Highest karma/submission - <AUTHOR> http://ycombinator.com/newsnews.html#6aug07

<comment><USER2> How about highest karma per comment? Personally, I consider comments that people post here a lot more useful than original articles. I also tend to mod comments a lot more frequently than stories themselves.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you look at median comment score, there are three leaders with 3-- garbowza, greendestiny, and pg-- followed by a large number with 2. If you go by average the leaders are:

      (pg           1086 3.92)
      (rwalker        14 3.57)
      (cperciva       36 3.36)
      (jmzachary      21 3.05)
      (paul          160 2.98)
      (elq            24 2.96)
      (uuilly         26 2.88)
      (greendestiny   23 2.83)
      (rzwitserloot   18 2.78)
      (smg            12 2.75)
      (garbowza       12 2.75)
      (nostrademons  440 2.75)
      (pc             12 2.75)

Though it's kind of lame that I lead, the good news is that it looks like the extra upvotes I get for being the creator of the site probably don't amount to more than 1 per comment.

<comment><USER3> I don't think it's lame that you lead. More people upvote your comments because more people read your comments, and that's to be expected. It would only be blind fandom if _all_ your comments were upvoted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Isn't "karma / #stories" a bogus measurement, considering that karma is obtained both from stories and from comments? I (as I write this) have 89 karma, but only 8 points of that is from submissions...

How about computing [karma obtained from submissions] / [# of submissions] and [karma obtained from comments] / [# of comments] separately?

<comment><AUTHOR> Whoops. Sure enough. Good thing I posted the source. I fixed the code and of course got different answers. Now PB is number 1.

(If anyone reading this later wonders what the parent comment is talking about, my original attempt to calculate this was wrong.)

<comment><USER5> comment-karma/comment is probably a bad measure as commenting on threads that don't make it to the front page would be discouraged.

comment-karma/time is probably a good measure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've also wondered if "karma" as defined here is anything like real world karma (if there is such a thing).

What I mean is: Does upvoting a comment or submission effect your own karma points? Have the folks on the leader board also upvoted a lot? Is there any correlation at all?

</comment><comment><USER7> hm. i'd rather type something like:

select username, karma, submissions from users where submissions > 10 order by karma desc

but you don't see me running an uber-hip VC firm, do you?

<comment><USER8> Yeah but realistically that'd just return: _ERROR: Unknown column 'submissions'_ or whatever because you'd probably have a separate submission table. Still, you're right that this simple stuff is what SQL is good at.

But having all that data in an in-memory hash is way more flexible and convenient. He can do any arbitrary operations on it, not just the stuff SQL and stored procedures are good at.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> How about karma/comment? or even pageloads/time? :)

</comment><comment><USER10> Congrats to Nostra</comment>


How Trump Happened - <AUTHOR> http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-trump-happened/ <comment><USER2> Fascinating and beautifully presented infographic. I just wish sites wouldn't interrupt scrolling and use it for navigation. Its counter intuitive and if you scroll up and down quickly you can completely break the transitions.</comment>


Ask HN: What podcast/newsletter is still missing, and you would pay for? - <AUTHOR> I am considering producing a podcast and/or newsletter. I have some topics in mind.<p>I am curious to hear which topic you would find the most interesting, and also topics that are currently not well covered by existing offerings. <comment><USER2> Maybe it would be depressing, but it'd be cool to have a post-mortem podcast on failed startups. There are plenty out there, get some war stories from players at companies that exited or died because they ran out of money.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think I would pick a topic that you're interested in because newsletters/podcasts really only work if you have the passion to see them through.

<comment><AUTHOR> But I still would need to decide whether my ideas are worth talking about or not :)

To be honest, I'm torn between a very specific one (on enterprise IT, related to startups and new products), and a more generic one.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, but I don't think you'll get a great representation here to give you any true market validation. I would go specific if enterprise IT is the area you like, that seems like a great one to get into.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't think paying for a podcast or newsletter is very common. Normally they make money with advertising or publishing job offers. Nevertheless, I would love to see more podcasts for learning languages (spoken languages), and newsletters with the latest news on the tech world such as acquisitions, new tool releases, lay-offs, growing companies, etc.

</comment><comment><USER5> Weekly insights/analysis into what's happening in the Kubernetes ecosystem.</comment>


New York's Little Dam Sends Super-Sized Warning of Cyber-Attacks - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-30/new-york-s-little-dam-sends-super-sized-warning-of-cyber-attacks <comment><USER2> _There are about 75,000 dams and 6,000 electric utilities in the U.S., and potentially millions of Internet-connected devices that could be used to penetrate crucial computer networks, said Chris Blask, executive director of the Cyberspace Research Institute at Webster University based in St Louis._

I give up - so what, exactly, was the thinking behind the decision to writable interfaces to all of these sensitive facilities on the internet, again?</comment>


Google+'s Antisocial Mobile Strategy - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/07/google-antisocial-strategy/

<comment><USER2> I don't know if it's anti-social as much as it has clearly had less time spent on it than the desktop version. Still, I don't find any of the big three mobile apps (Twitter, FB, G+) to be overwhelming in their design/utility.</comment>


Flang – A Fortran compiler targeting LLVM - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/flang-compiler/flang <comment><USER2> Can we use it along with emscripten to compile fortran programs to js?

<comment><USER3> Why would you want to do that ?

<comment><USER4> legacy numeric applications / routines?

<comment><USER5> Except for some obscure edge case, it wouldn't really be a great idea to run them on a JS vm... FORTRAN code still in use is computation-heavy stuff for use cases where speed makes a big difference, the performance hit of a VM wouldn't be acceptable.

