A New Theory of How Consciousness Evolved - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/how-consciousness-evolved/485558/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> The new theory summarised (from the paper):

>The theory begins with attention, the process by which signals compete for the brain's limited computing resources. This internal signal competition is partly under a bottom–up influence and partly under top–down control. We propose that the top–down control of attention is improved when the brain has access to a simplified model of attention itself. The brain therefore constructs a schematic model of the process of attention, the 'attention schema,' in much the same way that it constructs a schematic model of the body, the 'body schema.' The content of this internal model leads a brain to conclude that it has a subjective experience.

Kind of makes sense to me - that the mechanism that forms a model of your body or a place map or whatever also forms a model of your mental setup of senses, memories and the like.

<comment><USER3> Everyone in this thread sounds like a p-zombie.

<comment><USER4> Says the guy posting the most p-zombie like post on the entire thread.

<comment><USER5> What exactly makes it "the most p-zombie like post on the entire thread"?

It might be, but we'll never know from mere snark.

<comment><USER6> It might be, but we'll never know _at all, by definition._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article was a little confusing for me. When I read "consciousness," I think of private, subjective experience—qualia. This meaning of consciousness is a very hard problem indeed, and any new theory is bound to be interesting. (See Chalmers for a great summary: [http://consc.net/papers/facing.html](http://consc.net/papers/facing.html)) But the article seems to be talking about meta-cognition, not conscious experience. Meta-cognition is interesting in its own right I suppose, but far less so than what I normally think of as consciousness.

<comment><USER8> I felt the same, it doesn't try to address the "hard" problem of consciousness, as described in the article you linked.

It's such an interesting problem because for one, its hard/impossible to prove consciousness. If you built an android that had every if-statement imaginable coded into it so that it behaved exactly like a human, including answering the question of whether it is conscious affirmatively, and showing signs of pain and suffering in bad situations, how will you ever know if it's all just a simulation, or if real feelies are behind it. At what point does it cross over from an extremely complex and useful behavior machine, to one that experiences actual qualia.

Another issue is the purposelessness of consciousness. Why does there have to be _experience_ tied to our reactions to stimuli, if the resulting behaviors are identical. Isn't there quite a bit of wasted energy and skull space that could be better used for more survival oriented if-statements. All of our behavior seems possible without the associated feelings.

The issue of androids is going to be an annoying one in a thousand years. People will be polarized, with some championing android rights because they seem to be conscious, while others will be adamant that they are just complex machines that can be treated any which way. Personally I'd probably err on the side conscious, just in case.

<comment><USER9> >Isn't there quite a bit of wasted energy and skull space that could be better used for more survival oriented if-statements. All of our behavior seems possible without the associated feelings.

Intelligence isn't about a giant list of arbitrary if then statements though. Think of artificial neural networks. They learn behaviors from experience and reinforcement. They take actions they predict will lead to reward.

How is that fundamentally different than what humans do? I mean our brains algorithms are probably much more complex, but the principles should be the same. Shocking a neural net with negative reward, and it will strongly desire to avoid that again. How is that different than pain?

Add on a bunch of hard wired goals and behaviors more complicated than "pain" and "reward", and you have yourself a conscious being. Not fundamentally different than a human.

<comment><USER10> You _do_ have subjective experience, don't you? I mean, you don't just process external stimuli, combine them with an internal state, and generate output signals, like a program would – you can actually "feel" things and see them with "your inner eye"?

I'm not being sarcastic here. Maybe there are people that don't have subjective experience, just like there are people that can hear colors.

<comment><USER11> > You do have subjective experience, don't you? I mean, you don't just process > external stimuli, combine them with an internal state, and generate output > signals, like a program would – you can actually "feel" things and see them > with "your inner eye"?

Hold on. Did you just claim that people with aphantasia (ie: possibly an inability to feed causal models from someplace (probably the neocortex? IANANS, just work with some) back to the visual cortex and get the visual cortex's "portrayal" of the conditional simulation embodied in the model) have no subjective experience?

What if someone has no "inner eye", but does have "inner ears", an "inner tongue", "inner hands" and all the rest? Or do you group all possible "inner senses" used for imagining "what something is like" into "qualia" without separating them into distinct functionalities that are in bijection with the available physical senses?

Because you might have actually said something interesting here!

<comment><USER10> > _Did you just claim that people with aphantasia [...] have no subjective > experience?_

I don't think so. I wasn't talking about imagination (as in: thinking of a cube and rotating it in your mind), but rather about experiencing the input from my physical eyes. It's as if there's someone inside my head that experiences and feels what I physically see. Of course, this doesn't help: the homunculus model is thoroughly debunked. [1]

> _Or do you group all possible "inner senses" used for imagining "what > something is like" into "qualia" without separating them into distinct > functionalities that are in bijection with the available physical senses?_

There are qualia like anxiety or restlessness that are not linked to physical senses, so that's a no on the bijection. I have no idea whether those "inner eyes, ears, etc." that link imagination to physical senses are related to qualia – it's so difficult to imagine myself into different minds. Besides, coming up with an objective, clear, non-recursive definition for subjective experience is way above my paygrade.

Another random thought that I just had: People with depression sometimes hurt themselves physically, because that's the only way they can still feel something (according to them). Maybe this is related to a dampened subjective experience, which allows only extreme inputs to be experienced?

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

<comment><USER11> >It's as if there's someone inside my head that experiences and feels what I physically see.

No, you only imagine that. And I'm being serious: people who aren't brought up being told that consciousness is like having a little homunculus in your head simply never feel "as if" there was one.

>There are qualia like anxiety or restlessness that are not linked to physical senses, so that's a no on the bijection.

I would normally call those emotions rather than qualia. Hmmm. Would you say the "qualia-ness" of things comes from the internal perception that the "feelings" are _external_ to the person who feels, and _impinge_ on them?

>Another random thought that I just had: People with depression sometimes hurt themselves physically, because that's the only way they can still feel something (according to them). Maybe this is related to a dampened subjective experience, which allows only extreme inputs to be experienced?

But dampened affect (dampened emotional signaling in the brain) is already a known and seemingly somewhat understood symptom of depression.

<comment><USER12> >people who aren't brought up being told that consciousness is like having a little homunculus in your head simply never feel "as if" there was one.

So you're saying people brought up differently are p-zombies? Because that's the only way I can interpret that.

Feeling like there's a homonculous is fundamentally what experiencing the world is like for me, and has been since long before I was able to understand complex philosophical questions about conciousness.

<comment><USER11> >So you're saying people brought up differently are p-zombies?

No, I'm saying that people brought up differently actually identify our selves with our actual, physical bodies, and don't imagine/visualize a tiny little figurine in our head. We have a _different_ experience of the world, not _no_ experience.

To me it seems weirder to say, "When I get bitten by a dog, the little homunculus gets a loud alarm ringing in his little room saying, 'BITTEN BY DOG!'" than "When I get bitten by a dog, its teeth feel sharp and painful."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The paper from the same author where he formally presents his ideas:

[http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00...](http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00500/full)

<comment><USER14> I thought I had read a very similar idea in [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4010745/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4010745/) but on closer inspection I see that it's referencing that same author...

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This passage from the article:

> Even if you've turned your back on an object, your cortex can still focus > its processing resources on it. Scientists sometimes compare covert > attention to a spotlight. (The analogy was first suggested by Francis Crick, > the geneticist.) Your cortex can shift covert attention from the text in > front of you to a nearby person, to the sounds in your backyard, to a > thought or a memory. Covert attention is the virtual movement of deep > processing from one item to another.

very much put me in mind of an unusual book: _A Life of One 's Own_ (Marion Milner, 1934) - in particular, this:

      At any moment there exist in the fringes of my thought
      faint patternings which can be brought to distinction
      when I look at them. Like a policeman with a flash-light
      I can throw the bright circle of my awareness where I
      choose; if any shadow or movement in the dim outer circle
      of its rays arouses my suspicion, I can make it come into
      the circle of brightness and show itself for what it is.
      But the beam of my attention is not of fixed width, I can
      widen or narrow it as I choose.[1]

1: [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ntg6OE7haSgC&pg=PA77](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ntg6OE7haSgC&pg=PA77)

</comment><comment><USER16> A theory that's not testable is mere conjecture. Worth reading is Nagel's What is it like to be a bat?

[http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf](http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm stuck with a related philosophical problem, perhaps somebody here can help me out.

The problem is that consciousness happens "now", but "now" has only a meaning in an inertial frame of reference, and simultaneity in physics depends on the chosen frame of reference.

To phrase it differently, you generally don't feel what you felt yesterday, or what you feel tomorrow. You only feel (or experience) what you are feeling at this very moment. But if one (mathematical) point in the brain is conscious, by the time it has communicated to another point in the brain, that "feeling" has been lost to time.

So either consciousness happens only at distinct (mathematical) points in the brain, or, somehow, consciousness can span a short non-zero time interval. You experience not just "now", but also briefly in the past and perhaps into the future.

This seems contradictory, so a better way of looking at it is needed.

<comment><USER18> This is a very interesting point.

The article takes "consciousness" to mean the contents of awareness, and not awareness (subjectivity) itself, so from my point of view it doesn't even begin to touch on the "hard problem".

