret Weapon, Egypt's Protesters Turn to Signal - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2016/04/26/facebook-no-longer-secret-weapon-egypts-protesters-turn-signal/ <comment><USER2> All Egpyt has to do is to block Singal's servers IPs and effectively take it offline.

This is what Gulf regimes already do (I know for sure it's blocked in UAE and Oman since I have tried).

Signal with a built in tor client that automatically bridges using obfs would be extremely powerful. A lock screen that destroys messages after x number of attempts is a good bonus (similar to threema).</comment>


Cable networks are speeding up TV shows to cram in ads - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cable-networks-are-speeding-up-tv-shows-to-cram-in-ads/ <comment><USER3> I'm still boggled by the fact that people pay for cable TV service and then accept ads at all, let alone ads at the cost of messing with the actual content.

<comment><USER4> If you imagine you escape ads when you pay for content, you're going to be disappointed. Even Netflix does paid product placement in 74% of its original series [1]

[1] [https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-hulu-netflix- driving-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-hulu-netflix-driving- product-placement-deals-2018-6?IR=T)

<comment><USER5> That's different. It's waaaay less disruptive to see a Toyota logo in the background than to stop the whole show for 5 minutes or show those awful pop- over ads.

<comment><USER6> There's an episode of CSI Miami where someone says let's have a video conference and someone else asks but is it secure and Horatio looks right at the camera and says of course it's secure, it's Cisco.

<comment><USER7> My favourite is CSI New York - "I'll create a GUI Interface using Visual Basic, see if I can track an IP address"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU)

<comment><USER8> Do you think that was product placement?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here in the EU (edit: at least in Germany), TV stations sometimes _slow down_ their shows to cram in more ads. There are rules that there may be only one block of ads in a show of up to 45 minutes, two blocks in a show of up to 90 minutes, and three blocks in a show of up to 110 minutes. So, if the content is just under 90 minutes or so, stations will stretch it slightly, so that it comes above the limit.

<comment><USER10> Not sure if it's a EU wide rule though. IIRC the rule in my country is just a maximum of 12 minutes per hour.

<comment><USER8> Chapter VII of the Audiovidual Media Services Directive [2010/13/EU] sets rules on "television advertising and teleshopping". Maybe member states can set stricter limits.

[2010/13/EU] [http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2...](http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:095:0001:0024:en:PDF)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Since I 100% stopped watching regular TV, watching shows on netflix, etc., so that even a few minutes of regular TV drives me crazy. It's the frenetic ads, the toxicity of many of the shows, and god knows what else that's crazy making. Now I know that it's actually sped up. How could that not affect someone's mental health in some way even a subtle way?

<comment><USER12> Same here. In addition I can't stand the wild swings in volume. Baby sleeping in the other room so you set it to the lowest volume possible where you can hear. When it breaks into a commercial, the volume seems to increase by 50%

<comment><USER13> If you're in the US, that's now illegal, and you can file a complaint: [https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/loud- commercials](https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/loud-commercials)

Other countries have similar rules, complain to your regulator!

<comment><USER12> I am in the US. However, I read somewhere that the ads are allowed to be at the level of the maximum volume in the program, which sort of muddies the waters.

<comment><USER14> I also think they're encoded very very poorly, compared to normal shows, which can have some nasty volume spikes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Besides sports, I don't see why anyone watches live TV on a schedule in 2018 when both a DVR and on demand is a thing - even if you do have a cable subscription or an OTA service like Sling and DirecTV.

If I recall correctly from my time having Comcast, they don't show commercials when you watch on demand after three days. I think it has something to do with ratings only count live + 3 days.

</comment><comment><USER16> TBS has been doing this for YEARS. They use every trick in the book, but messing with the timing of episodes is the most jarring. And frankly, ruins a lot of shows, comedy is all about timing after all.

<comment><USER15> It was even worse "Turner Time", where they would start and end all shows 5 minutes pass the hour to make you miss the first 5 minutes of a show on another network to convince you to keep watching.

[https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1626/why-do- wtbs-s...](https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1626/why-do-wtbs-shows- start-at-05-and/)

<comment><USER16> Comedy Central is doing a similar but different thing. They're adding more commercials to a commercial break, so now a 30 minute block is like 34 minutes, creating a weird stagger in the schedule. MTV does this too, but they play catch up on the occasional episode by cutting out the intro completely, and their schedule stays on the half hour. Both are Viacom networks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Probably that's why soccer is not popular in US. You can't interrupt soccer game for an ad. That's not the case with NFL, where you see an ad every time players stop playing.

<comment><USER18> From my experience the US broadcasts of soccer do have a ad popover the playing game on some games; often over or in addition to the scoreboard. It is much like an animated banner that you would get on a website. It does not cover the entire screen; but it is still intrusive. Of course there is still exposure to the stadium side banners, and shirt sponsors as with all soccer games.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If they are this desperate, prepare for net neutrality to become more important. I've already started to experience delays in streaming speeds and reliability. Please call or write to your representative and express concern that your internet service provider has a clear incentive to inhibit the free flow of information to your home, and that you are deeply concerned about this.

</comment><comment><USER20> [2015]

</comment><comment><USER21> Is anyone still watching network/cable TV?

<comment><USER22> Yes. And they are disproportionately heavy video consumers with indifference to how many ads they see.

<comment><USER23> Or is the TV just left on while no one watches? I know I have been to relatives with Cable/Satalite and it gets left on all the time even if no one is watching. Netlfix Hulu Amazon (usually) eventually check to make sure you are still there to save bandwitdth/licening fees. Weirdly some shows on netflix don't seems to ask too play next episode having woken up 8 hours latter and a season or so farther than I was before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Does this mean that the networks are creating derivative works of the content they licensed, and then airing that? Especially if they are cutting out opening titles.

Overlays and EAS have usually been acceptable, and composing the end titles with something else is a longstanding practice, but it doesn't actually modify the content directly.

</comment><comment><USER25> So happy to live in a country where downloading TV shows from the web is legal.

No more annoying ads and restrictions.

<comment><USER26> Is uploading legal too? Because downloading is legal in other EU contries too, but uploading is not, so you can't use torrent to download, because that uploads too.

So if uploading is not legal then you can't use torrent.

<comment><USER25> Yeah. Uploading is not legal. That's why I use Usenet!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Comparison video blocked, copywrite claim. Disagree. It's fair use demonstrating allegations.

<comment><USER28> With automated processes for copyright claims becoming so common, fair use is really getting trampled on.

<comment><USER13> Unfortunately fair use is merely a defence, not a right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is pretty user hostile. Glad I don't have cable anymore.

</comment><comment><USER30> This is how the death spiral starts for cable.

</comment><comment><USER31> Well, isn't that a standard practice in radio? The songs are a tad shorter and, as a result, a bit pitched up. Part of it is about ads, but mostly it's about increasing the chance of you liking what you hear (more songs means maybe you'll like one, at least) and not changing the station. If we can fit 11 songs in the space of 10, that's a wider net.

Why wouldn't TV follow suit?

<comment><USER32> No need to speed up music, just fade it out early. Pop music has evolved to be structured in a way that not much will be lost, survival and success of the most radio-friendly. Few songs break that rule and those that do are either deliberately short or way too elaborate for radio anyways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> What percentage do they speed it up?

<comment><USER34> Up to 9.0% now apparently.

Working link to the Seinfeld example on YouTube:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6i1VVikRu0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6i1VVikRu0)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Read all about it on a news web site that confine the text to part of the page in order to cram in ads.

</comment><comment><USER36> 2015, not new news

</comment><comment><USER37> Reminds me the first time I watched a european version of lost. Being used to the show so much, I noticed the pitch of the intro sound was different. Then I realized PAL is 25fps vs NTSCs 23.976. I was surprised I could hear the difference at all

<comment><USER38> It was probably shot on film at 24fps, then a 3:2 frame sequence is applied to convert to 30fps, which is then slowed down to 29.97. This slowdown (known as a "pulldown" in the jargon) causes the drop in pitch of the audio.

(Sometimes things _are_ actually shot at 23.976, so that they can be sequenced straight into 29.97 without needing the pulldown, but I'm not sure how common this is).

The other thing is that when converting to PAL, you have two choices - <USER2> apply a very complicated frame squence that I've long since forgotten all the details of, or just speed up the footage from 24fps (or 23.976) to 25fps, causing a raise in pitch.

So it's quite possible that neither of the versions you watched were actually at true speed or pitch - the NTSC version could have been slow and the PAL version could have been fast.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm sure ads are the primary reason, but 2018 audiences do expect faster paced shows. There's a reason the lede refers to Seinfeld getting funnier.

