Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003) - <AUTHOR> http://simulation-argument.com/simulation.html <comment><USER2> The simulation argument is an interesting intellectual exercise, and I'd charitably expand the definition of such simulations to universes of an artificial nature in general, but it's still just a thought experiment about something which cannot be falsified. Granted, it's a fascinating one, but it shares too many traits with _The Invisible Dragon in my Garage_ to be of profound scientific value.

It's worth taking into account that people tend to have two entirely separate ideas about the nature of any such simulation.

The first one is a Matrix-like universe: a world designed from the ground up to be an illusion specifically for us - a computer program so idiosyncratic as to be utterly implausible, which only cares about deceiving human minds into living in an artificial environment. This is the concept of a computer simulation always invoked by the popular media whenever this subject comes up.

The second one, which is what scientists usually mean, is an actual simulation that merely runs the basic processes of physics from which all the other things in the universe emerge - and these include accidentally, among other things and quite marginally, intelligent life forms such as humans. It's merely an uncaring physics simulation indistinguishable from a "natural" universe.

In the end both of these are scientifically barren concepts. The Matrix is an implausible just-so story with quasi-religious undertones, and it's a concept that exhibits quite a few glaring holes the closer you look at its practical implications - holes which seem like they are in disagreement with daily observation and hence should lend themselves to falsification. The cold physics simulation on the other hand, while it doesn't share the intellectual weaknesses of the Matrix, gets us rapidly to a point where we might ask what difference it makes at all whether the fabric of reality is running on an artificial or "natural" substrate if there is no hope of ever finding out.

<comment><USER3> I don't remember who authored the following, but I thought it was amusing enough years ago to toss it into my interesting-quotes.txt:

I recall reading a science fiction story that involved the first human spaceship to reach the edge of the universe. When they tried to go through they bounced off, it was impenatrable.

Then we cut to 2 higher dimensional beings, and one says, "On that run it took life only 14.7 gigayears to reach the edge."

The other one says, "Great! Let's do another run. Sterilize the medium."

<comment><USER2> :D That's a very funny story!

When I imagine an intelligent life form simulating the universe, it might as well be a simple creature just pushing little stones from cell to cell across a coordinate system drawn into the sand of an impossibly huge plain, using a few very simple rules about where stones move on every single cell. And when the creature gets to the last stone in the grid, it starts the same thing again from the top.

This is also not my idea, I don't remember where I heard it first. But it's appealing for several reasons. It illustrates that no intelligence is necessary to run the universe. More fundamentally, however, it shows how a higher-dimensional being might very well have no real concept of what goes on in here. ;)

<comment><USER4> You're thinking of [http://xkcd.com/505/](http://xkcd.com/505/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> No: [http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1220](http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1220)

Or if we are, the universe simulating us has completely different physics from the one we live in, which have to be fully specified before the "argument" becomes remotely plausible.

<comment><USER6> That doesn't prove or disprove anything. The author assumes the simulation would have to simulate the entire known universe at the level of detail we observe. That is absurd. A simulation wouldn't need to simulate the entire universe, just what I am observing at that exact moment.

Think of it is lazy evaluation. The rules are all known, but they are not evaluated until needed. If we have one single person, how hard would it be to simulate every single input to that one person? You wouldn't need to simulate an entire universe to do that.

Going back to what the author had to say, you wouldn't have to simulate the state of every atom at every time. You only need to simulate when it is measured. Interestingly, this syncs up with what we know about the quantum world where measurement causes the state of the wave function to collapse.

Additionally, the author seems to assume the universe exists outside of himself. He seems to trust the measurements and insights of scientific facts I doubt that he has confirmed via his own observation. Even if he did confirm all of them, this still doesn't prove the universe exists outside of what he directly observes with his own senses.

By analogy, imagine you are a character in a video game. The video game doesn't render the entire universe of the game. Only the portion of the game the character is in at that moment. From the character's point of view, the laws are consistent. The character could even try to postulate some universal laws. Try to determine the size of their universe.

I am not saying the philosophers are right or wrong. I'm just saying there is a lot more to the philosophy than the article covers.

<comment><USER5> > A simulation wouldn't need to simulate the entire universe, just what I am > observing at that exact moment.

How do you know this? I've run a lot of simulations, and to get things exactly right anywhere you need to compute everything everywhere. That at least is my experience.