One interesting clue is that, as you point out, subjectively "it" is _always_ now and you are _always_ here. Whatever "you" are, you're the origin-point in spacetime for the contents of your awareness.

This is true even when you are dreaming, which seems significant.

We know that phenomenon that are too fast or too slow cannot be perceived, and I think you're right that that indicates something important about how subjectivity functions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The article (haven't read the paper yet) resonates with things Dennett has said, as many commenters have pointed out. It goes further though, as it details a few different structures and goes beyond speculation, as most of the theses are empirically testable, at least in theory.

Two questions:

* Are there any objections to the theory, apart from: but consciousness is magic?

* What are good resources to learn the history of the idea that complex brain activity emerges from neurons competing with each other?

</comment><comment><USER20> "New"

The papers and work on this theory go on for years already and its due time it gains more/wider public attention, imo.

I wonder if it will cause/is causing already a kind of antropo-"disappointment" just like heliocentric theories caused when they un- throned the earth-centric theories... we humans love magic, especially when we are told/we think to be magic, right?

<comment><USER21> I love the seemingly improbable, not "magic" \- it just so happens that they overlap.

Children are still fascinated by flying machines. Adults generally aren't _as_ fascinated, just by having grown up with them, regardless of how well they understand them. But both groups know the machines are grounded in reality, as opposed to being "magic".

So no, I disagree. And I think it's irrelevant. The people who want to believe in science will be happy to expand their understanding (this is still theory). The people who don't will keep on believing whatever it is they believe. There are still people out there who think there's a god that raises the sun each morning and sets the moon at dawn, despite what science tells us.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> For those who are interested in hearing Graziano discuss consciousness further, alongside Chalmers and Tegmark, I recommend this NYAS video from last month:

[http://www.nyas.org/events/Detail.aspx?cid=43d077ca-947f-4f4...](http://www.nyas.org/events/Detail.aspx?cid=43d077ca-947f-4f40-b01e-71569a0719e8)

</comment><comment><USER23> Are insects conscious? Why or why not?

<comment><USER8> It's impossible to be sure, but since it seems consciousness follows a spectrum when it comes to living beings, with more complex beings having "more" consciousness and less complex beings having less, my guess is that all living things have some form of consciousness, including plants and insects.

As soon as anything "prefers" any stimulus over another, I think consciousness becomes an emergent property.

<comment><USER24> Does this spectrum imply that humans have varying levels of consciousness? If so, I think this presents an interesting moral question.

<comment><USER25> I'd certainly say there is a spectrum of varying human consciousness from fetus>baby>young child>child

<comment><USER24> Does it vary within each category?

<comment><USER26> Lets say it does. Perhaps a brain damaged person in a coma has less consciousness. Or perhaps someone who is just asleep has less consciousness. Whats your interesting moral question?

<comment><USER24> I seem to have forgotten</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Japanese Women Armed with Chainsaws - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/japanese-women-armed-chainsaws/2014/08/19/

<comment><USER2> It's clear that the government is hiding a big tentacle attack to earth from inside the japanese woods. The Army of Darkness approach sounds good enough. :p</comment>


Windows Phone does transmit location information without user consent - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/windows-phone-does-transmit-location-information-without-user-consent/14970

<comment><USER2> This looks like requesting an approximate position assisting the gps to to get the precise position. I'd bet all agps devices do it in this way; before the confirmation dialog, because it gives the optimal user experience. If they waited for confirmation to download the agps data, you'd haveto wait more to grt your location. Even if you don't want to get your location now, it makes sense to cache them because you are likely to want it in the near future. These are the same data iPhone was found to cache and back up.

<comment><USER3> I agree, but it all comes down to what they are sending. Sending "some anonymous device (assuming they cab truly keep things anonymous, a non-trivia, task!) is around here" is probably OK. Sending "device ae4f3297ffd is around here" is most likely not ok at all.

<comment><USER2> I agree, they are sending more info than they need to, in the same way Apple didn't need to store these data for so long or back them up on a computer. In both cases I don't think there is malice, but it's good people actually check what is going on and force vendors to take privacy seriously.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The actual source of the article is below. ZDNet didn't add much to the article other than ads.

[http://www.withinwindows.com/2011/09/23/dissecting- case-0143...](http://www.withinwindows.com/2011/09/23/dissecting- case-01438-exhibit-b-part-2/)

</comment><comment><USER5> This is probably due to incompetence, not malice. Bugfix a'hoy?

They probably meant _"It is our intention not to collect information..."_ rather than "Microsoft does not collect information..."

If you make a mistake which contradicts something you've said in a formal contract, is there any way to basically say "Whoops, my bad, yo. We're pushing out a bugfix ASAP"? Would that even 'matter'? I guess it depends entirely on the exact contract, so there's probably no way to answer that.

I mean, people make mistakes. It's life; it happens. I'm just wondering if the legal system reflects that fact at all, or whether it's a hardcore stonefaced slavedriver that laughs at how naive you are for thinking you get a second chance.

<comment><USER6> there is a lot of this type of "mistakes" if i would let my imagination to take over i could say they do it on purpose and say it is mistake only if they get caught.

<comment><USER5> That's true, but very rare.

<comment><USER7> Citation needed.

<comment><USER5> Do you believe most of the world is honorless? If so, then no citation will convince otherwise.

On the other hand, if you believe most people are fundamentally "good" (or at least "mostly not evil"), as I do, then no citation is necessary.

Almost everyone of the thousands of people I've interacted with in the tech/programming field are good people.

Of course, there are plenty of horror stories in relation to the business side of things. It's certainly _possible_ most of them are mostly evil; I have no clue.

<comment><USER7> You may have meant to talk about humans in general, but the context here is Microsoft. Your claim that Microsoft has very rarely acted against the interests of users on purpose is in need of supporting evidence, as the general sentiment on this social news site is that this is not the case.

To your question: Steve Mann has some interesting thoughts about how being a part of bureaucracy makes it easy to do evil. This is not a new idea: any discussion of collaboration in WW2 Europe will bring up similar themes. Do you think humans who are acting at the behest of an impersonal corporation are intrinsically good in that context?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I suspect that the relevant semantic distinction here is between "transmit" and "collect".

<comment><USER9> Where personally identifiable information is concerned, transmission implies collection, as there is no way to verify that the receiving party does not record. Any statement to the contrary is to take the recipient merely on faith.

<comment><USER10> Not merely on faith; There also is the statement to the house of representatives. IANAL, but I would guess that could lead to some serious jail time, if it turned out that the data was collected.</comment></comment></comment>


CAcert – A community-driven Certificate Authority - <AUTHOR> http://www.cacert.org/ <comment><USER2> CAcert isn't accepted in the trust store for devices that most humans use.

Today we have Let's Encrypt.

</comment><comment><USER3> I saw this earlier, iirc the certs don't get acknowledged anywhere.</comment>


Free Big Data Education: A Data Science Perspective - <AUTHOR> http://www.bigdatarepublic.com/author.asp?section_id=2809&doc_id=257527& <comment><USER2> > These free courses (some offer certifications) offer an excellent path > toward obtaining the requisite background for becoming a data scientist. > I've put together a BDR Data Science "pseudo degree program" for you to > follow.

Here's my question as a have been thinking about pivoting into Big Data recently. I have a non-technical BA degree, but taught myself programming and have worked as a Software Engineer, Sr Software Engineer and Lead Engineer at a variety of startups. Since I dont have the math background I have been taking classes on Coursera in math/data science etc.

But I am torn on whether I need a MS degree in Applied Math/CS/Statistics etc. What is recommended? I have already read many blog posts/quora etc on the subject.

Also, do people compete on Kaggle etc to get their skills up?

These Free Big Data learning materials are great, but all the job postings for these positions want graduate level math capability, which makes sense. Whats the best way to jump int this?

<comment><USER3> You don't need graduate level math, but if you want to use machine learning it's basically mandatory to have a solid understanding up to calculus, linear algebra, and probability/statistics. At least if you want to understand the underlying algorithms, which in my opinion is essential to being a good data scientist.

I did a masters in machine learning/computer science, but I think I could have learned a lot of the stuff on my own. The value of the masters was in projects, interaction with professors/other students, and the ability to do research (which I think is very underrated). FYI: a lot of jobs will discriminate against people without technical degrees and graduate degrees. Independent projects or relevant work experience will help.

My career predates kaggle, but I did do a machine learning competition to practice and apply my knowledge. Winning these will look good on a resume, but only to a point: there's a lot more to being a data scientist than what these competitions test.

<comment><USER2> > FYI: a lot of jobs will discriminate against people without technical > degrees and graduate degrees.

Thanks for the info. Thats my dilemma I guess. Leveraging free online resources can only take you so far. I guess my assumption was that I needed to get a masters and I was wondering which field made the most sense: Applied Math / Stats / CS. At this point it seems like CS would be the way to go.

<comment><USER3> CS would give you the most bang-for-your-buck, especially a program that can let you specialize in machine learning.