Jokes that were cutting edge 20-30 years ago need less introduction now. The easiest way to cut that unnecessary intro is just to speed up the show.

<comment><USER39> I read "sounds funnier" as _funny-strange_ not _funny-haha_. :)

Another common practice years ago was simply to cut parts of a movie. They'd go to commercials and come back skipping a few scenes.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you market a new product? - <AUTHOR> Me and a friend have built a product and have a few customers that find it really amazing, but for the product to be viable we need a lot more than that. We are both geeks and have no experience at marketing, or a budget to get a marketing guru to advise us so I'm just wondering what can we do? We've been thinking of sharing our profit with affiliates <comment><USER2> Talk to your customers, ask for advice. They may come up with referrals. They may get you in touch with similar companies. That's how we do for [https://www.testinvite.com](https://www.testinvite.com)

When we have a new customer, we try our best to expand over.

We ask for back links if it is a small business.

If it is a medium size company, we ask who they can introduce us in similar companies. Even though these are their competitors, they don't bother introducing us or giving the right contacts.

IF it is an international company, we ask if they can introduce us in offices in other countries.

PS. That works for us because our product is a software as a service.

Hope that helps</comment>


Sexism is alive and well in the game industry - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/27/sexism-game-industry/

<comment><USER2> Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!</comment>


A Timely Discovery: Examining Our AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen Results - <AUTHOR> https://www.anandtech.com/show/12678/a-timely-discovery-examining-amd-2nd-gen-ryzen-results <comment><USER2> For those unaware, The TSC is an on-die timer on modern x86 processors which brings lower latencies than accessing the HPET, which is located on the chipset. TSC on the other hand is also an instruction (RDTSC) and can be used simultaneously by both the kernel and in user application code, if permitted.

TSC had some problems historically with SMP and for a time HPET was pretty much the only high resolution timer available, but nowadays modern CPUs from both Intel/AMD support invariant TSC or constant TSC, which if supported, will be preferred by operating systems.

This was a good article explaining their findings, but it missed the industry shift back toward favouring TSC.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure if AMD properly supports invariant TSC. See this post from Agner Fog with regards to the Zen cores:

[http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=838](http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=838)

> The varying clock frequency was a big problem for my performance tests > because it was impossible to get precise and reproducible measurements of > computation times. It helps to warm up the processor with a long sequence of > dummy calculations, but the clock counts were still somewhat inaccurate. The > Time Stamp Counter (TSC), which is used for measuring the execution time of > small pieces of code, is counting at the nominal frequency. The Ryzen > processor has another counter called Actual Performance Frequency Clock > Counter (APERF) which is similar to the Core Clock Counter in Intel > processors. Unfortunately, the APERF counter can only be read in kernel > mode, unlike the TSC which is accessible to the test program running in user > mode. I had to calculate the actual clock counts in the following way: The > TSC and APERF counters are both read in a device driver immediately before > and after a run of the test sequence. The ratio between the TSC count and > the APERF count obtained in this way is then used as a correction factor > which is applied to all TSC counts obtained during the running of the test > sequence. This method is awkward, but the results appear to be quite > precise, except in the cases where the frequency is varying considerably > during the test sequence. My test program is available at > www.agner.org/optimize/#testp

\</comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---

EDIT: Odd. AMD Documentation of 17h (aka Zen) suggests that the TSC is invariant: [https://support.amd.com/TechDocs/54945_PPR_Family_17h_Models...](https://support.amd.com/TechDocs/54945_PPR_Family_17h_Models_00h-0Fh.pdf)

See bottom of page 82.

I can't say I've run tests as thoroughly as Agner Fog has done however, or even have access to Zen cores.

<comment><USER4> I think that's saying that TSC is invariant with respect to wall time, but what Agner Fog wants is a counter that's invariant with respect to actual CPU clock cycles, so that he can count how many cycles an instruction takes even if the clock speed of the CPU changes during a test run.

<comment><USER3> That makes sense actually. I never thought of it that way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We were wrong. This is how we were wrong. This is how we're going to avoid the same mistake in the future. We're retracting our results and will publish updated results when ready.

Clear and simple.

I wish more media could be so straight forward and honest as this.

</comment><comment><USER6> > Instead of being a benefit to testing, what our investigation found is that > when HPET is forced as the sole system timer, it can sometimes a hindrance > to system performance, particularly gaming performance.

That doesn't surprise me at all. The HPET is _awful_. Reading it takes thousands of cycles. Reading it concurrently on multiple cores is even worse. Even using it as a timer (to fire an interrupt at a given time) is highly dubious — IIRC it only supports "interrupt of time == X" and not "interrupt the first time that time >= X", which means that setting a timer without races requires manually checking that the timeout hasn't already expired after programming the timer, which is extra bad given how incredibly slow the HPET is.

(I maintain the Linux vDSO, and the HPET has so many problems that I disabled vDSO HPET support entirely a while back.)

<comment><USER7> > (I maintain the Linux vDSO, and the HPET has so many problems that I > disabled vDSO HPET support entirely a while back.)

For those who don't know: the vDSO is a "dynamic library" provided by the Linux kernel to every process. System calls in modern Linux are made by calling a function exported by the vDSO, which then does the real system call, using the fastest method available. There are a few special cases in the vDSO for time-related system calls: depending on the currently active clock source, it can do a few calculations and return, without having to actually do a system call. This makes getting the current time much faster.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Summary: HPET Timer has a significant performance impact, especially on intel. Anandtech turned them to non-default forced-on and now has lots of results which cant be compared to other benchmarkers.

I'm interested in first-generation Ryzen numbers. Especially considering AMD explicitly advised turning HPET off while anandtech turned them on.

</comment><comment><USER9> Really, the article should be titled "Intel CPU suffer performance hit with HPET bug"

<comment><USER10> There is no actual performance hit the number of frames per a given unit of real time is still identical the only thing that happens is that the frame counter on the machine does not count it accurately.

<comment><USER4> That may be true for some applications, but in general the FPS meter isn't the only thing that cares about wall time.

<comment><USER10> Yes but were talking about this specific use case I'm not entirely sure if this actually would affect more significant things HPET was always PITA.

I am wondering where did they get the Intel uses 24mhz timer from tho...

hpet0: 4 comparators, 64-bit 14.318180 MHz counter

<comment><USER4> On my Skylake system, I have:

hpet0: 8 comparators, 64-bit 24.000000 MHz counter

<comment><USER10> I've tested on Broadwell/Haswell-E, KL and SKL-X I wonder wtf is going on.

24.0Mhz is also not an integer multiplier of the standard 8254/8253 PITs....

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What I don't understand is that AMD/Intel differ so much.

The subsequent question I haven't seen clarified is:

In any of these situations, are Intel's results actually accurate FPS or could it be showing 'accelerated' FPS?

I.e. is Intel taking a performance hit, or are their 'non-HPET' numbers cosmetically showing faster performance that isn't there?

<comment><USER4> > What I don't understand is that AMD/Intel differ so much.

At least one of the factors seems to be the Meltdown workarounds that are required on Intel but not AMD processors. My intuition is that this explanation is sufficient to account for the entire discrepancy between vendors, but I can't rule out other factors. (Querying the HPET incurs all the Meltdown workaround overhead of accessing peripherals like storage, but with none of the actual waiting on a peripheral device, so on a percentage basis this is probably the most severely affected task.)

> I.e. is Intel taking a performance hit, or are their 'non-HPET' numbers > cosmetically showing faster performance that isn't there?

When the system is forced to always use the HPET instead of the TSC, the performance hit is real and not just an artifact of inaccurate timers. When you're not overclocking, the TSC is usually reliable and TSC-based time measurements should differ from HPET-based time measurements only by the overhead of accessing the HPET. That overhead got much larger this year for Intel processors.

Ian's initial benchmarks didn't include overclocked processors, just a test configuration intended to be suitable for future comparison against overclocked processors.

<comment><USER11> Thanks for the explanation

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So, this is all about HPET _as it is used by Windows_, right? They talk about 'forced on in the OS', they mean Windows. Anyone know how the various PC timers are used in Linux?

<comment><USER13> I think Linux will use HPET if the hardware makes it available. You can prevent that with "hpet=disable" in the kernel boot parameters.