You've simply asserted that that is not the case, doing precisely what I'm critiquing the original argument for: imagining a case where there's no problem, and then asserting that case as a matter of fact.

As to Cartesian skepticism, it isn't even a self-consistent position: you want me to take your argument seriously while simultaneously asserting that I don't even know you exist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I doubt anybody would bother programming Chia Pets in a simulation, so I'm going with no.

<comment><USER8> Just because I was curious: Chia Pet mod for The Sims 1 with over 15k downloads [http://www.thesimsresource.com/downloads/7806](http://www.thesimsresource.com/downloads/7806)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> _(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof)_

I've always thought this part was, by far, the most likely. It would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering. It's the same thing that's caused me to shift from "I don't believe in god" to "I believe there probably isn't a god". For example, infants have been raped in Africa due to the virgin cleansing myth, and every year thousands of people kill themselves due to unmanageable misery. Not to mention the way that so many people die of "natural" causes, e.g. drowning in their own phlegm only to be revived by hospital staff for another go-around.

<comment><USER10> >It would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering

Well .. is it though?

What if everything is so blissful and boring in the future that people intentionally torture themselves for decades at a time by experiencing "Earth- sim" so that they can build character / enjoy the utopia they've created? Or maybe this simulation is the rehabilitation track for criminals? There are a number of reasons to "suffer" and suffering shouldn't be cast out as unethical because we don't like it in the current context.

<comment><USER9> _There are a number of reasons to "suffer" and suffering shouldn't be cast out as unethical because we don't like it in the current context._

Please do provide some reasons why raping a day-old newborn infant wouldn't be considered unethical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> protip: if you substitute "in a computer simulation" with "inside some dude's dream," you discover a vast amount of prior research on this topic was conducted by everybody who ever smoked their first joint.

</comment><comment><USER10> One of my favorite books, Idlewilde, is about a simulation that we created for just 9 people because the rest died of an incurable disease, and these 9 would need to repopulate the human race. A very good reason to have a simulation in my opinion. The book handles the wakeup in a pretty interesting way.

The best part is nested simulations -- if you're toying around with simulations like Oculus Rift and then you wake up from Earth-sim, it starts to become a game of "where the actual f_k am I really?"

</comment><comment><USER12> I think I am the only one who think humans will never manage to build something that complex.

Come on: (1) We still have to use humans for motion capture in order to make 3d realistic. (2) We still haven't come up with an IA to chat with. (3) We still haven't figure out what's the smallest unit in the matter, if matter is a thing.

<comment><USER13> The reason you're the only one who thinks we can't is because you're limiting the possibility of building something like that with todays technology.

1\. I'm not sure this is the case anymore but it certainly makes things easier. Regardless, why do you think 3d motion can't improve?

2\. We have some but nothing that is a true AI. Many AI experts think a true AI, most likely modeled after the human brain once better understood, is going to happen in the next 50-100 years [from last I read, I am certainly no expert]. Why do you think this can't happen when most seem to think it eventually will?

3\. Every year science makes progress to test, image and discover things that are very small. Right now string theory is a possibility that strings may be smaller than atoms. Why do you think this cannot or will not be either proven or disproven, ever?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> So, in summary either (1) no, we don't; (2) no, we don't; or (3) yes, we do.

</comment><comment><USER15> Author of this book as well: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dange...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dangers,_Strategies)

</comment><comment><USER16> For further exploration of some of the ramifications of this hypothesis, see [http://www.new-god-argument.com/](http://www.new-god-argument.com/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Maybe I am.

 _Don 't_ unplug the computer!

<comment><USER18> Yes, but reboot the computer - updates are available. :)

<comment><USER19> Lets be honest, we all admire those servers running a couple of years without ever rebooting. Maybe our universe is inside one of them? :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Well I don't believe we are in a computer simulation per say but I think there are certain properties that certainly make it seem like we are.

For example, I believe that conciousness can transcend to anything. We could just be some collective consciousness. When we are born we have no memory of our previous life. When we die we have no memory of our current one. So this suggest to me that it is entirely possible that we are continually living in different bodies, different animals, different entities that collectively make up reality.

For instance, I learned that even animals take drugs to get high when they are stressed. That they feel affection and love just like humans. This tells me that our conciousness is overrated. It also suggests to me that it could entirely be possible that we live in some giant cess pool of conciousness, some network of consciousness that is constantly reproducing and dying like cells.

so if our concousness lives through different bodies over time, then it is entirely possible that the current reality we live is also a transient state of being.

it scares me how I came to know this and I'm not even on drugs or have done drugs in a long time.