<comment><USER6> There is a lot of battle-tested Fortran out there. If you're for one reason or another in a situation where you have to deploy to the web platform and you need some numerical algorithms, I can imagine it could make sense to pick some routines from netlib instead of reinventing the wheel.

<comment><USER3> Using python would possibly make more sense here

<comment><USER7> python numeric code using numpy and the like ultimately depends on some fortran libs underneath

<comment><USER8> Numpy has no Fortran whatsoever

<comment><USER6> The numpy.linalg module depends on LAPACK, which is Fortran.

Core numpy depends on BLAS, for which both Fortran and non-Fortran implementations are available.

<comment><USER8> Go to the source, it's called lapacklite and it's C code translated from Fortran

[https://github.com/numpy/numpy/tree/master/numpy/linalg](https://github.com/numpy/numpy/tree/master/numpy/linalg)

<comment><USER6> Hmm, seems you're right. Though that seems to be some fallback thing which is used if the real thing isn't found during the build. At least on Ubuntu 16.04 the lapack_lite module links against the real (Fortran) lapack library:

      % ldd /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/numpy/linalg/lapack_lite.cpython-35m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so|grep -E 'lapack|fortran'
    	liblapack.so.3 => /usr/lib/liblapack.so.3 (0x00007fb619ce7000)
    	libgfortran.so.3 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgfortran.so.3 (0x00007f5ae0911000)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One other nice benefit to this project is determining name mangling schemes when linking to other Fortran projects using a pure LLVM toolchain.

Say we want to use BLAS and LAPACK in a C/C++ project that uses clang as the compiler. All we have to do is write the appropriate prototype for the LAPACK function in C and then link to BLAS/LAPACK. That said, there are four different name mangling schemes that the BLAS/LAPACK could use, which are combinations of upper case or with trailing underscores, e.g. gemm, GEMM, gemm_, and GEMM_. Both Autotools and CMake will determine the mangling scheme for us, but they need a Fortran compiler to determine that. Right now, that's almost always GFortran. With this project, it could ostensibly be Flang, which would eliminate the need for GCC to determine the mangling if a pure LLVM toolchain is desired.

<comment><USER6> Modern LAPACK already comes with an official C binding, LAPACKE: [http://www.netlib.org/lapack/lapacke.html](http://www.netlib.org/lapack/lapacke.html)

The C ABI is pretty stable, so if you're using LAPACKE you shouldn't need to worry about which Fortran compiler was used to compile LAPACK.

Other than that, AFAIK the most common name mangling these days is lowercasing + trailing underscore. That being said, for "modern Fortran" with modules, OOP etc. the issues are vastly more complex and AFAICS there is no commonly agreed upon ABI.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Judging by the copyright notices in the files, this is probably the PGI- Fortran-on-LLVM compiler that was announced a year or two ago - [https://www.llnl.gov/news/nnsa-national-labs-team-nvidia- dev...](https://www.llnl.gov/news/nnsa-national-labs-team-nvidia-develop-open- source-fortran-compiler-technology)

EDIT: Confirmed - [https://developer.arm.com/-/media/developer/developers/hpc/f...](https://developer.arm.com/-/media/developer/developers/hpc/files/ARM- HPC-UG-SC16-PGI.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER11> Ok, so the only reason anyone's using Fortran is for crazy speeds, what's the codegen like compared to gfortran?

<comment><USER12> Actually, modern Fortran is a pretty decent numeric programming language, comparable (if not superior) to MATLAB, and much faster than it. The only problem is that finding documentation on modern programming idioms and styles is complicated among MEGATONS of legacy code lying around literally from Cold War times (still perfectly working, of course, so if you urgently need to write a Monte Carlo solver for neutron transport equations — you got it covered).

<comment><USER11> I'm really interested in Fortran because I love super down-to-the-metal optimisation stuff, but I have no meaningful use-case for it. Where would you recommend someone start if they wanted to get into modern Fortran?

<comment><USER13> To add to some of the answers, Fortran's strength is that a scientist can write an algorithm for some numerical routine fairly easily and the output code will be highly optimized.

This is possible because you don't have to deal with all the weird edge cases you have in C/C++ like aliasing. The language is fairly simple so it can be optimized to death and it's easy to add things like automatic vectorization, etc.

<comment><USER14> I'm sure you meant to include scare quotes, as in "easy" :-)

<comment><USER15> Compared to C++ / C even old fortran is suprisingly pleasant to use, when you want to implement simple numerical algorithms, it feels a bit like a barebones matlab

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Am I the only one who thinks that Forlang would have been a better name? ;)

<comment><USER17> [http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=LLVM- NVID...](http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=LLVM-NVIDIA- Fortran-Flang): _" Flang is to Fortran as Clang is to C/C++."_

This is a NVIDIA project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Apparently unrelated to Flang the 2013 LLVM GSOC project to implement a Fortran frontend.

[https://github.com/hyp/flang](https://github.com/hyp/flang)

The name re-use was a bit confusing.

</comment><comment><USER19> Now how about a COBOL version? :-)

<comment><USER12> I would love to see a modernized COBOL in the same way they have modernized Fortran. It'd be an instant hit in enterprise IT environments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is it sensible to implement math heavy part of C application in Fortran and call it via FFI? Or is -Ofast enough in most cases without the costs (multiple, because performance may be one of them) of FFI?

<comment><USER6> Not for speed reasons alone. It's certainly possible to tune C code to have roughly equivalent performance to Fortran.

The real appeal for using Fortran is that for beginners it's a much easier language to pick up than C (much less footguns, for one), and that working with (dense) multidimensional arrays is very nice, roughly on par with high- level languages like numpy, R, or MATLAB.

<comment><USER21> To expand on this, I think the footguns you're talking about are specifically performance related.