<comment><USER7> Yes, Linux will use the HPET if it's available, but it prefers the TSC when possible, which is the case in most modern CPUs. For instance, you will see the following in the kernel log:

        [    0.062020] clocksource: Switched to clocksource hpet
        [...]
        [    2.383237] clocksource: Switched to clocksource tsc

Here, it started with the HPET, calibrated the TSC, and switched to it. There's no need to disable the HPET for it to chose something else as the best timing source.</comment></comment></comment>


Wells Fargo shifts many jobs overseas following layoffs in the US - <AUTHOR> https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/banking/article222369295.html <comment><USER2> Remember, if you use Stripe, WF does their processing

"The Payment Method Acquirer for Visa and Mastercard Transactions is Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, and you may not submit Visa and Mastercard Charges without first agreeing to the Wells Fargo Financial Services Terms. "

[https://stripe.com/us/ssa](https://stripe.com/us/ssa) [https://stripe.com/wells-fargo/legal](https://stripe.com/wells-fargo/legal)

</comment><comment><USER3> Exhibit 4,294,967,296 of why all of these TBTF banks should have been orderly winded down instead of bailed out.

<comment><USER4> People need to start voting with their #$@& wallets.

I closed my WF accounts when all of their shenanigans came to light but their still one of the very biggest.

<comment><USER5> Voting with your wallet works if there are viable alternatives. Where are you going to take your business? Bank of America? JP Morgan? There are only a handful of large banks in the US and they all offshore and they are all guilty of shenanigans. Welcome to globalism where the elites send jobs overseas to lower wage nations and pocket the difference. You really can't vote with your wallet when it's an industry wide problem.

<comment><USER6> Why do you need a big bank? I use a community bank; my kid uses a credit union. Your deposits are insured and small banks usually cover ATM fees (though I don't use much cash any more) s there's really no reason not to use a small bank. Plus if you have a problem you can usually call someone and get it fixed immediately!

<comment><USER7> Having multiple conveniently-located branches, at potentially broader operating hours, where you can talk to a real person is one significant reason.

<comment><USER6> Usually at the big banks the "real person" won't have the discretion to actually fix your problem.

<comment><USER8> >Usually at the big banks the "real person" won't have the discretion to actually fix your problem.

This is why I closed my Wells Fargo account after 10 years. It used to be that you could walk into a bank, sit down with a banker, and have them solve any problem you had. Now you walk into the bank, sit down with a banker, and the banker picks up a phone and dials 1-800-WELLSFARGO for you and hands you the phone. It's absolutely insane. I switched to a local small bank that knows me by name and can fully complete the process for their entire range of services within a single office, face to face, by email, or direct office line at any time.

<comment><USER9> Yep. I still use my credit union from college, and get pestered asking why I won't switch. Knowing I can call them from anywhere in the world at any time and get most issues resolved by a person _in their office_ is a huge plus. As is reciprocal deposit and withdrawal. Absolutely no reason for me to switch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Many of the U.S. layoffs have affected call center operations, including > about 460 employees cut last year when Wells Fargo announced the closure of > a site in Pennsylvania.

This isn't news. Call-centers/backoffice outsourcing is pretty par for the course.

<comment><USER11> Well I guess if it doesn't apply to us amazing, special techno mages then it's not really relevant and should be deleted. Who cares about the lives and silly struggles of those boring call center humans anyway?

<comment><USER12> Its government job to take care their citizen. Tax these corporation and use the money for basic income, universal health care, or cheap/free housing.

<comment><USER13> The only things people actually agree are the government's job are to uphold the law and defend the country from invasion.

Giving citizens hot chocolate and tomato soup when they're sick is far from an agreed purpose of government.

<comment><USER14> > The only things people actually agree are the government's job are to uphold > the law

People often don't agree with that except when they agree with the law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The economy is globalizing and has been for a very long time. If Wells Fargo is to compete (and let's face it, banks are competing for customers, deposits, and loans all the time), they're going to find what they think is the best value for their investment and expense dollars.

It's no different when you shop around for a car, TV, phone, laptop, other electronics, or even groceries. You often seek the best value for your money and it doesn't make you a bad person, IMO.

<comment><USER16> They're also competing for investors.

Costco's operations aren't too different than other retailers, but they still manage to do well while paying its employees much better than what others do.

<comment><USER17> I buy whatever I can at Costco solely for this! And Costco generally also hires older generations. I love seeing a mix of people working there. It's an experience. So I'll keep throwing my money at them as long as they keep this up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This way they can blame the CEO's underhanded policies, like opening up fake accounts for customers or not processing mortgage payments and getting people foreclosed on, on overseas workers/warm-bodies instead of the american workers like they did last time they got caught being outright deceitful. It would also probably help in laundering overseas money to have a larger operation out there where they can shift the blame/fines.

<comment><USER18> You can downvote me all you want. All it takes is a little time and Wells Fargo will be back to fleecing people and acting like criminals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> What is banking these days anyway? A website, mobile app, plastic card and Skype if you need a mortgage. Even ATMs are getting scarce.</comment>


The Hackathons Organizer's Checklist - <AUTHOR> http://alexeymk.com/hosting-hackathons-the-organizers-checklist

<comment><USER2> Awesome. Thanks so much for sharing this. We handle a lot of hackathons in our space and we have our own ad hoc process. But your documenting your process definitely filled in some gaps for us.

<comment><USER3> Would appreciate it if you could share them as well. I am planning to host one in Richmond, VA in a couple of months and would appreciate any pointers.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the push. I'll work on writing that up.

<comment><USER4> I'd also be interested in reading that post. I'm looking to host my own hackathon in Lowell, MA and I'd appreciate any advice I can get about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Amazing. We are in the midst of organizing one in Malaysia right now - <http://hack.weekend.my> and this will be perfect for us.</comment>


Legit: Git commits as an esoteric programming language - <AUTHOR> https://morr.cc/legit/ <comment><USER2> The mentioned git-in-git problem always annoyed me, at least it should be possible to store .git/ subtrees anywhere else but on the toplevel. Then git can scream at me for not using submodules, and I can then silence that warning because I obviously know what I am doing!

legit might be an esoteric use case for that, but storing raw testdata for git hooks (not a zip or the commands to create the repo) are actual usecases.</comment>


An app to help you stay in love, not find it. Join our TestFlight group? - <AUTHOR> https://www.lovewick.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hello there! I'm Ali, and I'm opening up my couples app, Lovewick, this week and next to TestFlight users. It's a really exciting milestone for us!

Our mission is to use tech to help couples feel more connected, valued, and adventurous offline. The app has open-ended questions, date ideas, and research-based "relationship goals." Given that my background is Human Behavioral Biology & Design, and I'm relatively new to the tech scene, I'd love to get some early users from the HN community who could provide a different perspective than my friends, family, and bio/design peers. Thanks very much, and I look forward to any feedback you may be able to provide!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> One additional note: If your partner has an iPhone but you have an Android, it's very easy to use together on their phone only. The pairing functionality is nice to have, but not necessary to get value :)

</comment><comment><USER2> I am interested, but we run Android

<comment><AUTHOR> I really appreciate that! The plan is to definitely have an Android app in the future -- just want to get major kinks out with product-market fit on one platform first. Thank you for your interest!</comment></comment>


Computer predicted the world will end in 2040. If we don't change it may happen - <AUTHOR> https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/26/a-computer-predicted-the-world-will-end-in-2040-if-we-dont-change-our-ways-it-may-happen-7881791/ <comment><USER2> Based only on the title alone I call bullshit. Not even worth the click.</comment>


Why Occupy Wall Street is Bigger Than Left vs. Right - <AUTHOR> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-occupy-wall-street-is-bigger-than-left-vs-right-20111017

<comment><USER2> delete from hacker_new where title = '%Occupy%';

...

Darn. Didn't work.</comment>


The Art of James Castle, Created with Spit, Scraps, and Soot - <AUTHOR> http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/james-castle-house-art <comment><USER2> They had a large collection of his work at the Whitney last time I was there. It wasn't just the medium that left an impression but that the subject matter was incredibly mundane yet somehow still fascinating to look at.</comment>


Samsung to run a national media campaign against Apple beginning Sunday - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Here-s-The-Anti-iPhone-5-Ad-Samsung-Will-Run-In-3658812.php

<comment><USER2> "Galaxy S III can't do like Facebook and Twitter integration, AirPlay"

What does this mean? That Android doesn't have Facebook and Twitter integration? Their apps are not baked in the OS, but Android intents take care of the rest, and you can easily add your accounts to it. Am I missing something?

It's true that it doesn't have AirPlay, but it has a lot of similar capabilities with different names, whereas the iPhone 5 doesn't have the possibility of any of the characteristics of Samsung marketing terms in the ad (like S-Beam or Smart Stay).