You may be able to leverage your software engineering positions to skip an additional degree. I've heard people argue that data scientists are software engineers with additional specialized knowledge, which I think is largely true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Maybe my undergraduate institution failed mebut I don't feel that having taken linear algebra, multivariable calc, applied stats, and graduate probability over the summer that the PDF below contains readily accessible information to me. Does it require graduate linear algebra? Graduate multi-v? We're my courses not rigorous enough? Am just not smart enough? I graduated summa cum laude, so maybe I should be okay.

All I am saying that is that there seems to be a huge leap between having taken the prerequisites everyone says you should take and then seeing Cramer- Rao bounds on page 70.

<http://alex.smola.org/drafts/thebook.pdf></comment>


HN Lists - <AUTHOR> https://news.ycombinator.com/lists <comment><USER2> Huh, I've never noticed this down in the footer.

It's a bit of an outlier: everything else down there is static pages about the site or email links.

</comment><comment> shady-lady missing from that list is:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/classic](https://news.ycombinator.com/classic)

not even hidden there as a <!-- --> comment</comment>


On the Origin of Speciousness - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@jason_hutchens/on-the-origin-of-speciousness-180c370ade60#.8eto63r8j <comment><AUTHOR> Thinking about Chomsky and Hong Kong lead to writing this brain-dump.</comment>


A leveldb build for java with linux and windows support - dyu- https://gitlab.com/dyu/protostuffdb <comment> dyu- To see an example on how it is used, visit protostuffdb-examples/todo on github</comment>


What is being digitized? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nb.no/English/The-Digital-Library/What-is-being-digitized The National Library of Norwegian is digitizing its multi-hundred-thousand book collection, dating to Middle Ages
The National Library of Norway is digitizing its entire collection. The Norwegian Legal Deposit Act requires that all published content, in all media, be deposited with the National Library of Norway. The collection is also being expanded through purchases and gifts. The digital collection contains material dating from the Middle Ages up to the current day.
In parallel with digitizing of analogue material, the National Library of Norway is working to expand the scope of publications covered by legal digital deposit legislation. The Library wishes to receive the digital source of the publication and in this way expand collection's digital content. The digitizing programme started in 2006. It is estimated that it will take 20–30 years for the entire collection to be digitized.
From Reddit, Gnurx has a fascinating thread on some of the technology and infrastructure behind the repository:
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1smus7/norway_is_digitizing_all_its_books_and_making/cdzbgkp
The book deep storage vault, which looks like something out of the movie Brazil:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1MmbLl5lvyY
Book and newspaper scanners:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kyEODVh2JBw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zkNQmeEJMBk <comment><AUTHOR> The National Library of Norwegian is digitizing its multi-hundred-thousand book collection, dating to Middle Ages

 _The National Library of Norway is digitizing its entire collection. The Norwegian Legal Deposit Act requires that all published content, in all media, be deposited with the National Library of Norway. The collection is also being expanded through purchases and gifts. The digital collection contains material dating from the Middle Ages up to the current day._

 _In parallel with digitizing of analogue material, the National Library of Norway is working to expand the scope of publications covered by legal digital deposit legislation. The Library wishes to receive the digital source of the publication and in this way expand collection's digital content. The digitizing programme started in 2006. It is estimated that it will take 20–30 years for the entire collection to be digitized._

From Reddit, Gnurx has a fascinating thread on some of the technology and infrastructure behind the repository:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1smus7/norway_is...](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1smus7/norway_is_digitizing_all_its_books_and_making/cdzbgkp)

The book deep storage vault, which looks like something out of the movie _Brazil_ :

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1Mmb...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1MmbLl5lvyY)</comment>


Humans can only live so long, and we're nearing the limit, researchers say - <AUTHOR> https://www.statnews.com/2016/10/05/human-lifespan-limits/ <comment><AUTHOR> "We don't know yet what the impact will be of new pharmaceuticals, new technologies," said David Sinclair, an aging researcher at Harvard Medical School. "The past doesn't predict the future when it comes to technology."

</comment><comment><USER2> Really cool dataviz in this story that let's you see populations from 28 different countries age over the last 50 years.</comment>


AMD reverses GPGPU trend, announces OpenCL SDK for x86 - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/08/amd-announces-opencl-sdk-for-x86.ars <comment><USER2> I guess I'm not understanding something. How are they reversing a trend?

Apple spent a lot of time and money developing the OpenCL standard and gaining industry support. OpenCL isn't strictly about GPGPU computing, it's about maximally utilizing available resources. AMD is adopting the standard, and they just implemented the CPU portion of it for now and went ahead to release it. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that they'll follow up with supporting GPU target. So if anything, they're embracing the trend, just trying to bring their tools to completion.

So yeah, the current SDK doesn't support GPU targets, but how is this in any way shape or form reversing the trend?

<comment><USER3> Exactly, I would even argue that without OpenCL on CPU (which can serve e.g. as a fall-back when your GPU can't do it), OpenCL wouldn't make sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I feel like CPUs and GPUS are converging anyways. They are both going multicore, and GPUs are becoming better suited to general-purpose processing. Sure GPUs have lots of simple dedicated cores, while CPUs have fewer more complex cores, but over time this will converge.

In the long run, you won't need dedicated logic for graphics processing, at least on the low-end. Processors will just dedicate a few cores to graphics processing.

If you doubt this, look at what people said a few years ago about graphics integrated into the chipset. Now you have respectable solutions like NVidia's 9400. Within a few years, I bet that some relatively high-end solutions will be integrated into the silicon, and the low-end processors will do everything on the CPU. Over the long-term (probably when we have 32-64 cores per CPU), the GPU will become irrelevant.

<comment><USER5> I don't think they are converging at all. The fundamental difference is that GPUs are using the vast amount of silicon real estate that in a CPU is used for cache for computational units. That gives it much higher computational peak performance, but it also means that your memory is uncached, which will kill you in applications that do unstructured memory access.

I think of it as analogous to cars vs semitrucks. Trucks are efficient at hauling massive amounts of stuff to the same place, but not at transporting 100 commuters to their different workplaces. They are optimized for different problems and I don't think there's a better argument for saying that GPUS and CPUs will converge than to say that semitrucks and cars will converge.

<comment><USER6> But GPUs do have an internal memory hierarchy; there is a local cache with much faster access times than global memory.

Personally, I agree with the parent. Aside from the obvious solution of integrating a GPU-like accelerator on the chip, the multicore trend in general purpose CPUs has more, simpler cores. I agree with your overall characterization of what CPUs are good at versus what GPUs are good at, but I still see some convergence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This looks to me like a publicity stunt since ATI's original GPGPU offering was a flop. Nvidia's OpenCL SDK actually works on their graphics cards though it is in limited beta last I checked.

<comment><USER5> Not to mention that you can compile CUDA code in "emulation" mode for execution on the CPU, too. The utility is largely for debugging, because the CPU is darned slow executing it, so I'm not sure it has any use in production.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting development! One thing I don't get is if you are developing stuff for GPGPUs and you don't have one yourself that getting one is hardly a big hurdle.

The cheapest cards that will work are in the $100 range, hardly a major expense.

The GPGPU is probably one of the biggest developments in the last couple of years, it puts enormous power in the hands of individuals with a surprisingly small power bill and footprint.

~300W for a 480 core machine is not bad at all!

<comment><USER6> Enormous, but extremely specialized power.

I'm not sure if most people understand the kinds of threads/cores that GPUs actually have, and with that, the kinds of computations they're actually good at. A GPU's threads are extremely simple execution pipelines - nothing like the cores of an Intel Quad Core chip. Groups of GPU threads actually execute together in lock-step, executing the same code (but with different parameters).

Such devices are extremely good at handling data parallelism - where the same computation is performed on a large chunk of data - seen in areas such as graphics and scientific computing. But you're probably not going to, say, speed up your webserver with a GPU. If you don't have a computation that is extremely data parallel - that is, capable of having thousands of execution contexts working on data at the same time - a GPU won't help.

<comment><USER9> Things are changing extremely rapidly.

Researchers (especially in parallel computing) are already figuring out how to port all sorts of algorithms over to the GPU -- and not just scientific or graphics code -- we're talking general purpose algorithms like sorting, ranking, cryptography, networking, database operations, etc:

[http://gpgpu.org/2009/04/13/efficient-acceleration-of- asymme...](http://gpgpu.org/2009/04/13/efficient-acceleration-of-asymmetric- cryptography-on-graphics-hardware)

[http://gpgpu.org/2009/04/28/fast-and-scalable-list- ranking-o...](http://gpgpu.org/2009/04/28/fast-and-scalable-list-ranking-on- the-gpu)

[http://gpgpu.org/2008/12/11/wait-free-programming-for- genera...](http://gpgpu.org/2008/12/11/wait-free-programming-for-general- purpose-computations-on-graphics-processors)

[http://gpgpu.org/2008/10/26/gnort-high-performance- network-i...](http://gpgpu.org/2008/10/26/gnort-high-performance-network- intrusion-detection-using-graphics-processors)

[http://gpgpu.org/2008/05/25/a-fast-similarity-join- algorithm...](http://gpgpu.org/2008/05/25/a-fast-similarity-join-algorithm- using-graphics-processing-units)

The biggest obstacle to preventing widespread adoption of GPGPU techniques today is that things are still in so much flux that mature, stable APIs have not yet emerged. There is fierce competition between Intel (Larrabee), Apple/AMD (Grand Central/OpenCL), and NVIDIA (CUDA) to get their respective APIs to be the dominant ones, and no one's yet come up with a mature wrapper API that can target any of them.