Just an example: How do you specify a fast readonly array in C? If I recall correctly it's

restrict const * const int my_array[n]

In Fortran?

integer(4), intent(in) :: my_array(n)

Not even starting with array ops, multidimensionals, array slicing etc., that's already a big win in readability. Having a pass-by-reference language by default is refreshing for HPC purposes.

That being said there are disadvantages compared to C. Biggest one IMO is the lack of inline declarations, which especially makes privatizing things in OpenMP and OpenACC code a bit more tricky, i.e. it needs to be explicit.

<comment><USER22> _> How do you specify a fast readonly array in C?_

Generally in the function declaration rather than the variable declaration, but to declare a non-aliasing pointer to array of constant ints would be

      const int (restrict *my_array)[N];

or

      int const (*restrict my_array)[N];

and the other two variations thereof.

<comment><USER23> Gentle reminder to future language designers: whatever else you decide to take from C, please, _please_ don't take declarator syntax. This thread showcases why.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> How easy is it to do OpenMP from LLVM front-ends, at the moment? Fortran without OpenMP would be a bit limiting.

Edit: It looks like Clang 3.8.0 supports OpenMP, so this should be doable.

</comment><comment><USER3> what advantages over gfortran does this have and if its performance why not just pony up for the intel fortran

<comment><USER25> > why not just pony up for the intel fortran

I used to work in a government research lab. We mostly used GFortran instead of Intel for political stability reasons. Your budget can change drastically from year-to-year (even if there's no change at the congressional level) because every dollar has to go through the entire bureaucracy before it makes it to your cubicle. The budget wars are constant at every level in the org pyramid.

GFortran is free, and always will be. Whether we can pony up for Intel is completely unknown 5 or 50 years from now. And a _lot_ of people in the Fortran world are ultimately funded by Uncle Sam.

<comment><USER3> so your counting your power bill / cost per gflop when you do your budgeting and exactly how many licences would you need? you'd be building on a server not on everyone's desktop pc right?

<comment><USER26> Not OP, but In these types of scenarios power/utilities probably come out of someone elses budget with at least one layer of competing bureaucracy walling off anyone from asking that question, let alone investigating it and factoring it into the decision making process..

<comment><USER25> Exactly. Anything that comes out of somebody else's budget is "free". :-/</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Censorship and manipulation of social news, examples and archives for reddit - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/moosearchive/comments/1wflhm/archive/

<comment><AUTHOR> There is a list of keywords that was auto-deleted from r/technology mostly relating to NSA, security, spy agencies and such. Its like somebody ordered "put the lid on Snowden leaks", and suddenly it was indeed gone from reddit and Hacker News, in my experience.

What happened to Guardian as well?</comment>


Australia's tech industry savages Labor for backing bill - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com.au/you-bunch-of-idiots-australias-tech-industry-savages-labor-for-backing-the-governments-encryption-bill-2018-12 <comment><USER2> I am really unhappy this has happened. I'm an Australian living in the USA for a large tech company. I'm on a work visa.

I'm going to visit family back in Australia this Christmas. What happens if during the time I'm outside the USA the company I work for pulls my visa? I have to abandon my life that I've setup here?

Surely I can sue the Australian government in that case. There's no way I can earn the money I earn here back in Australia.

<comment><USER3> Germany. Thats my plan if I need to leave the US. I will never work in Australia again after this or under this regime. I encourage Australian technologists to escape while they can.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It really bums me out, but I think I'm going to have to abandon Fastmail on principle. Hopefully this law will be repealed quickly before the damage to Australian software companies is too great.

<comment><USER5> Why victimize Fastmail? Law enforcement access to your email inbox remains exactly the same as before this bill was passed.

If you're just punishing any Australian company, FeelsBadMan (as an Australian developer).

<comment><USER6> I thought Fastmail offered (as much as is possible) "secure" email, but it says in their blog post that they routinely hand entire mailboxes over to law enforcement.

On the top hit they say they host everything in New Jersey, USA (with backups in seattle) but later say they are only governed by Australian law and don't respond to US court orders: [https://www.fastmail.com/help/ourservice/security.html](https://www.fastmail.com/help/ourservice/security.html)

Caveat emptor, I guess.

<comment><USER7> FastMail was never a "secure email service provider" \- just an email provider that offer a good (UX-wise) alternative to Gmail, without mining your private conversations for advertising purposes.

I think they made it pretty clear a while back in a blog post on HN that security was not their #1 concern, like it is say for ProtonMail or other end- to-end encrypted email services.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The coalition clearly did this at the behest of the US and UK to be a 5 eyes beard. Yet this very action locks Australian tech companies out of those countries -- it's threatening my ability to work.

Labor had no reason to kowtow to this crap.

<comment><USER9> Have a source suggesting it was the US/UK?

[https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/627249909/australia-and- new-z...](https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/627249909/australia-and-new-zealand- are-ground-zero-for-chinese-influence)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Much discussion overnight here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18661483](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18661483)

</comment><comment><USER11> Remember Lavabit... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit)

</comment><comment><USER12> I am disgusted by these clowns and as an Australian embarrassed that somehow these people ended up in power and representing us.

also: [https://twitter.com/beneltham/status/1070276535007948800](https://twitter.com/beneltham/status/1070276535007948800) i.e. it appears one the new powers cant be used by anti-corruption agencies.. funny that..

</comment><comment><USER13> The utter stupidity and short-sightedness of politicians is on display in both the US and Australia this week.

<comment><USER2> What happened in the US?

<comment><USER14> The hearing where Steve King asked iPhone questions to Google and asked why Trump shows up under "idiot" so often in image searches. When it is entirely automated.

<comment><USER15> Can we at least have a more intelligent conversation about how google designs its algorithms than "It's entirely automated".