<comment><USER3> What the heck are S-Beam and Smart Stay?

<comment><USER4> S-Beam uses NFC to initiate a Wi-fi Direct connection between devices to transfer files/pics/links etc.

Smart Stay is a feature which uses the front facing camera to check if the users eyes are looking at the display and won't time out the display when the timeout threshold is reached.

<comment><USER5> smart stay works really well btw as long as you are in a well lit room.

<comment><USER3> When is it actually useful? I can't recall the last time my iPhone locked the screen while I was using it. In most cases I'm periodically interacting with the device. When I'm not interacting with it but I'm using it, that typically means there's some video content on the screen, which prevents lockouts implicitly, or some app is displaying changing data, and apps can also disable the lockout when appropriate.

I'm not trying to say here that "omg iOS is better", I'm genuinely curious as to when this feature actually makes a difference. Seems to me all it's going to do is suck up power running a camera. And the idea of having the front- facing camera on at all times is also a bit sketchy. It'd be like having my computer's webcam on at all times.

<comment><USER5> it is useful - I do read a lot of text on my phone - books / and web.

its one of those features you don't advertise though. I mean I wouldn't buy a device just for this but small things like this make people miss them when using another phone / platform. I guess its not the big stuff that build the brand loyalty but these subtle details.

<comment><USER3> If you're reading text, don't you have to interact with the device to scroll/page the text? Or do Samsung phones have some sort of absurdly low timeout? I could imagine this feature being useful if the screen typically locked itself after, say, 20 seconds of inactivity, but a much better solution is to simply increase the lockout time to something reasonable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This headline made me expect a campaign blitz against Apple Inc itself (presumably related to the recent lawsuit). I never would've clicked if I'd known it was just a comparison ad between a couple of particular devices.

<comment><USER7> That would've been an interesting campaign. I'm sure there's a lot of people who don't actually know what Apple are doing to innovation around the world.

Though I wonder if you could do it without actually coming off as a whining loser...

<comment><USER8> > I'm sure there's a lot of people who don't actually know what Apple are > doing to innovation around the world.

Sigh.

As has been reported many, many times, Apple are not doing anything to innovation. They are trying to stop people copying their ideas. They've given plenty of examples of smart phones and tablets that are great and not copying. They just don't like the copies.

Go sell cola in a certain shape bottle, or a car with the same profile as a BMW, or a baseball cap with a certain shape logo on it and see what happens to you. It's not that those companies are trying to stop competition and innovation, they are trying to stop people copying their products.

<comment><USER9> _As has been reported many, many times, Apple are not doing anything to innovation._

Certainly a matter of opinion. I'm seeing a lot more resentment towards Apple from previous fans than I can ever remember over this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It really is amazing to me how even in 2012 a company, one competing with _Apple_ , mind you, can be so transparently clueless when it comes to marketing.

</comment><comment><USER11> I hate to say this, but bullet points are not how you sell consumer devices. This ad looks like the result of a meeting with too many attendees that was too long. You're selling to average people who just want a cool phone, you're not bidding on a government contract. Adjust the style accordingly.

I don't really like Apple's ads, but they seem to work.

<comment><USER12> In any case, they lost me at S-Voice. Samsung is going to compare Siri to S-Voice instead of upgrading to Android 4.1 (JellyBean) first and then boasting about Google Now? Really? They are simply delusional.

Also, what are all those terms after NFC which are simply meaningless to most customers?

<comment><USER13> On first look I thought ok, well, of course Android phones have more features on paper. Then I saw those bullet points after NFC you were talking about. Really? _Really?_ They couldn't find anything better?

<comment><USER11> Removable battery is a really good feature, actually.

The other day I was discussing long flights with a colleague. He said he is always weighted down by the number of adaptors he has to carry to be able to charge his laptop anywhere. I asked "why not just get an extra battery, they're in the supply closet for free."

Then I realized he was a Mac user.

<comment><USER13> Ok I give you that. To be honest I stopped reading right at about Palm Touch Mute Pause.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Full image of Samsung ad: [http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5054b1bdecad04ba780...](http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5054b1bdecad04ba7800000b-1630-3150/samsung- galaxy-s-iii-anti-iphone-5-ad-full-size.jpg)

Source: [http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-anti- iph...](http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-anti- iphone-5-ad-2012-9)

<comment><USER15> Wow, what utterly clueless marketing. Rather than headline with a real user advantage – say, a thoughtful feature like flip to mute – they pile on a boardroom-approved list of _bullet points_ that begins with the most meaningless tech specs and doesn't even get to practical features (assuming you know what any of them are) until way down the list.

Samsung should fire their agency. Alas, whoever hired them probably doesn't even get what's wrong.

<comment><USER16> Unfortunately, this IS how people differentiate between Android phones/iPhones. It's not good by any means, but there's a reason they do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Including "turn over to mute" feels like they were grasping at straws by the end of the list.

<comment><USER9> Why? This is actually a great feature. I just leave my s3 face down when I sleep and don't have to manually switch off the sound.

<comment><USER18> To me it seems bizarre to put an expensive piece of electronics shiny side down. Are you not afraid of scratching the screen?

<comment><USER9> The screen seems totally scratch proof so far, although when I do this for the night I put it on a book or something instead of really hard or scratchy surface.

The other gesture I really like is the tap on the physical top of the phone to go to the top of a long list of items. Unfortunately it only works in Samsung's own apps. Would be nice to see this rolled back into mainline Android.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Well Apple spent years doing a great job of comparing themselves to "PC". Kind of thought Samsung lacked any creativity here.

</comment><comment><USER20> I wonder how many of regular people know what Smart Stay, S-Beam, ShareShot (well this one kinda deducible),Group Cast, Smart Alert (how smart is it?), Tilt To Zoom (how do you tilt it, where?), Picture In Picture (where, what app, what for?) are.

Although I can understand that the same people can go for a bigger, longer list of features because of just that.

<comment><USER8> I'm a 30 year old Software Engineer, and I have no idea what any of those things are, other than complete guesses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is a very stereotypically asian way of comparing phones. For a long time, Japanese manufacturers fought it out with spec lists showing the most features or the greatest spec.

Not really related to the mobiles in question, but an interesting lack of marketing talent.

</comment><comment><USER22> Why are they advertising the iPhone?

<comment><USER23> Hah, absolutely!

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Build a better product then advertise that. The problem is everyone is trying to build the iphone and they think that advertising is going to bring market share.

<comment><USER9> They actually have built a better phone but this isn't a very effective way of making that point to the average consumer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm surprised they were able to spec out the iPhone 5 since, to my knowledge, Apple hasn't stated some of the specs they list (like RAM).

<comment><USER26> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZKzkEu2dKw>

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Always tricky to compare yourself to your competitors so directly. You go into almost under the assumption most people don't want your product. I don't think that's really true of Samsung's products anymore. In the wake of the Samsung/Apple trial, which got some mainstream coverage, it's probably even more of a mixed message to send.

</comment><comment><USER28> This is dangerous territory - if they make even a minor misstatement about the iPhone, the Apple legal team will come down on them with false advertising / libel lawsuits.

Also, "iOS6 OS" sounds awkward.

</comment><comment><USER18> First the phones and now the ads. What's the Korean for infinite loop?

<comment><USER29> 뫼비우스의 띠</comment></comment>


Ask HN: purchases not eligible for paypal seller protection? - <AUTHOR>

I work at a small startup, 7Sage. We sell an LSAT course, a wholly virtual good.
A customer recently won a chargeback case against us, despite blatant fraud on their part. They claimed their identity had been stolen, despite ample usage of our product and a few other proofs.
Paypal ruled against us, saying that the transaction was not eligible for seller protection. From what I've read, that's true of all virtual purchases.

  1. Is this correct, or is there a way to get seller protection?
  2. Is there a good solution we're ignoring? Our site is built on Wordpress, and uses S2member for membership. Right now they don't handle any alternative processors such as Stripe.
 <comment><USER2> There is no seller protection, nor buyer protection for intangibles with PayPal. Typically if you write "non-tangible/service" in the shipping info boxes in a dispute it'll be closed in your favor -- the only reason you get to that point is that the buyer claimed the product was a tangible when it wasn't. Sometimes, through deliberate miscategorization by the customer and unlucky assignment of customer service reps to your case, you'll lose anyway.

You'll take some losses no matter how you take payment, unless you get people to start mailing in cash. It's a cost of doing business, factor it into your pricing. Your situation would have been no better had you been paid with Stripe or anyone else.