This is in large part because the hardware itself is still in flux, morphing away from the graphics-specific pipeline of 10 years ago and into a general purpose SIMD architecture. This has meant a change in the kinds of operations allowed on the GPU. For example, branches used to be a big no-no in graphics hardware: the performance hit caused by a branch was disastrous on a massively-multicore system. However, all hardware makers are now adding supporting for branches, because it's almost impossible to port a lot of CPU algorithms without them.

In any case, I'm confident that within a year or two, things will have settled down somewhat, at which point there's going to be a mad dash by developers to start using GPUs (probably systems- and library-level developers rather than application-programmers).

<comment><USER6> I _am_ a researcher in parallel computing. All of these papers represent good work and are contributions to the field, but they still obey the limited model I was referring to: ship a large amount of data to the GPU, do data parallel computations on that data, and ship the results back. As I pointed out in a post below, this model does not work well when you only have small quantities of data at a time, yet there is parallelism to exploit.

<comment><USER9> Ah sorry, I didn't realize that =)

I'll defer to your judgment about this stuff, then. (I'm a PhD student in computer vision, and we've recently been using a GPU SVM library that's been amazing for cutting down our processing times, so I guess I've been a little dazzled by this stuff.)

Anyways, since you're in this field, what's your feeling about the future of parallel computing, with regards to the different vendors? Which of CUDA/OpenCL/Larrabee will win out? Or none of the above? When will APIs settle down?

<comment><USER6> Honestly, I don't know, and anyone who claims to know is selling you something.

Your question is _the_ question in parallel computing right now. And it effects all sizes and scales, from processor architecture (look at the different architectures of an Intel Quad Core, Cell, GPUs and upcoming Larabee and Fusion) to supercomputers (BlueGene style thousands of slow cores with fast interconnect, RoadRunner style of typical multicore processors with Cells as accelerators, Nvidia's giant GPU box, or just lots of SMPs). We don't know what the future will look, which makes this an interesting time to be in the field. People at all levels are experimenting with different architectures. We don't know what will win, if any _one_ thing will win, and when we'll know.

With that said, I don't think APIs at the processor level will settle down until the hardware does. My understanding of OpenCL is to have a programming model that would work on architectures as different as GPUs, Cell and Larrabee, and that this will supplant Cuda. That sounds like a great idea, but lots of great ideas haven't worked in practice before.

I think it's going to be several at least several years of experimentation before the hardware settles down. My own belief (that is, opinion not based on experimental data) is that we'll end up with a heterogeneous chip with lots of simple cores for parallelism, a small number of sophisticated cores for sequential computation, all part of an integrated memory hierarchy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Do not forget that intel released a C++ Larrabee Prototype Library for anyone wanting to experiment. Just sayin'...

</comment><comment><USER11> Does this come with an emulator for Windows, so you can test it without a GPU?</comment>


Memorizers are the lowest achievers and other Common Core math surprises - <AUTHOR> http://hechingerreport.org/memorizers-are-the-lowest-achievers-and-other-common-core-math-surprises/

<comment><USER2> "The U.S. has more memorizers than most other countries in the world."

I'm wondering where they get this stat, because I just don't believe it. I lived in China for a few years and the education system there is pretty much all rote-memorization. I've heard that it's similar in other parts of Asia.

But the idea of the article is true: When you just memorize, it makes it difficult to apply the principals that you are learning to other situations/problems.

<comment><AUTHOR> _I lived in China for a few years and the education system there is pretty much all rote-memorization._

你好. I used to live in Taiwan, and I have a big bunch of mathematics textbooks from China, as well as some recent math students in my local mathematics classes who grew up in China. Mathematics instruction in China is not at all about memorization, in the sense used in this article. A good book on the topic of mathematics instruction in the United States and China is _Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teachers ' Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States_ by Liping Ma.[1] Her field study, with sponsorship by the United States federal government, made clear that elementary mathematics instruction in China is much richer and deeper and more conceptual than in the United States.

 _But the idea of the article is true: When you just memorize, it makes it difficult to apply the principals that you are learning to other situations /problems._

Yes. To memorize without underlying understanding is no more useful than not memorizing at all. Developing deep understanding of a topic usually brings along with it sufficient memorization of fundamental facts that the problem- solver will be able to solve some problems on the spot, and know when to look things up if needed.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Teaching-Elementary- Mathematic...](http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Teaching-Elementary-Mathematics- Understanding/dp/0415873843)

[http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/amed1.pdf](http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/amed1.pdf)

[http://www.ams.org/notices/199908/rev- howe.pdf](http://www.ams.org/notices/199908/rev-howe.pdf)

<comment><USER2> "I used to live in Taiwan"

I lived in Taiwan for a year as well. It was more of the same.

"made clear that elementary mathematics instruction in China is much richer and deeper and more conceptual than in the United States."

I didn't see any of this while in China or Taiwan. What I did see (also from my friends that had kids) was stress being put on memorization.

I had a few friends that taught at language schools (teaching English) and many students couldn't effectively use grammar because they were so used to just memorization.

I understand that you have links to a book that claims the contrary, but I just didn't see this in reality. But I will agree that the school systems in the US are equally as bad when it comes to not teaching memorization.</comment></comment></comment>


I believe DigiSpoke will revolutionize project management. Here's a sneak peek. - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_2slvDbZ0o

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://www.digispoke.com> is the site.

Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with DigiSpoke, but I know its leader personally, and as a fellow developer who have used multiple project management tools in the past (Pivotal, Basecamp, and others), I think he's onto something special here.

Any time I used project management that involved more than a few tasks, I had the feeling of being lost, or not having the full picture. DigiSpoke looks like the missing piece.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this. Again, I have no personal involvement in the project outside of seeing the first real demo in my social feed this morning.</comment>


Social distancing could have devastating effect on people with depression - <AUTHOR> https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/social-distancing-could-have-devastating-effect-people-depression-n1157871 <comment><USER2> How common is it for depressed people to self-isolate anyways? If that's super common the additional impact should be lower.</comment>


Uber banned in Spain - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30395093?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central <comment><USER2> The explanation "not legal because we haven't allowed it" will sound odd to people from common law countries like US and UK (where, conversely, it's closer to "It's legal because no law states that it's not"). But it's practice in civil law countries like Spain, Germany etc.

I know I've simplified the difference a lot, probably oversimplified it, but I often think of this broad distinction when I see cases like this one.

<comment><USER3> At least in Germany the general rule is "as long as there's no law forbidding it, it's permitted." The problem is that there's a regulation that explicitly puts restrictions on what requirements you need to fulfill to transport other people for money - one of them being "needs authorization". And UberPop fails to meet these requirements.

<comment><USER2> There's a Wikipedia article on this:

'The jocular saying is that, in England, "everything which is not forbidden is allowed", while, in Germany, the opposite applies, so "everything which is not allowed is forbidden". ... The saying about the Germans is at least partially true. ...'

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbi...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed)

<comment><USER3> The example quoted in the wikipedia is a bit weird, the quoted paragraph deals with the question of under which circumstances you can have owner-like rights from something that you don't actually owned but rented (or was given to you under similar circumstances). There may or may not be a legal edge case involved, but it does not directly deal with "actions permitted or forbidden."

The primary difference between common law and civil law is more among the lines that in common law systems each court decision creates a law (or is law- like) while in civil law, the law is created by the legislative.

German courts have to follow the civil code and can't change or ignore it. Even the german constitutional court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) can't create a law. It may declare a law unconstitutional, but the burden of drafting a new law falls on the Bundestag. Obviously, there will be loopholes and there's always the question of how a given law applies to the circumstances, but even lower courts are not bound by the decisions of higher courts in similar cases - though usually decisions of other courts get cited in court proceedings. A pretty famous example is the Landgericht Hamburg which is known to decide in ways that the next higher court rejects (Oberlandesgericht Hamburg) on appeal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The thing about EU countries [1] that most American companies continually underestimate is: the primary focus of the legal system is to protect citizens/consumers, not companies, for better or worse. You can't escape this as a company by simply ignoring the rules or throwing money into lobbying in Brussels, whether you're Uber, Airbnb, Google or Microsoft.

[1] Especially the ones with a civil law system which is all of them except the UK.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure it's helpful to describe this as the awful corporatist Americans underestimating the strong, citizen-focussed EU.

I am a British citizen living in Europe, and I'm for one pretty happy that Uber is trying to drag the taxi industry into the 21st century. Lots of my friends like and use Uber (though I don't use them myself as for some reason the app cannot verify me), I've yet to hear a single complaint about their service.

The Spanish decision doesn't have anything directly to do with protecting people. It was triggered by complaints by the competition, it states that Uber is illegal because it's not authorised not because of some specifically bad thing they're doing .... if this is defending the consumer, why doesn't it look or feel like it?