Everyone here knows that google didn't just plug a bunch of servers together and it just magically came up with a search engine.

The idea that google has completely washed its hands of any untoward tweaking of search results to favour one party or another is just ignoring the reality of the claims being targeted at google.

It didn't help either that when questioned about things like the plan to "improve hispanic voter outreach in key states" that google just pretends like it never happened.

<comment><USER14> I didn't think the issue worth discussing since it seemed to be a clear case of deliberate power inversion - politicians trying to put fear in the media instead of the other way around. It seemed to be clear cut messenger shooting because reality refused to honor their persecution complex.

Really Google is pretty stereotypical corporate gutless about taking off auto- complete at anything remotely controversial even when it is an objective truth that say Santorum got his name associated with literal filth in response to comparing legalized gay relationships with beastiality. I saw little reason to bother with complexities when the accusations were so coarse and wrong.

Also how is improving hispanic voter outreach remotely a matter of controversy? The US has universal voting rights. Their job is to connect people with information. Complaining about it strikes of the Dotcom Freudian slips of bribery in complaining about him making music videoes with rappers - that isn't remotely illegal and bringing it up says far more about the source than the subject. That is downright saintly compared to lobbying and media conglomerates giving blatant editorial pushes.

<comment><USER15> > Also how is improving hispanic voter outreach remotely a matter of > controversy?

Well hispanics mostly vote for democrats, so by increasing hispanic turnout you will get more democratic votes. If google cared about democracy, why not help everyone get out the vote? Why are they specifically hiring busses for hispanics in swing states unless they are trying to help the democrats?

> The US has universal voting rights. Their job is to connect people with > information.

Yes, and im telling you they were not connecting all people, but focusing on connecting certain kinds of people to vote.

> Complaining about it strikes of the Dotcom Freudian slips of bribery in > complaining about him making music videoes with rappers

Huh?

> That is downright saintly compared to lobbying and media conglomerates > giving blatant editorial pushes.

So i don't get your arguemnt other than something about kim dotcom and rappers and because of that it's actually a good thing?

How would you feel if facebook ran a campaign of "getting out the white vote" that paid millions of dollars in adds and hiring rentals and drivers to get out only white people to the polls? Or just replace white with democrat or republian.

I don't see how anyone sees this as "saintly" rather than exactly what it is, a company in it's position of power trying to influence the results of an election. I have no idea how anyone but a radical capitalist sees that as a great service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is the effect of this limited to domestic industry, or does it affect Australians working abroad? Can the Australian government ask a citizen working abroad to spy on their foreign employer, and threaten them with imprisonment if they return without doing so?

</comment><comment><USER17> They are simply making implicit things explicit. Though, I am not sure why

<comment><USER18> Maybe the implicit thing didn't work?

<comment><USER19> more likely the Coalition needed something they could all agree on to be seen to be _doing something_. There's precious little that the various bits of the parties agree on, so picking on the nerds was an easy one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Why is Labor being "savaged" if the conservatives are the ones presenting, pushing for, and providing the overwhelming proportion of the votes for the bill?</comment>


HN Comment/Discussion Source - <AUTHOR>

I understand that this is a sort of primitive, simple and 'newbie' question and that you will probably look at me with contempt but i would like to kindly request you to assit me.
I have been looking for a simple comment/discussion system and i have found that HN's system is to my liking. Therefore is it possible for someone to show me how it works or to sort of give me the 'code' or the files?
WOuld appreciate the help!
CUrious NOOB <comment><USER2> <http://arclanguage.org/install>

<comment><USER3> Do you have any plans on switching from mzscheme 372 to something else?

I'm just wondering if it makes sense to rely on a platform version that may not be actively maintained much longer.

<comment><USER4> <http://arclanguage.org/item?id=10254> says Arc 3.1 works on »the latest version« of MzScheme. That announcement was posted on August 4, so I guess it refers to MzScheme v4.2.1.</comment></comment></comment>


Get yourself off Google Analytics, in 5 minutes, for free, without self hosting - <AUTHOR> https://anderspitman.net/20/#get-off-google-analytics <comment><USER2> We went with and are happy with [https://usefathom.com/](https://usefathom.com/) (hosted), there's also the open source self-hosted option [https://github.com/usefathom/fathom](https://github.com/usefathom/fathom)

<comment><AUTHOR> I saw a comment a few days ago that said something about Fathom going closed for the hosted version. Do you know anything about that?

EDIT: Also looks like it's 14USD/mo for 100k views. GoatCounter offers this for free.</comment></comment>


Apple Acquires Coherent Navigation, a GPS Startup - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/apple-acquires-coherent-navigation-a-mapping-start-up/

<comment><USER3> > Coherent Navigation worked on high-precision navigation systems, technology > that is far stronger than many consumer-grade global positioning systems, > which are typically accurate to within three to five meters.

No indication of what kind of technology they used for that?

<comment><USER4> [http://scpnt.stanford.edu/pnt/PNT09/presentation_slides/12_B...](http://scpnt.stanford.edu/pnt/PNT09/presentation_slides/12_Bencze_iGPS.pdf)

They integrate GPS/GNSS, Iridum and other satellite signals.

I would bet a billion dollars that this has nothing to do with their existing products and everything to do with the rumored Apple Car. Centimetre accuracy location services would be a very useful feature for auto driving capabilities.

<comment><USER5> I disagree. I don't think true "auto driving" (as opposed to some sensor- driven safety assists) is feasible in the next decade or so, well-past the rumored timetable for an "Apple Car".

Even if it were, why would you design it to require sub-meter, externally- provided precision, especially when there are guaranteed to be circumstances (e.g., tunnels) where it won't be available?