The S2Member website says they support Google Checkout and Authorize.net. You should set up at least one of those as a backup. It won't prevent you from losing money to lying customers, but you shouldn't let PayPal be a single point of failure for your business anyway.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that's really good advice about using an alternate service as a backup.

I'm not quite clear on one point: 'non-tangible/service' is something we enter in the shipping info box pre-dispute, right?

<comment><USER2> I meant in the dispute, after it's escalated to a claim. If someone disputes one of your payments, they're asked whether it was for an eBay good, a non- eBay good, a service or a gift, IIRC. If they tell PayPal it's for a good even though it's actually your LSAT prep service, PayPal asks you to either provide a tracking number of a shipment, other evidence of shipment, or to accept liability and refund. Since there's no good place to write that the dispute was miscategorized, I click on the option to provide a tracking number for the shipment, and write "SERVICE/NON-TANGIBLE" in the box. Sometimes it works, the PayPal rep that reviews the case recategorizes it and the buyer doesn't win because there's no Buyer Protection Policy for services.

<comment><AUTHOR> Excellent, thanks, we'll do that for all future chargebacks.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Mobile Paradox - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/15/mobile-paradox/ <comment><USER2> You guys are missing the point. The problem with mobile is not the ads, it's return on investment. I make mobile apps, and if my profit on a one dollar app is 70 cents, that's a hard limit on my customer acquisition spend. Which is why we don't use admob any more. The clicks are there, they're just not worth much.

</comment><comment><USER3> The reality is that ads really have to be Re-envisioned for the mobile space. There's not enough real estate on a phone to put up massive banner ads on a phone, and there's good reason to believe we will see something similar to iAd for android and windows phone (which will benefit the handset and OS guys)

What I expect to see is a new wave of mobile utilities that approach advertising differently, integrating into the workflow rather than the real estate model of the web.

<comment><USER4> I think you're right about having new, different ways to integrate advertising, but don't forget that (compared to the web) it's _much_ easier to charge the user directly.

<comment><USER5> Also, like pre-Tivo television, it's harder to ignore interstitial ads.

For better or worse, I can picture of future of free smart phones with unignorable interstitials.

<comment><USER6> This was the concept for the google-phone pre 2007 iPhone launch if memory serves...

<comment><USER4> That was definitely the rumor, but I think it was mostly speculation along the lines of: Google makes their money from ads, so of course their phone will be wall-to-wall ads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Are these pieces paid for? The writer's company link (just.me) takes to a very crude homepage with an un-styled Google Spreadshet form requesting subscriptions.

There's nothing new in this article and a lot of speculation.

<comment><USER8> > Are these pieces paid for?

Michael Arrington is a just.me investor.

<http://just.me/2012/01/seed-and-a-round-funding/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wow, there are a lot of typos and grammar errors in this piece. I don't want to sound pedantic, but the article was kind of hard to read.

However, I think that the thesis about mobile in some ways replacing older internet ad paradigms is true. Especially in emerging markets, mobiel internet is the dominant platform for most applications.

</comment><comment><USER10> So apparently, since mobile devices use much smaller screens, it is hard to put an ad and content together on the much smaller screen without annoying the user, and Google has not yet figured out a workaround.

<comment><USER11> I may agree with you on a basic level but this is far more trouble for Google than it seems.

Mobile apps are incredibly inexpensive compared to their desktop counterparts and a user will always prefer less ads.

Facebook's plan for mobile ads is to embed them in a user's news feed. Google can't do this with search or they will completely poison it along with G+ results.

All relevant info suggests that consumers are using dedicated apps for search and Google can't buy every startup to compete against Amazon, Apple and Facebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> So, what's the paradox? I just skimmed over the article, but found nothing about one...</comment>


Star Control II Sequel Announced from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford - <AUTHOR> https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/ <comment><USER2> I felt like Fwiffo wasting away on Pluto while waiting for this very announcement.

Thank you to the creators/hoonams for what I consider the best video game of all time.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is exciting... But like all such "many years later true successor" projects, there's a lot that can go wrong.

I assume we're all gonna treat Star Control 3 as non-canon?

<comment><USER4> > I assume we're all gonna treat Star Control 3 as non-canon?

They couldn't treat it as canon even if they wanted to (which they don't). Unlike the first two games, which were produced by Toys For Bob, Star Control 3 was produced by Accolade, so TFB don't have full ownership of the IP associated with that game.</comment></comment>


Average Is Boring: How Similarity Kills a Meme's Success - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140926/srep06477/full/srep06477.html

<comment><USER2> I was expecting this to be an article about why "I Don't Always X, But When I Do I Y" type image macros have a short shelf-life before we tire of them.

The internet and its attendant peculiar uaage of terms has killed my brain.

<comment><USER3> Killed your brain? Nah. This _was_ about those types of image macros, though it was more about their relative shelf-lives compared to eachother than short life in general. The supplemental materials are informative:

[http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140926/srep06477/extref/srep...](http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140926/srep06477/extref/srep06477-s1.pdf)

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly (I am the paper's author). While it is dangerous to identify the scientific term "meme" with those image macros, to study them has a lot of advantages. For example, it is very easy to quantify how popular they are, where and when they get their popularity spikes and so on. I am working on follow-up research enlarging a bit my narrow set of memes, to get it closer to the actual scientific term.

<comment><USER4> Ooh! Nice. I've been doing a bit of reading on meme theory lately and it's definitely caught my imagination. Still, I'm pretty skeptical.

I think my general problem with memetics is that it's so hard to quantify a meme. Using image macro jokes is definitely a good way to get something that's easy to measure—but does that simplification go too far? Is it too artificial? What makes an image macro joke "atomic"? Sorry if you've answered this in the paper, but I started skimming when I realized that you were talking about image macro jokes.

As far as I know the criticism of meme theory is that the mutation rate is too high for the sort of stable evolution that we see in biological life. I don't doubt that natural selection is at work, but the more I read about meme theory, the more I think that looking at linguistic units as gene-like is a poor abstraction—precisely because of the difficulty in measurement.

I'm not sure how to phrase the questions I have since I am a complete layman in regards to evolutionary biology, linguistics, and meme theory. But any high level overview of your rationale and pointers to further reading would be awesome.

<comment><AUTHOR> Using a biological metaphor to study memes is actually an ongoing debate. This strategy has been questioned by some researchers [1], while others (me included) found that it fits the observation quite nicely [2]. I haven't much more to say than "We just need more research". Sorry if it is not very enlightening :-)

My rationale for this paper comes from the fact that the usage image macro templates is pretty stable, as observed with two years worth of data. I have previous work [3] where I use image macro memes and I show evidences of competition, collaboration, clustering tendencies (which could be interpreted as the creation of proto-organisms, more research needed). On top of those observations, I find that these image macros satisfy at least the weakest requirements to be considered a proper subject to be studied.

Bear in mind the difference between what I call a "meme implementation" (the image with superimposed text, like in [http://i.imgur.com/j9CTxt8.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/j9CTxt8.jpg)) with the "meme template" (in this case the collection of all Socially Awkward Penguins). The latter is the one that's relatively stable, the former is very dynamic. In a paper I just submitted I analyze meme usage in Reddit's post titles and I observe just that. So that's definitely going too low.

[1] E.g. Weng, L., Flammini, A., Vespignani, A. & Menczer, F. Competition among memes in a world with limited attention. Scientific reports 2, 335; doi:10.1038/srep00335 (2013)

[2] E.g. Adamic, L., Lento, T., Adar, E. & Ng, P. Information evolution in social networks. [http://www.ladamic.com/papers/infoevolution/MemeEvolutionFac...](http://www.ladamic.com/papers/infoevolution/MemeEvolutionFacebook.pdf)

[3] Michele Coscia: Competition and Success in the Meme Pool: A Case Study on Quickmeme.com. ICWSM 2013

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The irony of a scientific paper dissecting the popularity of "Socially Awkward Penguin" is thick.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it practical to create a software-controlled model rocket? - <AUTHOR> Is it practical to launch a model rocket and have it land in a controlled manner, like Falcon 9, using hardware on the level of arduino and open-source software? <comment><USER2> BPS.space is attempting it.

Test Launch: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQt-9SSJ51c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQt-9SSJ51c)

Test Landing: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXy-x6lkQvQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXy-x6lkQvQ)

<comment><USER3> Ah wow I watched a bunch of his videos last summer but forgot to check up on his progress. Incredible!

I wonder what scale you would need to get the rocket into space/orbit? SpaceX should fund this guy to find out, could prove to be a valuable bootcamp for real SpaceX employees in the future?

<comment><USER4> >I wonder what scale you would need to get the rocket into space/orbit?