Frankly, the chance of an Uber-like company getting started in Europe feels close to zero. If it were up to us here to shake up the taxi business and apply basic mobile technology to it, I'm not sure it'd ever happen at all. America is hardly a perfect country and its people are not a perfect people, but you must admire their drive to get things done.

<comment><USER6> In Europe you have different views of how markets should be regulated. In the US, deregulation and free markets are the de-facto assumption, but many European economies proudly trend more socialist than we do. Uber's typical appeal to free market economic principles doesn't go over as well in these markets.

The Spanish laws in play are absolutely not defending the consumer, they're defending the worker. That's the entire point: in the US, consumer rights often trump worker rights, but that's not the case everywhere.

<comment><USER7> > In Europe you have different views of how markets should be regulated. In > the US, deregulation and free markets are the de-facto assumption, but many > European economies proudly trend more socialist than we do.

Europeans in general seem to also have a different conception of what the word _socialist_ means, compared to Americans.

<comment><USER6> That's changing; there's no longer the USSR to provide the evil centrally planned economy as a model. But yes, I meant socialist as in the government owns and controls aspects of the economy, with profit maximization often not the goal of those industries.

<comment><USER7> > But yes, I meant socialist as in the government owns and controls aspects of > the economy, with profit maximization often not the goal of those > industries.

That already has a name: mixed economy.

"Socialist" in the American vernacular is too coarse grained when talking about politics beyond its own borders, since the connotation seems to always just be "left of American politics"... :)

<comment><USER6> I meant socialist as an adjective, not a noun. The US government has socialist policies as well: social security, for example. Also, government ownership of public transit, or the USPS. I agree the word is a bit inflammatory in the American lexicon, though that is changing as all the old people die off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> > In a statement on Monday, Uber said it would "continue to offer UberPop", > despite the threat of a fine of up to €100,00 for itself, and one of up to > €40,000 for drivers.

Classic Uber.

<comment><USER8> Uber doesn't fear a fine for its drivers, since the drivers take the hit and not the company.

<comment><USER9> Although according to the article it is risking a €100,000 fine on top of €40,000 fine given to the driver. That could rack up pretty quickly if it were on a per-violation basis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Perhaps there is marked for more distributed approach.

</comment><comment><USER11> no such thing as bad publicity i suppose</comment>


Tesla Model 3 Delivery Event Livestream - <AUTHOR> https://livestream.tesla.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Well that was an underwhelming presentation. The only real new information was general details about the two versions of the 3.

The lower capacity one will start at $35k, have 220 mile range, 5.6 sec 0-60 time, and 130 mph top speed.

The higher capacity one will start at $44k, have 310 mile range, 5.1 sec 0-60 time, and 140 mph top speed.

EDIT: For comparison the Chevy Bolt starts at $37,495, has 238 mile range, 6.3 sec 0-60 time, and 91 mph top speed.

<comment><USER2> Bolt inventory is pretty high - so you can have one right away, if that's what you want.

<comment><USER3> Ya but then you have to drive a Bolt

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Am I the only person in the world who thinks that having a touch screen as the primary interface in a car is a horrible idea? Why is it illegal to mess with our phones while driving but it's ok if it's a built-in touch screen?

<comment><USER5> One consideration in the law's distinction might be that the driver features on touch screens are designed to reduce required attention (or at least consider it during design), while typing a text requires a lot of effort and distraction because phone UX can assume your focus. Touch doesn't really matter, though; you can get similar distraction manipulating even a relatively simple radio, and people do hurt themselves playing with the radio.

There is also a front passenger to consider, though I do concede that point when alone.

<comment><USER6> > you can get similar distraction manipulating a radio.

You can manipulate a radio without looking at it. You can't do the same with a touchscreen. There are laws against texting and driving for a reason.

<comment><USER5> It's been many years since I've met a glance-free radio. Even the barebones tape deck package usually has source buttons, you have to glance if you're looking for a station, you invoke the part of your brain to remember the frequency of the station you like or was it preset 6, etc etc. If you're just seeking from steering wheel buttons, sure, but then you also have a timing distraction to push the button to stop and oh crap I missed it and now I have to tune back. And tuning toward a specific destination with the Tune buttons (tap-tap-tap-tap or tap-hold-miss-static-tap-tap with many glances thrown in) is about as distracting as texting, I'd wager.

There's a lot of "higher order" and potentially distracting UX in manipulating a radio, versus a hot/cold switch. I don't think touch screens add much; I honestly think the control rearrangement capability actually improves UX for distraction purposes, like directly tapping a visual logo, for example, which is a lot faster to recognize than a frequency or channel number or dragging a virtual "tuner" along the "spectrum" with a Tune+ button.

<comment><USER6> I've yet to meet a non-glance-free radio. Then again, the latest car I've ever owned is from 2003. I can believe tactile buttons went the way of the dinosaur about the time the iPhone was created (2008?)

<comment><USER5> There's more to what I'm saying than the buttons. I am actually alleging that yours is more distracting than you think with the input technology being a minor point compared to your brain involvement, and I would say the same of my '94 Accord.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> MotorTrend appear to have the first "drive" review.

It's extremely, extremely positive.

[http://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-3/2018/exclusive-...](http://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-3/2018/exclusive- tesla-model-3-first-drive-review/)

<comment><USER8> It's so positive, it reads like one of those puffy videogame reviews.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm in Hawaii this week and the livestream page has a countdown timer that's showing 2.5 hours to go.

I found a YouTube livestream from a fan that's decent. So if you're also having problems, go here: [https://youtu.be/cBZeJaqa6ZM](https://youtu.be/cBZeJaqa6ZM)

<comment><USER10> Also in hawaii, and I had the same bug

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm trying to visit the normal tesla.com, and it keeps redirecting me to this livestream page. teslamotors.com also redirects. Very frustrating.

</comment><comment><USER12> STANDARD EQUIPMENT

Price – $35,000

Standard Battery

Range: 220 miles (EPA estimated) Supercharging rate: 130 miles of range per 30 minutes . Home charging rate: 30 miles of range per hour (240V outlet, 32A) Deliveries begin: Fall 2017

Performance

0-60 mph: 5.6 seconds Top speed: 130 mph Interior

15" touchscreen display Dual zone climate control system FM/Internet streaming radio Textile seating Front Center console with open storage and two USB ports Convenience

Onboard maps and navigation Wi-Fi and LTE internet connectivity Keyless entry and remote climate control using the Tesla app Voice activated controls Bluetooth hands-free calling and media streaming 60/40 split folding rear seat to maximize cargo options Back-up camera Auto dimming rear-view mirror One- touch power windows throughout Power-adjustable side mirrors 12-volt power outlet

Safety

Full LED exterior lighting Seven cameras, forward radar and twelve ultrasonic sensors enabling active safety technologies including collision avoidance and automatic emergency braking Six front row and two side curtain airbags Three- point safety belts with belt-reminders for driver and four passengers Two LATCH (Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children) attachments in second row Electronic stability and traction control Four-wheel antilock disc brakes with electronic parking brake Child safety locks Anti-theft alarm system Tire pressure monitoring system

Warranty

Vehicle: 4 year, 50,000 mile limited warranty Battery warranty: 8 year, 100,000 mile (120,000 mile with Long Range Battery)

OPTIONS

Long Range Battery – $9,000

Range: 310 miles Supercharging rate: 170 miles of range per 30 minutes Home charging rate: 37 miles of range per hour (240V outlet, 40A) 0-60 mph: 5.1 seconds Top speed: 140 mph Deliveries begin: July 2017

Paint

Solid Black: Standard Midnight Silver Metallic: $1,000 Deep Blue Metallic: $1,000 Silver Metallic: $1,000 Pearl White Multi-Coat: $1,000 Red Multi-Coat: $1,000

Wheels 18" Aero: Standard 19" Sport: $1,500

Premium Upgrades Package – $5,000 Upgraded interior with additional features and premium materials.

Premium heated seating and cabin materials throughout, including open pore wood décor and two rear USBs 12-way, power adjustable front seats, steering column and side mirrors, with custom driver profiles Premium audio system with more power, tweeters, surround speakers and subwoofer Tinted glass roof with ultraviolet and infrared protection Auto dimming, power folding, heated side mirrors LED fog lamps Center console with covered storage and docking for two smartphones

Enhanced Autopilot – $5,000 Model 3 will match speed to traffic conditions, keep within a lane, automatically change lanes, transition from one freeway to another, exit the freeway and self-park at your destination.

Additional features will roll out over time through software updates.

Full Self-Driving Capability – $3,000 (requires Enhanced Autopilot) In the future, Model 3 will be capable of conducting trips with no action required by the person in the driver's seat.

This feature is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary by jurisdiction.

VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS

Dimensions & Weight

Length: 184.8" Width: 76.1" (72.8" with mirrors folded) Height: 56.8" Wheelbase: 113.2" Track (wheel center): 62.2" front and rear Ground clearance: 5.5" Head room, standard: 39.6" front row, 37.7" second row Head room, glass roof: 40.3" front row, 37.7" second row Leg room: 42.7" front row, 35.2" second row Shoulder room: 56.3" front row, 54.0" second row Hip room: 53.4" front row, 52.4" second row Seating capacity: 5 adults Luggage capacity: 15 cubic feet Curb weight: 3549 lbs. (Model 3) 3814 lbs. (Model 3 Long Range) Weight distribution: 47% front, 53% rear (Model 3) 48% front, 52% rear (Model 3 Long Range)

Body

Hybrid steel/aluminum body Drag coefficient of 0.23 Chassis

Double wishbone, virtual steer axis front suspension with coil over twin-tube shock absorbers and stabilizer bar Independent multi-link rear suspension with twin-tube shock absorbers and stabilizer bar Variable ratio, speed sensitive electronic power steering Electromechanically boosted four wheel anti-lock disc brakes with electronic brake force distribution 18" Aero or 19" Sport wheels with all-season tires Standard Accessories

240 volt NEMA 14-50 adapter 120 volt NEMA 5-15 adapter J1772 public charging adapter 20 foot mobile connector with storage bag

<comment><USER13> > Full Self-Driving Capability – $3,000 (requires Enhanced Autopilot) In the > future, Model 3 will be capable of conducting trips with no action required > by the person in the driver's seat.

I think there are some huge caveats to this claim, above and beyond those here. A whole list of asterisks. To be selling, -today-, for $3,000 (on top of $5,000) a claim of Full Self Driving is hugely optimistic, and, I think, misleading.

How many years away, realistically, is full self driving outside of well- maintained sunny (but not TOO sunny!) roads? I don't see this thing cruising through a Pittsburgh winter any time soon.

It's one thing to promise, in the marketing sense. It's another to be charging money for it now when it's really yet another pre-order, this time with nothing close to a timeline.

<comment><USER14> They're charging for it now hoping most people do not opt for it. It provides a smaller user base of more interested, Tesla-dedicated customers who are willing to test out the new functionality before they make it standard.

Their order process isn't a final submission as well when you place an order someone from Tesla walks through that kind of asterisks with you in person if you opt for that functionality explaining the limitations and confirming you're interested in the functionality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What the hell? the tesla.com site is asking me to register and reserve a model 3 with my bank details to watch the live stream??

<comment><USER16> All it really requires is first name, last name and e-mail address so they can (presumably) send you marketing info.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Put in my info to watch the vid thinking they'd use my existing reservation. Nope. Charged another $1k.

<comment><USER18> :\

Definitely was not necessary to provide payment info to view.

<comment><USER17> On mobile it was

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm very curious to see how Tesla scales repair shops and parts, especially given that Model 3's will be owned largely by those from the middle class.

Will they start selling parts to independent mechanics? (Will we have to eventually force them to?)

</comment><comment><USER20> Hope some of them go to reviewers since Tesla doesn't seem to want to tell us very much about the vehicle they've build.

And I know people get all up in arms when you criticise Tesla; but let's be honest, there's a lot more to a vehicle than just the range and outside appearance. For example, do the rear seats fold down? Is there rear air vents? Spare tire? HD Radio? Do the mirrors fold in? Any other vehicle, even on release day, these are trivial questions that are answered. But we cannot answer much about the Model 3, except its range and 0-60.

And by the way Tesla's website got updated, but only contains 0-60/range/and a vague note about having autopilot hardware (which is odd in itself as there are three tiers of Tesla's autopilot hardware available).

<comment><USER21> HD Radio?

<comment><USER2> It's a Tesla - the radio goes to 11.

<comment><USER2> Thank you downvoters -yes, it does go to 11

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There are some pretty big worries[1] about tesla's plans for hitting the sales target with the Model S. I remember watching very sad stories on GM's EV car way back in the day.

Basically they want to sell 100K cars _within this year_ this is ~5 times what they sold with the model X/S last year. Time will tell though...

[1] [https://seekingalpha.com/article/4085784-tesla-story- becomin...](https://seekingalpha.com/article/4085784-tesla-story-becoming- increasingly-fantastic-business-model-falls-apart)

<comment><USER23> I never know what to make of Seeking Alpha, except their articles on Tesla don't ever seem to be terribly balanced. (Both directions.)

<comment><USER22> They are saying the have 1/2 million "reservations" for model 3. Wonder what that means..

<comment><USER24> A reservation can be made by giving Tesla $1000. You can get it back if you decide not to buy. Max two reservations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It'd be interesting in hearing about how far along autonomy is with the model 3, it seems Tesla may be playing it down in this presentation?

<comment><USER16> They said it comes with all the hardware necessary but that didn't seem to provide any more information about software and being able to enable it for customers, i.e. regulation and certification of those capabilities.

I think both Audi and Volvo have said they will accept 100% liability for crashes in autonomous mode but I haven't seen a similar statement from Tesla yet.

[http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-liability-self- driving-c...](http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-liability-self-driving- cars/) [https://www.wired.com/story/self-driving-car-user- interface/](https://www.wired.com/story/self-driving-car-user-interface/)

<comment><USER26> It is easy to say they accept liability, as long as they are not selling any cars qualifying for it. I think this question needs to be seen when and if we are getting cars which can completely take over from the driver - and that basically implies liability by the manufacturer, because I as a driver have not handed over control, if I would be still liable for accidents.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: I've created a Slack channel for discussion of cryptocurrencies - <AUTHOR> https://join.slack.com/t/hncrypto/shared_invite/enQtMjk5MDg2MzAzMTIwLTEzNmU2NzVlNWFkMjNmZDI1ZGU1NzQ3MTZmNzM0NDU2OTc0Y2Y2NWMxZjBkZmI1MzMxMDllOGIzOTgwYWQ4MmU <comment><AUTHOR> I find that HN overall is a little too ludditic for a discussion of merits of crypto as opposed to "it's all gonna go to zero".</comment>


Why Tax Competition Is a Good Thing - <AUTHOR> https://mises.org/blog/eu-vs-apple-vs-ireland-why-tax-competition-good-thing <comment><USER2> "Obviously, without considering state organizations for what they are — i.e., parasitic organizations"

Well, that's one perspective. People will disagree on this point, and it's useful to know the basic position on which the rest of the article is based.

<comment><USER3> Yes, the thesis of this seems to be "tax is bad, tax competition will lead to a race to the bottom, so tax competition is good". Which is fine, but I was hoping for an argument that didn't rely on those assumptions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> One other benefit that Ireland offers than just a low tax rate is more 'pliable' business laws, in that say you are an American company trying to set up a subsidiary in the Euro zone. You can read up in length on either French, Germany or Italian corporate law to best figure out how to do business there, or 'simply' set up in Ireland where laws on purpose have been made to emulate american corporate structures, positions, titles, etc, and yet benefit from free trade and pan-european laws and standards provided by the EU.

</comment><comment><USER5> This article is highly subjective: "Since the 2009 crisis, Ireland has systematically been designated as the official scapegoat of every politician, witch-hunter, and other demagogue trying to avoid any discussion about the real problem: the explosion of unproductive and anti-competitive government expenditures."

</comment><comment><USER6> This is an opinion piece, and mostly rubbish at that. Why is this here?

</comment><comment><USER7> It seems mises are surprised by the fact the European UNION aims to harmonise tax laws. That is one of the main points of the organisation.

Of course that prevents individual countries from "racing to the bottom" with their own tax, environmental, and other laws, which seems to be mises real problem with the EU.

</comment><comment><USER8> I made this same point the other day and got down voted for suggesting that Ireland may leave the EU over this.

<comment><USER9> Perhaps you got down voted because even if it has been explained a lot of times, the EC has no problem with Ireland competing with low tax rates.

The case is not about low tax rates, the case is about an state (previously was Belgium and 35 EU companies) that give private and ad-hoc deals to some companies distorting the competition between companies

And perhaps you got downvoted because saying that Ireland should leave the EU means that you have a poor knowledge of EU countries economies.

<comment><USER10> Alleged private and ad-hoc deals. Let's wait for the detailed facts to emerge.

<comment><USER9> Alleged? It has been a ruling already

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The world will never lose its supply of capitalists looking to externalize their costs.

</comment><comment><USER12> Let's word it in a truer way : corporations that milk the people using their workforce to make billiond

</comment><comment><USER9> Taking into account that the EC ruling is not about tax competition, the Mises article is moot

</comment><comment><USER13> Lots of completely irrelevant arguments that don't actually address the case in question which is very simply that EU can get $X billion out of Apple in tax and therefore they will because they can, period.

There is nothing for the EU to gain from leaving those billions in Apple's pockets. Apple is not employing that many people nor is it contributing to the EU economy in any significant ways and if they pull out altogether it will only allow EU competitors to gain some market share. Moreover, unlike Facebook, Google and Microsoft, Apple does not provide any infrastructure critical services to any EU entities.

<comment><USER10> Purely as a matter of fact: given Apple's prices, why don't people buy those EU competitors' products then? Apple products contribute to Europeans' lives to the extent precisely measured by how much they're prepared to pay for them. Quite a lot it seems. You could say that the $14 billion or so represent votes for Apple: i.e., it's derived from money freely handed to Apple for something considered of value by the purchasers who have already paid 20% in VAT taxes.