My guess is that Apple wants faster locking GPS because faster locking means less time with antennas cranked up using power.

<comment><USER6> > My guess is that Apple wants faster locking GPS because faster locking means > less time with antennas cranked up using power.

Put better GPS antennas in your phone then. GPS chipsets in your typical Samsung and iPhone are already capable of centimeter resolution, its the shit antenna they put inside that's the problem.

[https://radionavlab.ae.utexas.edu/images/stories/files/paper...](https://radionavlab.ae.utexas.edu/images/stories/files/papers/ion2014Pesyna.pdf)

<comment><USER7> If possible, Apple likes to have their cake and eat it too.

As far as I know, the iPhone doesn't contain an antenna per se, rather they use the frame of the phone as the antenna. I believe many other phones do this too. There are some pretty clear advantages (weight, size of device) but presumably some downsides too (which is why perhaps they're buying this company).

People are always complaining about some aspect of Apple devices where there is apparently an easy solution (latest example would be Apple Watch water- proofing) but there is _always_ a downside, even if it isn't clear - <USER2> Apple would have done it. The problem is the compromise and where you draw the line.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If this were meant to improve the directions they offer in their apps, I would be super happy. uber drivers with androids are given consistent and seemingly correct routes, but the iPhone directions have sometimes sent us in the opposite direction from my destination. it's frustrating.

<comment><USER9> This is false. Uber uses google maps.

<comment><USER10> The Uber app for _passengers_ uses google maps. The Uber app for drivers uses Apple's turn-by-turn.</comment></comment></comment>


The dawn of the age of holograms - <AUTHOR> https://www.ted.com/talks/alex_kipman_the_dawn_of_the_age_of_holograms?language=en <comment><AUTHOR> This is probably also the first time they showed "Holoportation"[1][2] to the public.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d59O6cfaM0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d59O6cfaM0)

[2] [http://research.microsoft.com/en- us/projects/holoportation/](http://research.microsoft.com/en- us/projects/holoportation/)</comment>


GAGA-2 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jgc.org/2012/01/gaga-2.html?

<comment><USER2> Although I'm sure the guidelines did not specifically state the antenna should be made from Ikea straws, this line made me smile:

        So in keeping with the guidelines I've made a new antenna
        of the same 1/4 wave design out of Ikea drinking straws
        and copper wire salvaged from this project.

GAGA-1 was great, I'm looking forward to seeing how GAGA-2 fails.

Would you mind sharing approximately how much GAGA-2 has/will cost?</comment>


The Hidden Agenda of Code.org - <AUTHOR> https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2428466,00.asp <comment><USER2> I agree with the assessment. The fashion today is "everybody needs to learn to 'code'", but that's only because companies are in dire need of a very specific profile: The junior coder that writes basic HTML, CSS and simple Javascript. They want this resource to be hired for very cheap, and there aren't enough resources available, because in the past decade, what existed was true Programmers, which can do more than that and of course want to be paid much more in return.

And then the article rightfully denounces that the people who say they want to promote STEM, are in truth just promoting coding and some software topics. STEM is much wider than that. The world doesn't need more coders; the world needs people in diverse disciplines.</comment>


WPA2 vulnerable to insider attacks - <AUTHOR> http://blog.airtightnetworks.com/wpa2-finds-itself-in-a-hole-vulnerable-to-insider-attacks/ WPA2 Hole196 Vulnerability
The "Hole 196" vulnerability present in WPA2 can be practically exploited by a malicious insider using existing open source software as the basis. And the footprint of such insider attacks is limited to the air, making them among the stealthiest of insider attacks known requiring no key cracking and no brute force The only way to detect this is by monitoring traffic over the air.
Live demos planned at Blackhat and Defcon.
For more details:
http://www.airtightnetworks.com/WPA2-Hole196
http://blog.airtightnetworks.com/wpa2-finds-itself-in-a-hole-vulnerable-to-insider-attacks/
-Sohail Ahmad <comment><USER3> I'm not sure anyone really ever considered an inside user on a wifi network, however it's encrypted, any different than a user on a regular wired lan... you can sniff their traffic and spoof arp, and all that wonderful stuff.... being on the same broadcast domain necessitates that the machines can speak to each other.....

What's the big news here? Was wpa2 supposed to not only provide wire- equivalent security but also prevent arp-spoofing and every other type of switch wrangling?

EDIT: I see the significance of this from an internal security point of view - but the choice to use WPA2 is primarily motivated by preventing outsiders from obtaining network keys and gaining access to your network, not preventing insiders from snooping on each other - that's a much different problem.

</comment><comment><USER4> So if I read this right it makes a WPA2 wireless network like a hub based rather than switch based wired Ethernet network.

Which is what I always treat them as anyway.

<comment><USER5> I always thought WPA2 used separate air molecules for each client.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> once you are inside the network, all bets are off anyways. Once I'm inside the network, I can ARP-spoof the gateway and get to all traffic anyways - <USER2> additional decryption needed.

While this might be a nasty oversight in the spec, for all intents and purposes, it is IMHO irrelevant as there are way easier methods to get at the data of other users in the network.

<comment><USER7> ARP-spoofing can be detected although I'm not sure how many networks actively do this. Being able to decrypt all internal packets passively is a big deal.

<comment><USER3> It's a big deal - but most places that concerned about security, the ones that worry heavily about arp-spoofing and detection probably don't allow wireless in the first place..... at least that's been my experience.

<comment><USER8> ARP spoofing actually in practice not easy to do. Enterprise class switches can snoop DHCP traffic and prevent forged ARP packets.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bacteria produce "public goods" and punish "cheaters" - <AUTHOR> https://sci-hub.cc/https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24624 <comment><AUTHOR> In a way... bacteria (and other life forms) have had to address issues similar to those we face in evaluating social systems like capitalism or socialism. The same basic game theory issues apply.