There's a great "what if" xkcd about using solid fuel model rocket engines (the same type used in BPS.space's rockets) to get to space and orbit.

[https://what-if.xkcd.com/24/](https://what-if.xkcd.com/24/)

The summary is that you may be able to use a stupendously large number of them to get to space, but orbit is physically impossible. You'll need a different propulsion method.

The smallest rocket that has ever carried a payload to orbit is the SS-520. It's ~30 feet tall, ~2 feet in diameter and weighs ~5,700 pounds. It set the record in February 2018, so it's a pretty recent record.

<comment><USER3> That SS-520 looks like they just took a model rocket and scaled it up 30x, very cool.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It isn't quite a model rocket, but there is an interesting video of someone making a single-fan drone using thrust vectoring. Not quite like a Falcon 9 but the same idea, vertical take off and landing, and shaped like a rocket.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMeEh5OUaDs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMeEh5OUaDs)

<comment><USER6> Tom Stanton has similar videos

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kd64VE3A1c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kd64VE3A1c)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Be really careful. Adding guidance to a hobby rocket may classify it as a missile, and you will need to start looking into ITAR.

<comment><USER8> Not an american, but I thought ITAR just restricted export (including of information though), hence the I(nternational) and T(rade)?

<comment><USER9> Export doesn't just mean "shipping a rocket to the Middle East" if you write up a detailed guide on how to build these and supply the code to make it work, you'd likely be at risk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm pretty sure that your problem isn't going to be the software but rather the engine and the rocket itself.

Hobby rockets use simple solid fuel engines you'll need to build an actual liquid rocket engine with controlled thrust that can be reignited the rocket it self also need to be large enough to be aerodynamically controlled and hobby rockets tend to be too light so they'll simply tumble in the wind.

While you don't need to build something the size of a falcon 9 for propulsive landing you'll need something way larger than any hobbiest rocket I know of for sure.

If you just want the control part then simulating it is likely going to be a better use of your time, you can even build your own auto-pilot for something like Kerbal Space Program it won't be the real thing but it would at least be achievable.

<comment><USER11> You don't necessarily need a liquid rocket engine if doing something like the hoverslam, because you'd just time the burn correctly and fire engine at full power.

<comment><USER10> The problem is that you can't stop a solid fuel engine as it has the oxidizer mixed in it, unless it requires some sort of a catalyst that you can control.

Hybrid engines which use solid fuel and a liquid/gaseous oxidizer can be controlled better but these are often very hard to reignite.

So this means you'll have to have additional engines that are used just for the slam landing, technically possible but again might be harder to construct than a liquid engine since solid fuel engine ignition is also fairly inconsistent.

The Soyuz capsule uses rockets to soften the landing but these technically aren't propulsive landing and the landing forces tend to vary quite a bit between landings.

Overall when I think about this problem as a hobby the software isn't going to be the biggest blocker here especially considering the speeds/altitudes that we are talking about as well as the overall mass of the rocket, in fact since these rockets are going to be considerably smaller and would travel considerably slower you could absorb much more of their relative energy via hydraulics so the amount of precision needed for the slam/hover landing isn't as great.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's likely to be difficult. I heard a good analogy once: imagine balancing a broom, handle pointed straight down, on one fingertip. It's not that hard. Now imagine balancing a toothpick. Impossible.

Scale matters. Bigger things are more stable.

<comment><USER13> Specifically, you need reaction time faster than sqrt(l/g), where l is the distance between the engine and the center of mass, and g is gravity. But l=30 cm is still with the range of commodity hobby servos to vector the engine.

The same effect makes walking robots harder at small scale, unless they cheat by having large feet and stiff ankles.

<comment><USER14> How did you get the sqrt(l/g) figure? I can see how this is dimensionally correct and passes a sanity check, but why is the coefficient one?

<comment><USER13> If you take an inverted pendulum of length l in gravity g, and perturb it slightly from vertical the error grows like e^(t/sqrt(l/g)). So if you're off by 1 degree, you'll be off by 2.718 degrees sqrt(l/g) seconds later. (The real function involves hyperbolic cosines, but they grow like e^t).

If you can react 2x as fast the control problem is easy. If you can react 1x as fast, the control problem is feasible but requires accurate tuning.

For average-height humans on earth, the height of the center of mass is about 1.3m, so sqrt(l/g) is about 350 mS. Human response time, from the inner ear to the ankle muscles is about half of that. That gives some intuition for how hard it is to balance with 2x faster response. Balancing a yardstick on your finger is closer to 1x faster response.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> People definitely do thrust vectoring and control systems on model rockets, like this system: [https://bps.space/signal](https://bps.space/signal)

This could theoretically be used to land vertically, though that hasn't been achieved.

</comment><comment><USER16> You may be interested in following Tom Stanton on YouTube. He built a radio controlled SpaceX model a few months ago.[1] It was barely controllable, and wasn't designed with actual propulsion engines, but still very cool.

As others have been commenting, it's a completely different ballgame if you want to use propulsion engines and still be able to land it. At that point, you're just building a smaller version of the real SpaceX rockets, and that sounds much more difficult (not to discourage anyone from trying!).

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

</comment><comment><USER17> > Is it practical to create a software-controlled model rocket?

No, but that is what people will tell you about every idea from Facebook to a pet rock.

If you want to do it, good luck. It will not be easy.

If you want a simple project- Add your arduino, get GPS, accelerometer and a noise maker. (Edit: if you are really ambitious, get it to communicate live)

See if you can optimize anything. I would guess your goal is to play in embedded C++ anyway.

</comment><comment><USER13> The control software is within hobbyist range, if you're prepared to crash a lot of rockets during testing. But the hardware is hard -- you need a throttleable engine.

</comment><comment><USER18> Copenhagen Suborbitals do thrust vectoring, and if I remember correctly the 4 jetvanes are controlled by an arduino .

The software is written by one guy in his freetime. Pretty amazing feat, considering how difficult it is, and that he has no way of testing it before the actual launch. It worked flawlessly the first time.

Here's a video of the Nexø 1 launch that uses the system to control the rocket on its ascent.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iTg55Ktkn4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iTg55Ktkn4)

This video shows some technical data streamed live from the rocket that gives a good overview of what the jetvanes are doing. Notice the graphic in the lower left corner; The H in the middle is the floating launch platform (12x14 meters) and the moving red dot is the position of the rocket in the X-Y plane. On the whole trip it never moves more than a few meters from the center. Really impressive stuff...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km7-2Ds6_Xs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km7-2Ds6_Xs)

I know it's not exactly what you're asking, but it's close, so I thought it might have some value.

</comment><comment><USER19> I can't speak to anything legal, that's its own topic.

But for all the model rockets I've seen, their mass ratios are quite small, and their motors don't allow for throttling. They blow their load as fast as they can and then drift down.

Software is not the biggest problem, you need a hobby quality throttling and gimbaling rocket motor, and I'm not sure if they even exist.

</comment><comment><USER20> Arduino hardware is barely capable of running a simple one-variable PID loop at a high sampling rate, say 1Khz. A rocket control software will require a full-blown MIMO model with complex transfer functions. You'll also need high ports speed; Arduino won't cut it. At the very least you'll need something like a Cortex-R5.

</comment><comment><USER21> This guy [0] does it with regular solid fuel rocket motors. Since the engines cannot be throttled, I think he has to try and light them at just the right moment, which does not seem particularly easy...

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_hJ48LCXWs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_hJ48LCXWs)

</comment><comment><USER22> If you dig up archives of Armadillo Aerospace - John Carmack's rocket company - you'll see videos of smallish rockets doing just that. "Smallish" as in "you can lift one from the ground, fueled, with your hands... perhaps".

</comment><comment><USER23> This is a weird question. Model rockets aren't practical. Hobby's aren't practical. Hobby's are fun, and educational. A software controlled model rocket would be fun and educational and challenging. You should do it.

<comment><USER24> This is true, but...

One of my hobbies is baking bread. I've seen professional bakers bake 100% whole wheat loaves with an open crumb. It's semi-magic and not practical. They literally spend years failing at it, learning every variable, sourcing different artisanal flours and setting up a professional workspace.

I do try it sometimes, and I always fail. It's interesting, but...

Sometimes I actually want to eat some nice bread. There are times when I say, just do a 33% whole wheat loaf Erik, it's fine. It is practical and it's still fun and it's a nice day doing my hobby. There's still plenty of sport in it and plenty to learn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It depends on what you mean by "practical". It's probably possible to do if you throw enough money at it, but would probably not have any practical purpose.