Worth pointing out that no detailed evidence or methodology on the Apple case has yet been made public by the EU. The courts will decide.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How does GitHub minimise wasted disk space from duplicate files? - <AUTHOR>

There must be enormous potential for duplicate files on Github.<p>How does Github minimise the impact of duplicate files? <comment> brown-dragon I am not sure exactly how github is set up but there is a simple way of limiting the impact of duplicate files: use hardlinks.

`git clone` uses hardlinks when possible so if the fork is on the same filesystem, it should limit duplication automatically. The caveat here is that `git gc` has to be handled with more care (all references have to be updated).

`git clone` also provides a `--reference` for more explicit caching of duplicate objects. This also requires some care during cleanup but otherwise can work pretty well.</comment>


80 Days - <AUTHOR> https://om.co/2020/05/18/80-days/ <comment><USER2> Nice reference to 80 Days Around The World, emphasizing that this 80 days is the opposite: no travel or adventure</comment>


Show HN: TinyGo – LLVM-based Go compiler for microcontrollers - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/aykevl/tinygo <comment><USER2> Nice project!

With enough love it might follow Oberon's footsteps.

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

</comment><comment><USER3> Next step is to directly generate IR with (link: [https://github.com/llir/llvm](https://github.com/llir/llvm)) github.com/llir/llvm. And then rewrite all of llvm in Go :)

<comment><USER4> go get llvm.org/llvm/bindings/go/llvm

I'm actually using it for some things

<comment><USER5> I'm using this exactly. It's not the nicest interface but it supports almost everything that LLVM does. [https://github.com/llir/llvm](https://github.com/llir/llvm) looks nice but I don't think you can interface with LLVM from there, which is needed if you want to do more advanced stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Didn't find it in the readme: does anyone know what general "level" of microcontrollers are the project author(s) hoping to target? I suppose that because of the Go spec already, the minimum required architecture must be at least 32bit?

<comment><USER5> Hi, I'm the author of the compiler.

All backends supported by LLVM should be fairly easily supported by TinyGo. In fact, I've had the blinky example running on an Arduino a while back (8-bit, 2kB RAM, 32kB flash). There is nothing in the Go spec that requires a 32-bit system, just like there is nothing in the C standard that requires a 16-bit system (ints are at least 16 bits).

The biggest obstacle is not the fact that it is 8-bit, but the fact that it is a Harvard-style processor with a separate address space for code and data. I've added a section to the README to explain this. Also, garbage collection is going to be painful.

<comment><USER7> > We hope that the support built into the LLVM IR is sufficient to support a > broad class of garbage collected languages including Scheme, ML, Java, C#, > Perl, Python, Lua, Ruby, other scripting languages, and more.[0]

Maybe "and more" means there's hope for Go style garbage collection.

[0][https://llvm.org/docs/GarbageCollection.html](https://llvm.org/docs/GarbageCollection.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Go tends to be at least as fast as Java with a much smaller memory footprint. It ought to run well on any device that can run Java, which includes a lot of small devices.

<comment><USER9> I actually wouldn't expect Go to be considerably better in memory footprint (or other things) than "embedded" Java in embedded environments. Once you accept the idea of having GC, it puts some constraints on things. Of course, you can't compare "server java" with embedded java -- those are as different as TinyGo and "real" Go, if not more so...

<comment><USER10> _Normal_ Go is a lot more memory efficient than _normal_ Java, it has value types and no VM/JIT overhead. In my own measurements it was up to 50x times more memory efficient.

<comment><USER11> Also: UTF-8 instead of UTF-16 can make a surprising difference on memory use, especially if you interact with services in UTF-8 and so spend a lot of memory in Java copying back and forth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Neat. I've always considered Go, with its (relatively) simple design and significant quantity of decent libraries to be very retargetable (I'm toying with targeting the JVM now).

I could see this as a little less likely though for limited resource use cases since much of the code is not written with that in mind. I'd be curious how the LLVM IR looks compiled to WASM compared to Go's built in (as of 1.11) support. Specifically the initialization of the unicode package with all its exposed structs and init struct creation has been a startup and binary size burden on any size-restricted context Go runs in. Causes lots of bloat on the WASM side.

I created an issue on some of the WASM bloat [0], but it's not really going to be addressed now.

0 - [https://github.com/golang/go/issues/26622](https://github.com/golang/go/issues/26622)

<comment><USER5> Yeah the heavyweight standard library is a big problem. I'm trying to solve it (in part) with smart analysis that tries much harder to remove dead code and dead global data. Maybe even try to run some initializers at compile time so the result can be put in flash instead of RAM.

In my experience, it's not the unicode package that's big but the run-time typing information and the reflect package used by packages like fmt. The fmt package doesn't know what types it will need to accept so it literally supports everything (including unused types).

And as you mention WASM: I've been thinking about supporting that too, exactly because WASM and microcontrollers have some surprising similarities (small code size, fast startup, little OS-support).

<comment><USER13> I suppose it's not strange to see WASM come up -- last weekend I was considering doing something even weirder: writing a WASM to Thumb2 AoT compiler so I could leverage Go's built-in WASM support.

This project seems more immediately useful :)

<comment><USER12> Yeah, just wait until you see multiple megabytes of WASM instructions for tiny progs or the realize the team does not care about non-web targets. You're much better off leveraging Rust's WASM support for resource limited, non-web WASM targets.

<comment><USER13> In my case I was less interested in the WASM part of it than I was in something targeting a "no OS" environment. That said, for my target (those little Pine64 RTL8710 Cortex M3 MCU) you're almost certainly right. On the other hand it's a hobby project, and I like writing Go while I find writing Rust to be a bit of a chore. Also, it's a hobby project, so distractions like re-targeting WASM to the ARMv7-M are half of the fun :)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How would you survive society's collapse? - <AUTHOR>

The recent HN post about what would happen if all technology suddenly disappeared was interesting ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=526458 ), but I think a more pertinent question is how best to survive a catastrophic break down of public infrastructure and governance.  Possible causes might be (civil) war, epidemic, or space weather ( http://alturl.com/eo5 ).  Technology and knowledge aren't going to disappear, but the power grid is broken, materials and supplies aren't getting distributed, the Internet and wired telecommunication are gone (at least on a global scale), and governance has probably heavily suffered.  What would you do? <comment><USER2> Preparation and disaster-specific learning can only take you so far, but <http://collapse.reddit.com> is a serviceable overview of that part. <http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com> and <http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/> have a more nuanced view of social and economic collapse; 1950s style "nuclear armageddon" style survivalism is unlikely to suffice in the real world. For the last nail in the coffin of "guns and independence" style survivalism, try the War Nerd's treatment of the topic: <http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd- apocalypse-never/>. I wish I could figure a way out of his unpalatable dilemma: convincingly join a large church in a rural area long before the collapse, or die shortly after it happens.

(edited for tone--I'm an undeservedly arrogant bastard everywhere, but it only comes across as charming face to face)

<comment><AUTHOR> Despite the oddly condescending tone of your reply, I appreciate the links. Thanks. I didn't know about collapse.reddit.com, but I shouldn't be surprised that there is a forum dedicated to this topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Contingency planning makes all the difference in the world. When OPEC oil crisis hit in the 70's, only Shell Oil had done contingency planning for such an event, and it was the only major oil company who had a backup.

So my feeling is: have a contingency plan. It doesn't have to be elaborate and it doesn't have to be time-consuming or expensive. Just do a thought experiment about what you would do and make sure there are no barriers in that plan.

For example, have some water and food that won't spoil. It's not hard to do, and it's generally a good idea. Things like that.

No one thinks society will really collapse. But companies like Shell Oil know that a tiny amount of planning for any contingency is just smart.

</comment><comment><USER4> > governance has probably heavily suffered

We managed to settle a continent back when government spending was about 1% of GDP (as compared to 30% today), so government mostly breaking down wouldn't strike me as a big problem. Heck, Somalia has functioning water distribution companies, cell phone companies, etc., even without any government.

<comment><AUTHOR> My larger concern would be coordination of food distribution from farms to cities.

<comment><USER5> What can you do for farmers and distributors?</comment></comment></comment>


How to stay online over Christmas without annoying your family - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/12/24/how-to-stay-online-over-christmas-without-annoying-your-family/?awesm=tnw.to_17Ecb&utm_content=twitter-publisher-main&utm_medium=tnw.to-twitter&utm_source=direct-tnw.to <comment><USER2> Continuous partial attention and family DON'T MIX, take a vacation from the computer/mobile. Get retro with board games, cooking, friends, drinking, errands, arguing (or whatever your family does).

I find it helpful to lie down and nap frequently when unplugged and spending time with family.

</comment><comment><USER3> It doesn't seem worse than reading the paper, which my family seems to think is ok in polite company. Ipad/tablet = digital newspaper.

</comment><comment><USER4> Sounds like a guy trying to hide an addiction. It won't kill you if you're offline for a day.</comment>


Genres are by far the biggest risk factor for autism - <AUTHOR> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2737582 <comment><USER2> You know, obviously "genres" is a typo, but it got me thinking: if you collected data on what genres (of TV, books, music, etc.) people consume, would there be a strong affect? How would it compare to, say, genes in the strength of its correlation?