Since they've had far more experience than we have... perhaps biology can teach us about better methods to address these challenges.</comment>


The Citibank Bailout Paid Off (the Treasury made 8 billions) - <AUTHOR> http://www.good.is/post/oh-nice-the-citibank-bailout-paid-off

<comment><USER2> This headline is totally misleading. As the article mentions, when you factor in the money given to AIG (a huge proportion of which went straight to Citibank) the US Government is still down.

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's a counter: [http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/was_the_citi_bailout_really_a.p...](http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/was_the_citi_bailout_really_a.php)

</comment><comment><USER4> Article Summary:

The government bailed out Citigroup to the tune of $45 billion in 2008. $20 billion of that has been paid back by Citigroup to the Treasury and the remaining $25 billion was converted to common stock. The stock is now worth $33 billion netting the government an expected $8 billion.

[http://hnsummary.com/2010/03/30/citibank-pays-off-its- bailou...](http://hnsummary.com/2010/03/30/citibank-pays-off-its-bailout- money/)

</comment><comment><USER5> The US government's Citibank investment is paying off because a bit of that huge stream of government cash/debt flowing into the economy has sloshed into Citi's bowl. The total overall net for the US government and us taxpayers will still be hugely negative. The first government divestments will be net gains. The realization of pain comes later.

I'm cranky right now. My opinion tomorrow might be different.

</comment><comment><USER6> Ah,

It doesn't really matter what the government makes or doesn't make with these transactions.

By guaranteeing these companies, saying the companies are too big to fail, they've granted them a junior right to print money. If an investor knows the government is going to buy Citibank bonds in a pinch, the investor can buy without caring at all whether Citibank is making a profit.

So the bad effects won't come in terms profit or loss on these transactions but rather through these guarantees' effect on the currency and the economy as a whole.

<comment><USER7> Things looked pretty scary before the bail-out. I don't think it's been long enough for the full economic effects to have been realized, but, if you believe the hype, a major crisis was averted. IMO, the bailout was a necessary band-aid solution, although you can't keep on doing it.

I think a better solution is stronger regulation of banks. Banks are a major part of our economy, and shouldn't be allowed to make so many risky investments. They can't "print money" if we carefully regulate the types of investments they can enter into. That strategy seems to have worked out for Canada.

I know Americans are generally against regulation, but I think that, absent government regulation, banks would need to maximize short-term gain, even at the risk of a crash in the future. People put their money in whichever bank offers the highest return. If Bank A has a bunch of risky investments, which will crash in 10 years but give a good payout until then, they can offer higher interest rates than their more conservative competitors. Competitor B would be forced to adapt, because its depositors will probably be gone within 10 years.

Another idea is progressive taxation for banks: Tax the big banks more than smaller banks. That would create an economic incentive for smaller banks, and banks are less likely to get "too big to fail." Not sure if this would work (for example, if many smaller banks invested in sub-prime mortgages, and defaults started occurring around the same time)

<comment><USER8> > I think a better solution is stronger regulation of banks. Banks are a major > part of our economy, and shouldn't be allowed to make so many risky > investments.

The risky investments were pretty much mandated by the regulators that you think will protect us.

Banks must have reserve capital. The regulators encouraged banks to hold lots of Fannie and Freddie stock by treating it specially for the purposes of reserves. As a result, Fannie and Freddie tanking pushed many banks into technical insolvency. (This isn't the last time Fannie and Freddie will make an appearance.)

Regulators also granted a monopoly on bond rating to Moody's and a couple of other companies. Oops - they were wrong.

Regulators also pushed securitization of mortgages to help boost the housing market. They wanted banks to hold such securities as reserve and wanted that to be seen as safe. Their solution, insurance, as sold by AIG, which was heavily regulated.

And, remember Fannie and Freddie? They lied about the loans in their pools, so no one knew how much of the market was subprime. That screwed up everyone's risk analysis.

This crash was pretty much a creation of regulation.

> banks are less likely to get "too big to fail."

If Citicorp is too big, what does that make the US govt?

Regulation is systemic risk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> $8 billion pays for about two months of war in Afghanistan.

<comment><USER8> $8B/two months is in the noise.

The 2010 US deficit is >$100B/month, or >$8B in 3 days. (The White House estimates $1.56T while CBO estimates $1.35T.) The 2011 deficit estimates are smaller, but still very large. (CBO says just under $1T while WH says around $1.25T.)

The lowest WH deficit estimate is over $600B/year.

<comment><USER10> This is the recoup on a single $45 billion investment, which is nearly as much noise as $8 is. If your point is just to put the amounts in perspective on the government scale, that's valid. However, the point of the article was not that Citi paid off the national debt, it's that the bailout was not completely flushing money down the toilet. Considering the "omg government waste" hype that was flying around this time last year, the point of the article is the sign of the net ROI, not the magnitude.

<comment><USER11> I agree with you, especially since I just made a similar comment above. I think that because conversation on this site rarely touches on the macroeconomic situation, an obvious comment rehashing our debt problem can seem like an insightful contribution by the author. I think it's good HN doesn't focus on macro speculation since it can be so polarizing, though I think it's unintentionally caused by a lack of discussion around leading indicators.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: a good lawyer for startups? - <AUTHOR>

We are growing and the time has come to start addressing some issues more deeply. We are in tourism, precisely the online reservations field. Right now we have a local European lawyer but are looking for some advice from some firm with more international experience. I wonder if anybody could suggest a good law firm with enough knowledge in the internet business? Or the best way to look for one? Thank you in advance. <comment><USER2> Ryan Roberts at <http://startuplawyer.com/contact> is a popular one

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I'll check him out</comment></comment>


Worldwide IPv6 usage near 10% - <AUTHOR> http://ipv6prepared.com/stats/ <comment><AUTHOR> By scanning the worlds top 10,000 websites, we found out that 8.3% of them has the AAAA record enabled in their DNS, and 7.6% actually serves web pages via IPv6

</comment><comment><USER2> We are getting there. I'm eager to be able to use IPv6 in 2050.</comment>


Judge denies move to ban ad-skipping DVR - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/08/us_judge_denies_injunction_against_ad_skipping_dvr/ <comment><USER2> Why does this require the courts? Can't FOX just refuse to renew their contract with Dish TV and then Dish will be without Fox channels?