I don't think there's any open-source software for this, but the software isn't really the problem anyways. It's more about getting sensors that are accurate enough and actuators for thrust direction and power that are accurate and fast enough. I don't think there's anything off the shelf for this, and building and testing it, at that scale, is possible, but not cheap or easy. Once you get all of that together, the software is a relatively small and simple problem, and probably too specific to your exact setup for it to make sense to open-source.

Probably the biggest problem is that model rockets use solid-fuel engines, which cannot be controlled once ignited and probably don't have the greatest consistency in thrust and time. Short version is you ain't gonna do a propulsive landing with that. You'd have to build your own micro-scale liquid- fuel rocket engine. I don't know that much about building rocket engines, but it sure looks like building ones on the scale to take commercially viable weights into orbit is very hard. I'm going to bet that building one on a micro scale would be substantially harder and probably require the services of several experts in the field.

If you're interested in the area, see what info you can find about military missiles, like for MANPADS, guided anti-armor missiles, and some of the lighter AAMs. Every one I've heard of uses solid-fuel engines too, but they do have good control systems for guidance. I don't think any of them care much about the exact thrust levels, just get it going good and fast and the active guidance systems can handle the rest. But you're gonna need that precise thrust control if you want to land propulsively. Relatedly, if you tried to actually build your landable model rocket, I would expect the appropriate Government agency in your jurisdiction to take a very keen interest in exactly what you plan to do with these things. It may involve spending lots of time and money to convince them that you definitely won't give any of your stuff to whatever the relevant agency considers to be a terrorist group or rouge state.

</comment><comment><USER26> This isn't a computing hardware or software problem, it's an aerodynamics and propulsion, structures problem.

A team of engineering graduate students with a bit of funding might succeed, but the cost and custom hardware would be pretty high. The problem also gets more difficult as the rocket gets smaller.

Also, failed rockets are flying bombs, not something to be done lightly.

<comment><USER27> It's also quite a challenging control problem, which at the end of the day turns into a software problem.

You can see what spacex (probably) does to turn it into a tractable problem for real time control in [http://www.larsblackmore.com/iee_tcst13.pdf](http://www.larsblackmore.com/iee_tcst13.pdf) (Blackmore leads entry, descent, and landing at spacex).

<comment><USER26> My point being that the design of the control system is the hard part and the software implementation while not trivial isn't _the problem_ being solved.

And the design of the control system for a small model rocket and whatever control authority can be created for it in hardware are super hard compared to however it is implemented.

<comment><USER27> Sure, I was just pointing out that control wasn't on your list - it doesn't fall under any of aerodynamics or propulsion or structures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> What do you mean by "practical?" Model rockets are for hobbyists. Practicality isn't a part of the equation. The only reason to fly a model rocket at all is that it's cool.

There's no "practical" reason to make it land vertically. Model rockets can land safely using parachutes.

</comment><comment> ju-st Maybe try with electrical propulsion like this one [Ikarus electric "rocket" \- Thrust-vectored flying ducted fan] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMeEh5OUaDs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMeEh5OUaDs)

</comment><comment><USER29> There is a competition for college students to create a rocket that can return a payload to a specific location:

[http://www.argoniacup.com/](http://www.argoniacup.com/)

</comment><comment><USER30> As others have mentioned, the burn of the solid propellant used can't be controlled. However, you could look at things like gyros, thrust vectoring or servo controlled fins to give you more a more controlled ascent. That wouldn't help with the descent which is traditionally unpowered. Maybe a small charge to flip the rocket around and then use servo fins to control its glide direction on the way back down.

</comment><comment><USER31> I haven't heard of anyone doing this as a project, I bet it would be a challenging, and I think it would be awesome for you to try it.

</comment><comment><USER32> Is there any open-source -physically realistic- rocket flight simulation software that one can build/test landing algorithms on?

</comment><comment><USER33> Years ago, I remember reading this guy's website where he was building a homemade cruise missile: [https://www.theage.com.au/world/diy-cruise- missile-20030604-...](https://www.theage.com.au/world/diy-cruise- missile-20030604-gdvtkr.html)

I don't know whether he got shut down by the authorities or not.

<comment><USER34> I was actually curious how cruise missiles were defined in itar. The definition of missiles is really broad and actually includes lots of UAVs.

> "Missiles". (All) Rocket systems (including ballistic missiles, space launch > vehicles, and sounding rockets) and unmanned aerial vehicle systems > (including cruise missiles, target drones, and reconnaissance drones) > "capable of" delivering at least 500 kilograms payload to a range of at > least 300 kilometers.

<comment><USER35> > The definition of missiles is really broad...delivering at least 500 > kilograms payload to a range of at least 300 kilometers.

Not as broad as I would have thought. You could do a lot of damage with 499 kg of TNT, and nuclear bombs weigh less. Little Boy was 64 kg of uranium according to [0].

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

<comment><USER36> The fissile core is a tiny part of the weight of a nuclear weapon, though. Little Boy weighed almost 10,000 lbs; it took a lot of explosive, metal, and circuitry to detonate it.

<comment><USER37> The Little Boy was seriously overbuilt. The W9, W19 and W33 warheads are examples of gun-type bombs similar to Little Boy with comparable cores and yields, but in much smaller packages.

A gun-type bomb doesn't require a very complex system to set it off. The complicated bomb was Fat Man, an implosion bomb, that required very precisely calculated explosive lenses and precise timing circuits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Yes. This was essentially what armadillo aerospace and Masten Space Systems did back in the day.

</comment><comment><USER39> It was posible to launch Apollo 11 with less powerful electronics. Mechanicaly it is a bit expensive but many 'amater' clubs achive controled flight, a few to the edge of space.

</comment><comment><USER40> You will blow up several engines if you try to make a liquid fueled engine. Get yourself a copy of

[https://www.amazon.com/Rockets-Missiles-Men-Space- Definitive...](https://www.amazon.com/Rockets-Missiles-Men-Space- Definitive/dp/B004H3G0WI)

which is the story of a German rocket club which first got shut down by the Nazis because "somebody could get hurt" and then the Nazis thought it over...

Probably your best bet is a hypergolic monopropellant such as hydrogen peroxide.

<comment><USER41> Trying to buy high test hydrogen peroxide (high concentration) might well get you flagged by the police as its used in bombmaking

<comment><USER8> High concentration hydrogen peroxide is insanely dangerous, and where I live doing this would be illegal, so I _really_ don't recommend it.

But from previous research it sounds _really_ simple to concentrate (up to 70%) if you can acquire enough low concentration hydrogen peroxide. So much so that it kinda scares me that I have a bottle of 3% hydrogen peroxide in my house.

Edit: Again, this is a bad idea, but here's the title of my source: Methods for Concentration of Hydrogen Peroxide To Obtain It in Anhydrous Form</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: iOS videos - <AUTHOR> http://www.uiko.de <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN,

Two days ago I quickly hacked together a site to collect iOS videos. Since then, we already have 228 videos up. The site is generated using middleman, and anyone can help by making a PR with their favorite event videos. In the near future, we hope to add more features and (obviously?) some apps for iOS, AppleTV and maybe other platforms.</comment>


Regular Heptadecagon Inscribed in a Circle - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Regular_Heptadecagon_Inscribed_in_a_Circle.gif

<comment><USER2> That's beautiful.

For anyone who's wondering: why a 17-gon? the answer is an astonishing theorem: with the traditional Euclidean tools of ruler and compass, you can construct an n-sided polygon if and only if n is the product of a power of 2 (1,2,4,8,...) and some set of "Fermat primes": prime numbers of the form 2^2^n+1 (2,3,5,17,65537, and no one knows whether there are any more but there probably aren't). You aren't allowed to use any of the Fermat primes more than once.

So you can construct a regular heptadecagon but not a regular nonagon or a regular heptagon.

Why? Here's a super-handwavy sketch of the ideas involved. Points in the plane are complex numbers. Constructing a regular n-gon is like constructing z = exp(2 pi i / n). That satisfies the equation z^n=1. We only need to consider prime-power values of n, because if m,n have no common factor then you can do mn if and only if you can do m and n. (Proof left as an exercise for the reader.) For such n, it's not hard to figure out the _minimal_ polynomial in z whose value is 0; when n is prime, e.g., it's z^(n-1) + z^(n-2) + ... + z + 1.

Now, imagine doing any ruler-and-compass construction you like. Start with two points, which we'll call 0 and 1. Then every individual construction you can do involves solving either a linear or a quadratic equation. Conversely, you can solve any quadratic equation by doing ruler-and-compass constructions. (Details again left as an exercise; or look it up.)