</comment><comment><USER3> *Genes</comment>


Touchqode: free code editor for Android and (soon) iOS - <AUTHOR> http://www.touchqode.com/

<comment><USER2> I never got the point behind wanting to have a code editor for phones...

<comment><USER3> I have found it quite useful on my 10" Android tablet for coding Javascript (especially when writing Project Euler solutions).

<comment><USER4> I could see it being a great app on Motorola's Atrix with dock (laptop or "desktop") once that comes out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is the license mentioned in this blog post [http://www.touchqode.com/blog/009_analytics_and_licence_expl...](http://www.touchqode.com/blog/009_analytics_and_licence_explained.htm) available on the website anywhere?

If there are any onerous terms, I'd like to know what they are prior to installation.

<comment><USER6> Most recent license is of course visible at first start of application. Current license can be found here: <http://www.touchqode.com/licences/touchqode_licence_1_0.htm>

The blog post was related to some early user comments that were not specific. If you see anything you could find questionable write us an email and we will gladly explain.

<comment><USER5> thanks, there's nothing too unexpected here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If I could get Xcode running on an iPad, I wouldn't need my laptop any longer.

So while this might not be quite self-hosting just yet, I think it's a really cool idea for the future. Some day we'll get there.

<comment><USER8> Can you type "fluently" on an iPad, enough to write long messages (i.e code) without getting irritated?

<comment><USER7> Not all the time. But my wireless keyboard + iPad + Xcode would work great en lieu of an otherwise expensive, bulky laptop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The website advertises code suggestion and some other features, but the demo video just shows something that any text editor application could do. I think you might want to revisit it.

<comment><USER6> The video is from quite early version. Actually autocomplete (or code suggestion - I tend to use the terms interchangeably) is briefly visible when typing the name of method sayHello().

If you want to some more features in action you can check our other youtube video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4FScB9Rwfc> \- close captioned with some comments on what's going on.

However you have good point that the video could be better - presentation is definitely something we need to work on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just a quick comment after playing with this. I like it. The team doesn't seem to have any delusions about this being a primary code editor but it's good for those quick fixes and ideas. As such I went through the process of grabbing a source file off a client's site, making a couple quick changes, and pushing it back up. While I wouldn't want to do it all day it was far less painful than that process has the right to be on a mobile phone. It's a keeper for me.

<comment><USER6> That exactly captures the idea. And to make this process even easier I've just been testing experimental implementation of FTP client in touchqode. The new version will be probably coming within a week. And we have some more things up our sleeve.

<comment><USER10> Sounds good! Now look at my language templates suggestion I sent via the feedback ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Seems like a cool idea, interesting to see an app come out on Android first (probably good for the target market).

But I took one look at the synchronization setup <http://www.touchqode.com/faq.htm#synchro> and decided that it wasn't worth it to muck around with code on my phone. Perhaps if I had a tablet I'd put more effort into it, but would be great to see this simplified a bit!

</comment><comment><USER12> This would be much easier to try out if I could give it my Github repo to pull down some code instead of having to sync files with my computer.

</comment><comment><USER13> This looks like #5 on pg's Request for Startups: <http://ycombinator.com/rfs.html></comment>


Docker can now run within Docker - <AUTHOR> http://blog.docker.io/2013/09/docker-can-now-run-within-docker/ <comment><USER2> I remember running VMs in VMs when I was younger and wondered how far I could go before my computer would implode. Infinite recursion is amazing. Let me rephrase that; infinity is amazing.

<comment><USER3> How far did you get? :-)

<comment><USER2> After three to four iterations (cannot remember precisely) I couldn't split up my computer its capacities any further to qualify for any decent OS its specifications which could run another VM. Please note that this was years ago, I suggest you should try it!

Unless you want to waste a lot of time installing the nested OS's, like I did, I suggest using pre-installed images you can throw right in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is one of the _many_ potential applications of the new "-privileged" flag of Docker. This is very exciting, because it means that we will soon run Docker CI within Docker itself (instead of ad-hoc VMs), among other things!

<comment><USER4> The big thing for me about the privileged flag is the ability to run VPN software on the containers-- this way, they can talk to each other cross- physical-machine as well as between containers on the same host.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're on the same page. That's my next hack — an OpenVPN server within Docker. The blog post, Dockerfile, and helper scripts should be out next week :-)

<comment><USER4> Great, looking forward to seeing it.

My system uses peer to peer software to synchronize each container's public keys and IP address/port information, as well as a mesh network VPN. This allows me to easily join a new node to the VPN cluster (using ENV variables to specify the port and public address to listen on, which is then used in the Docker container creation) and still have minimal latency between any two nodes.

I'll probably have to write up a post myself describing the system and how Docker is used to create new containers and add it to the cluster.

<comment><USER5> Whoa. That's really cool. What do you use that for?

Also: does openVPN drive your "mesh network VPN"? i thought it was only client<\-->server!

<comment><USER4> OpenVPN is only client-server, so I'm currently using tinc[1]. BitTorrent Sync is the software used to synchronize the actual public keys and container IP addresses.

[1]: [http://www.tinc-vpn.org/](http://www.tinc-vpn.org/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Mostly-unrelated question: could one build a desktop Linux distribution around Docker? Or rather, how difficult would it be? I assume OS X's application sandboxing uses a technology similar to LXC.

<comment><USER7> You might be looking for something akin to [http://coreos.com/](http://coreos.com/) !

<comment><USER6> CoreOS could be a good starting point, but it's intended for servers so it's very bare bones (and the service discovery stuff might not make much sense)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Another feature liberated by `-privilege ` that I like a lot is ability to run `mknod`, which is necessary for using TUN/TAP interface.

</comment><comment><USER9> It is nice to see, especially because fast moving project is always an enjoyable thing to observer. As a sidenote, to increase overall awareness, FreeBSD has capability for hierarchical Jails (Jails inside of Jails) for a while.

</comment><comment><USER10> Does anyone know if there are plans for when docker will be able to run in 32-bit?

<comment><USER11> It'll work now if you remove this if block...

[https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/blob/master/server.go#L12...](https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/blob/master/server.go#L1250)

...and create your own images.

It's unsupported, but it'll work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Very nice!

One thing that I am looking forward to is Docker support for Windows. Would really like to see that feature.

<comment><USER13> There is Docker within Vagrant, I have a Windows 7 desktop in front of me and all I need to do to enter my CoreOS system is "vagrant up; vagrant ssh" from the git shell.

I don't think there will be direct Docker support for Windows (erm... hrm)

[http://coreos.com/blog/coreos-vagrant-images/](http://coreos.com/blog/coreos- vagrant-images/)

<comment><USER13> Actually I do remember hearing that docker/lxc was only the beginning, can you be more specific? What virtualization tech in Windows do you want to see Docker containers running in?

There's no reason you can't run CoreOS in qemu or CoreOS in VirtualBox, but all of those things are still coming back to Linux Containers. Did you have an idea of another way?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> When will Docker support distros other than Ubuntu?

<comment><AUTHOR> There is already some support for Gentoo and Archlinux, and if you are willing to use a "foreign" kernel, Red Hat / Fedora / CentOS work as well.

There is some significant work in progress to add compatibility for non-AUFS systems. I don't have an accurate timeline at this point, but expect something (or at least an announcement) at the end of the month!

<comment><USER5> Last I checked, using Docker on Arch required a custom kernel with the AUFS patch. Is that still true?

Edit: yes, docker on arch still requires a custom kernel. See [http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/installation/archlinux/](http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/installation/archlinux/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, still true, but we are actively working on an alternate implementation to be compatible with anything post 3.2 _and_ RHEL 6.4 as well.

<comment><USER15> Just to confirm that we're planning to remove the dependency on aufs for the 0.7 release (late September). As a result docker will run on vanilla linux kernels.

aufs will probably come back as a plugin in a future version.

aufs is great and I wish we could keep it as the default. But the kernel politics are what they are.

<comment><USER5> Oh interesting. What are you moving to? Are you hooking into 'libc' to be able to intercept file accesse for layers or something?

<comment><USER15> We're moving to device-mapper, which is the underlying block-level facility used by LVM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Amazing. What do the docker guys think of coreOS?

</comment><comment><USER17> so meta

<comment><USER18> Also "yo dawg...".

Now that the obligatory comments have been covered, we can move on. Yay!

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah... Note for future self: make all the mandatory lame jokes in the blog post itself, so people don't feel obligated to do them on HN instead. ;-)

<comment><USER19> Please no :) just rely on us to downvote these people on HN, then you can spare at least some of the readers the pain.

I don't even understand, it's not like it's conversation or even funny, but X in X immediately results in someone announcing their awareness of canonical jokes. "yo dawg i heard you like plays so I put a play in your play to inception the king."</comment></comment></comment></comment>


AT&T updates text messaging plans in preparation for Verizon iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://www.gearlive.com/news/article/leaked-att-text-messaging-plans-verizon-iphone-q111/

<comment><USER2> Am I correct in that if you text some, but not a lot (>0, < 200/mo.) then your fees at least double? Obnoxious, for infrequent texters like myself. (Will certainly give more incentive to move to Verizon when my contract ends.)</comment>