<comment> benji-york My guess: multi-year contracts.

<comment><USER3> Also wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A similar lawsuit helped to kill ReplayTV 10 years ago, however, they didn't have the same clout Dish does. The latter versions of ReplayTV had the Commercial Advance feature disabled as a result.

</comment><comment><USER5> Gotta love it. They keep trying to shove shit down our throats that we don't want, and get surprised when somebody fights back. Maybe there wouldn't be a need to have hardware that can skip ads if those ads weren't so incredibly obnoxious.</comment>


Ask HN: Can you be tracked by a CDN? - <AUTHOR> Hi, I am a hobby techie and wanted to know if a CDN, like Google's 1e100.net, can track you from resources it provides on other websites, even if you use adblockers/tracking protection? For example, I sign into my Gmail in Chrome, and also visit a site in Firefox that loads jQuery from https://ajax.googleapis.com. I have noticed both Gmail and any website that loads a font or any script or even image from Google's hosting makes connections to 1e100.net. Can Google assume that email@example.com also likes to visit neowin.net (albeit different browsers, no flash/LSO cookies) every morning?<p>Thanks. Apologies in advance if such questions are not allowed. <comment><USER2> There's an add-on for Firefox called Decentraleyes that is supposed to help combat this tracking.

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/decentraleyes...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/decentraleyes/)

</comment><comment><USER3> yes. Same IP.</comment>


Show HN: I'm building one html5 game per week - <AUTHOR> http://www.lessmilk.com

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here.

As a developer and a gamer I always wanted to make games, but I never actually did it. To change that I threw myself a public challenge: build a new game every week in html5 using Phaser (a javascript framework).

The games are quite simple for now, but that's because I'm still learning. Let me know if you have any feedback, so I can increase the quality of my games over time.</comment>


Yahoo decides they'll keep your data as long as they want. - <AUTHOR> http://www.ypolicyblog.com/policyblog/2011/04/15/updating-our-log-file-data-retention-policy-to-put-data-to-work-for-consumers/

<comment><USER2> If someone knows how this makes them 'more competitive' I'd be interested to hear it.</comment>


Zapd: 'We built it, they came, but Facebook pulled up the drawbridge'  - <AUTHOR> http://www.geekwire.com/2011/zapd-day-2-we-built-facebook-pulled-drawbridge

<comment><USER2> Kelly, Did you consider that the answer is slightly more nefarious than this, and that Facebook might view Zapd as competition for something it currently has in the works?

</comment><comment><USER3> Building a business on top of Facebook (or Twitter or any other company) brings a lot of benefits, shortcuts to success, but it also makes you 100% dependent on them. Your business isn't totally yours anymore, they have veto on anything you do and can shut down your access for any reason. Anyone who doesn't realize that needs to wake up honestly. If you aren't ready to be Facebook's b..ch then don't build your service on their system.

<comment><USER4> Isn't it the same thing for any platform? Once you use a platform, you're at risk from the owners of the platform. Apple's App Store is another example, it seems like your app can be blocked on a whim.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, but on many platforms, you have a negotiated contract that is not one- sided. With facebook, you basically have a generic agreement that hundreds of millions of people click YES to that says they can shut down your account for pretty much any reason.

If your merchant account did that or the yellow pages removed your listing for a non-specific reason, you could take them to court. It isn't so much that you _would_ take them to court, but it is the fear that you could which keeps these companies from being more careful.

Notice I say "careful"...I don't think facebook and all are necessarily intentionally trying to screw anyone. I doubt they have time or interest really to try and screw people. But that also means they may make business decisions that may have side effects that can impact a bunch of people without warning or notice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Neat looking product:

Basically: You make a quick little website about an ephemeral event from your iPhone or other device.

</comment><comment><USER7> That's what happens when Facebook is the only way to login. Shame on you Zapd. Shame on you.

<comment><USER8> Jesus dude have you used the app? Facebook is one way to login. Not the only way.

Kelly Smith Founder Zapd

<comment><USER9> Helpful tip: if you're just starting out it's probably not a great idea to post a rude comment on Hacker News in reply to someone who clearly cares enough to post a comment about your product.

<comment><USER7> Actually I disagree here. I'm grateful that the founder of all people actually took the time to respond. This show's that they care what their users think.

<comment><USER8> I care about people who use the app and then respond with feedback based on actual usage. People who just say "shame on you" without knowing what they are talking about aren't helpful.

<comment><USER9> One thing I've learned is often times when people post a snarky comment like the one you replied to, they think they are talking into the abyss. Replying with some maturity and respect can often unmask the non-snarky person they actually _are_ and make them feel bad when they realize what they said actually was towards a person who exists and is affected by their words.

What you did instead was insult them back and now you can be sure they will not have anything nice to say about your company. To do it on a place like Hacker News is quite shortsighted since you never know who you're talking to or who is reading your posts.

<comment><USER10> "To do it on a place like Hacker News is quite shortsighted since you never know who you're talking to or who is reading your posts."