Now think about those "minimal polynomials" for all the numbers you construct along the way. The degree of such a polynomial (i.e., the highest exponent it contains) is an important quantity. It turns out (super-handwavy, again) that when you solve a quadratic equation with coefficients whose minimal polynomials have degree d, you get something whose minimal polynomial has degree d or 2d. So at any stage in your ruler-and-compass construction, all the degrees are powers of 2. In particular, you can never construct anything whose minimal polynomial has degree that isn't a power of 2. And _that_ is enough to tell you that when n is a power of a prime number, you can't construct a regular n-gon unless n is a power of 2 or a Fermat prime.

The other direction is conceptually easier but fiddlier, and I shan't try to explain it here.

</comment><comment><USER3> The one that trisects an angle is so much cooler but I can't remember where to find it.

<comment><USER4> I figured out a way to do it once, but this text box is too narrow to contain it.

<comment><USER5> nice fermat reference

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've never wanted a fast-forward button on an animated gif before, nor seen one at nearly 2mb. Pretty cool though.

</comment><comment><USER7> Is there software that does what we are seeing in that image?

<comment><USER8> When I was in school we had a program (I think it was this: <http://www.dynamicgeometry.com/>) that let you do pretty much exactly that. We were never that ambitious, but it was pretty cool. I remember using it's animation functions to create some limited spirographs by tracing out lines defined by pairs of points moving around circles and things like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> theoretically, but go ahead and try that. ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> It takes a steady hand.

I just did some looking up, and confirmed that Gauss's tombstone does NOT have the 17-gon on it,

[http://sunsite.utk.edu/math_archives/.http/hypermail/histori...](http://sunsite.utk.edu/math_archives/.http/hypermail/historia/dec98/0102.html)

although a monument to him is said to have one, which I can't find in one of the better available online photos.

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Braunschw...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Braunschweig_Brunswick_Gauss- Denkmal_komplett_%282006%29.JPG)

<http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/17-gon.htm>

[http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Classes/MATH198/whubbard/GR...](http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Classes/MATH198/whubbard/GRUMC/geometryExplorer/help/turtle/17-gon.html)

<http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath487.htm>

<comment><USER10> The 17-pointed star is on the left side of the Braunschweiger memorial (an unpopular side to photograph, it seems):

[http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Braunschweig_Gauss- Denkma...](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Braunschweig_Gauss- Denkmal_Stern-Seite.JPG)

[http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Braunschweig_Gauss- Denkma...](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Braunschweig_Gauss- Denkmal_Detail_mit_Stern.JPG)</comment></comment></comment>


Scilla: Smart Contract Intermediate-Level Language - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00687 <comment><USER2> Syntax aside, are verified smart contracts a solution looking for a problem? They were supposed to be the killer app for blockchain-based solution, but they are computationally (and architecture-wise) prohibitively expensive, slow and just too complicated given the problems they can and can't solve. Am I wrong here? You can always cheat a 'smart' contract outside of blockchain?

</comment><comment><USER3> I find this syntax prohibitively hard to read and write. Is it related to existing languages? Maybe some that I'm not familiar with?

<comment><USER4> > Scilla is not meant to be a high-level programming language, and we are > going to use it as a translation target for high-level languages, such as > Solidity, for performing program analysis and verification, before further > compilation to an executable bytecode.

Based on that extract from the abstract, I would say human readability and writeability are not the main goals of the language. Still, the syntax doesn't look impenetrable to me. Is there anything in particular about this excerpt you find hard to read? The whitespace is better in the original.

       (* Transition 2: Sending the funds to the owner *)
       transition GetFunds
       (sender : address, value : uint, tag : string)
       (* Only the owner can get the money back *)
       if (tag == "getfunds") && (sender == owner) ⇒
       blk ← && block_number;
       bal ← & balance;
       if max_block < blk
       then if goal ≤ bal
       then funded := true;
       send (<to → owner, amount → bal,
       tag → "main", msg → "funded">, MT)
       else send (<to → owner, amount → 0,
       tag → "main", msg → "failed">, MT)
       else send (<to → owner, amount → 0, tag → "main",
       msg → "too_early_to_claim_funds">, MT)</comment></comment>


How Should We Program Computers to Deceive? - <AUTHOR> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/nature-and-technology/technology-deception-elevator-crosswalk-programming-robots-lie-89669/ <comment> loup-vaillant > _In the 1960s, the hardware that comprised the byzantine switching systems > of the first electronic phone networks would occasionally cause a misdial. > Instead of revealing the mistake by disconnecting or playing an error > message, engineers decided the least obtrusive way to handle these glitches > was to allow the system to go ahead and patch the call through to the wrong > number. Adar says most people just assumed the error was theirs, hung up, > and redialed. "The illusion of an infallible phone system was preserved," he > writes in the paper._

Then later:

> _One relatively benign class of examples occurs when an operating system > fails in some way and a piece of software is programmed to cover up the > glitch. The misdials of the early phone switching system fall into this > category._

Really, that depends how you're covering it up. The case of the telephone network is clearly _malicious_. It didn't do much harm, but it _was_ harmful, and the benefit was all for the owner of the phone network: they basically caused more mis-dials than was necessary, wasting people's time in the process… then they tell the users it's their fault! (The lie was by omission, but no less efficient.)

Even in cases where short-terms benefits are clear, like placebo buttons or progress bars, I fear the lack of trust that it could pose long term. People already see their computers as independent thinking agents. Some of them are _afraid_ of their computer, but use it anyway because they've become so dependent. Deceitful interfaces will likely reinforce this learned helplessness.

This kind of insidious, diffuse damage may be far worse than any observable benefits. The end doesn't justify the means when the remedy is worse than the curse.</comment>


Rocket Report: Firefly Resurrected, World View Accident, Bezos to Talk Space - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/rocket-report-tons-of-new-boosters-spacex-soars-new-glenn-may-be-late/ <comment><USER2> Cue groans from a million geeks who hoped they were talking about the other Firefly.</comment>


Trump will control the NSA - what this means for your privacy - <AUTHOR> https://protonmail.com/blog/trump-control-nsa-privacy/ <comment><USER2> Ok, seriously, give me a break with this "Trump won, the sky is falling". There may well be a lot of things that Trump would be worse than Hillary might have been on (maybe...), but for crying out loud, she would have been just as bad, if not worse, on a surveillance state.

<comment><USER3> Yep. If you're only bothered by surveillance _now_ , you need to ask yourself if you were ever really bothered by surveillance at all, as opposed to being bothered by who won the election.

<comment><USER4> This stuff drives me nuts. Obama gets into office and all the people who were talking about how George W. Bush's presidency was illegitimate and the drone programs he was running were wrong suddenly switch positions to saying you have to stand with the president no matter what and drones are fine. And now Trump comes into office and everyone switches sides again.

<comment><USER5> But but but... Obama stopped the influx of people into Gitmo!

I mean, sure, he did that by just drone bombing the shit out of everyone instead but...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I doubt it means anything different when Trump controls a huge and likely unconstitutional surveillance complex than when Obama controlled a huge and likely unconstitutional surveillance complex.

<comment><USER6> Yes, but neither Obama or Trump controlled the surveillance complex. They controlled Obama and will most likely control Trump also.

At least someone controlled Obama, who seemed to be a clever and liberal guy, and not someone who turned out to be one of the worst war criminals and offender of liberal or constitutional provisions. Obama could only control soft issues, the "complex" didn't care about. Or as it was leaked they even mandated the people to lead these soft issues also. And they will most likely control Trump as well, as he is just another new inexperienced outsider.

But different to Obama, Trump at least talked about clearing the house a bit. Obama also made some promises, but on the very first days he betrayed them with the Raytheon lobbyist Lynn, violating his own new ethic rules. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Lynn_III#Deputy_Sec...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Lynn_III#Deputy_Secretary_of_Defense)

<comment><USER4> I mean, can you really tease it out? I don't think Obama ever wanted to shake up the security complex in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Its wishful thinking to imagine anyone 'controls the NSA'. They spy on Senators for gods sake.

<comment><USER4> It's hard to say because so far it's not like any president has shown any interest in reining them in. I think the last president with any real interest in muzzling the CIA was Carter and that work has all been undone by now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is the guy who would drop out after New Hampshire, would never get the nomination and would lose the general election in a landslide. All this "Trump will do X", "Trump will do Y" is meaningless speculation at this point.

With all the regulatory agencies Trump and his social circle have had to deal with over the course of their careers I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't buck the trend when it came to authoritarian surveillance.</comment>