Erm, shouldn't this go both ways? Like, isn't this equally applicable to posting snarky, uninformed comments in the first place? :)

<comment><USER11> It does, but jasonmkey is a new account, presumably with no reputation to protect and no new startup to promote on a website dedicated to startups.

Therefore, the most useful advice is that given to someone with something to lose. Whoever was "wrong first" is irrelevant to the outcome desired by curiousoffice.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are my options worthless now? - <AUTHOR>

I'm an early employee at a startup. From the go, our money has come from our founders, and from a single external investor.
A year into working there, now with ~15 employees, we (most of us) were issued stock options. At this point, we were still in 'stealth mode', with no additional investment than the start.
There was a valuation (as I understand it, a number picked from a mix of equations, and pulling things out of the air) of $30MM, at an exercise price of $4.00, for 37,500 shares; for a total of $150,000's-worth, 0.5%
Another year later, we're not turning a profit but we've had a few more investors come in over the past 6 months, no new hires.
We just got word that those who didn't get granted options last year, were granted them this year (the reason they weren't given them the first time round with everyone else? Personal differences with the CEO).
They were issued at an exercise price of $1.00, for 9,000 shares; for a total of $36,000's-worth.
This is where my math gets off. I'm assuming the share price has gone down, because of the investment we've had. But, should it really be that much? If today's price is $1 per share, does that mean that (assuming worst-case, the self-valuation hasn't changed) there are now 4x as many shares in total? And hence, my options worth (0.5% / 4)? <comment><USER2> Short answer, the $4 options aren't likely to pay off. The $1 options might or might not, but in terms of your personal financial planning you should assume they are worth nothing as well.

Read on for the long answer.

\-----

Let's start with the facts.

First of all your options are contracts obligating someone to sell you stock at a fixed price should you choose. If the stock costs more than that, then your options can be used to make you a profit. If the stock costs less than that, then it makes no sense to exercise your options. If you have 9000 shares at an exercise price of $1.00, then thats not worth $9000, that's an opportunity for you to SPEND $9000 and get something that might or might not be worth more. (Note, there are tax consequences to handing out options at a price different from the valuation of the company, so at the point they are issued the return you can get from exercising them is usually $0.)

Secondly a company is worth today what someone is willing to pay for it. No more, no less. All of the possible potential growth, and future revenue? They only matter in so far as they convince someone that it is worth spending money on. Tomorrow may be a different story, but today it is only worth what you can find a buyer for it.

Thirdly, early stage companies are highly illiquid. Meaning that there is no real market for them, and different people will assign wildly different valuations. Also those valuations can change, fast, as facts change. (Where facts may be as simple as, "there is a different person willing to invest".) A 4x fluctuation is very, very easy to believe. A 4x fluctuation down with new investors tells me that the company could possibly succeed (else where would you find investors?) but the prospects are nowhere near as bright as the company previously thought.

\-----

Now what do these facts mean for you, or any employee?

First, options are not worth the strike price. $150k is not the worth of the options you got in the first round. That is the amount you are allowed to spend at that price for stock that might or might not be worth more. (Hopefully will be worth more.)

Second, as an employee you like low strike prices. The lower it is, the easier it is to be worth a lot later.

Third, options for the future could always wind up worth something, but that is not guaranteed. Your $4 options are only going to be worth something if the company grows to the point where it will be worth a lot. Even if the company is worth less now, it is possible for it to be worth more later. Nobody knows whether that will happen, and your guess is likely to be better informed than mine.

Fourth, the high valuation on your initial options suggests that this is the value that the initial external investor thought it deserved, and maybe invested at. The current valuation is likely to be based on what current investors think it is valued at, and likely that reflects what value their investments were made on the basis of. That means that the initial external investor really believed in the company, and has likely lost a lot of money on paper so far. (But could still make it back if the company succeeds.) As upsetting as this may be for you, it is unlikely that anyone was intentionally trying to cheat you.

</comment><comment><USER3> In options there are two important numbers the current stock price and the strike price. Assuming the stock price is higher than the strike price the option is worth the difference between the two.

I am a little unclear about the "$36,000's-worth". I assume that that is the face value of the 9,000 shares. So if $36k is the value of the underlying stock than the share price is $4. The same $4 a share that the stock was worth when your options were issued.

The new options were issued for $1 a share with a $4 stock price. Assuming that there was a buyer for the shares at the current price of $4 the options could be exercised today and be worth $27k.

$4 - $1 = $3 per share profit X 9,000 shares = $27,000.

Some valuation examples

Price Theirs Yours $4 $27k $0 $5 $36k $37.5k $6 $45k $75k $7 $54k $112.5k $10 $81k $225k

What the options are worth today is really a minor concern. You control substantially more shares than the people who have just been issued options. If the company succeeds you all walk away with a bunch of money. If it doesn't, well none of you are going to make anything from your options.

<comment><USER3> The table lost its formatting

Price Theirs Yours

$4 $27k $0

$5 $36k $37.5k

$6 $45k $75k

$7 $54k $112.5k

$10 $81k $225k

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What they are probably doing is multiplying everyone's options, including yours, by 4 and reducing the value of each one to 1/4 the original. Then everyone still owns the same % of the company but it is easier for the finance people work with them.

So your # of options is probably changed just like everyone's, but they don't bother letting you know usually unless it is time for you to sell them. If you get the opportunity to sell, they will let you know your actual number of stock and what each can be sold for. That's what happened to me anyway.

</comment><comment><USER5> Cut the math for now, on what basis are you valued at $30 million? You said it yourself, out of thin air.

If you are not making profit, still in stealth-mode and have no clients, sorry to break it to you but it's worth...: $0.

</comment><comment><USER6> They were never worth anything.</comment>