<comment><USER2> _> For example, I believe that conciousness can transcend to anything._

That's a religious argument unconnected to the question of whether our universe is simulated or not.

 _> When we are born we have no memory of our previous life._

This presumes there _is_ such a thing as previous lives to begin with, something for which no scientific evidence exists. Barring that, the problem becomes the same as the question "why does a computer program I just wrote have no memory of its previous existence?".

 _> So this suggest to me that it is entirely possible that we are continually living in different bodies_

Step back a moment from this logical jump and try to imagine how someone without your spiritual background might parse this conclusion. It comes from out of nowhere, some might even say it's the opposite of what one would expect to follow an observation like "When we die we have no memory of our current one.".

 _> That they feel affection and love just like humans. This tells me that our conciousness is overrated._

These observations about animals are not new, in fact most pet owners are likely to see this as a trivial truism.

 _> so if our concousness lives through different bodies over time_

Another non sequitur. This observation doesn't follow from your chain of arguments, it follows from a premise you started out with.

 _> then it is entirely possible that the current reality we live is also a transient state of being_

Everything is transient, our existence is as ephemeral as the configuration of our environment - this fact does not in itself mean anything. It sounds like you're reserving a special place for humans or intelligent life in general, but in actual fact the universe doesn't care about the existence of life one way or the other. The presumption that consciousness is a basic physical force constitutes a fundamental category error, it runs counter to everything we know about physics.

In any case, this has no bearing on whether the universe is simulated or not: the basic building blocks of reality do not make special exceptions for brains. There is absolutely no expected difference between a mind running within a computer-like system and a mind running on the "real" universe, whatever that may be.

<comment><USER20> I really don't think a logical, academic review of what I think the reality is of much use when in fact the very subject of what we are discussing is so strange and hard to fathom in our heads but I'll play.

to me, if we were to believe that our our idea of ourselves is actually not unique, that we are just a very large variation of the basic properties of consciousness (something we can't really quite put a finger on), then it can be said that we are in a simulation, for the same reason, you dream, you daydream.

Our brain frequently runs simulations during these period of rest and animals do as well. Why is it that we can be so convinced of our dreams as if it were real? Why is it that they by themselves have no real beginning or an end, sort of like our own existence? What if your life is just an episode of a dream? Who's running the simulations? Why is it not just one continuous flowing state? Why does it need to be disparate and seemingly discontinuous?

My view is that this is actually the most efficient state a simulation can reach. If it was one giant cesspool of initial variables in one bubble it would be pretty obvious for the inhabitants of the simulation to figure out the walls quickly and before long question what's outside of it. The same reason that we can realize we are dreaming and experience lucid dreaming. But, we can't for the love of god find this wall in our own reality because our brain through years of evolution by previous consciousness, have been designed to find safety in numbers, fight or flight reflexes, gather or horde scarce goods. Only when our innate animal like instincts are squelched can we experience reality in it's rawest and purest form, something buddhist tibetian monks often frequent, a higher form of understanding where they are able to feel the whole range of human experiences without actually doing them because they realize that it's actually our own consciousness that trap us into realities that we create for ourselves.

Knowing that we can and create simulations of our own through dreaming, out of will, help of substances or even meditation, it shows that at the outer level our reality can be fluid and can take many different shapes or forms.

In the end, our own intelligence, our ability to find patterns out of chaos, traps us into thinking that something that doesn't follow a rigid set of rules or lack of data automatically mean that they don't exist, when in fact, such narrow mindedness can only come from the choice to view reality and oneself with the same set of practices used in laboratory or whatever environment where such mentality has been useful.

I will say that even the latter situation is actually a simulation of it's own, but much much worse kind, it's created and rigorously maintained by other consciousnesses aimed at supressing all other views.

Quantumn theory suggests that we live in our own simulation create by us, religious texts also suggests the same thing, you shape your own reality but at the end of the day, it's lacking the same solid walls as the one you create, it must be that the most efficient simulation is also one where every possible permutation is achievable, that our collective human race is literally a race towards achieving some enlightened status as a whole, that through experiencing life in the myriad of lives, that our collective consciousness will improve and become efficient, that it outlives all things biological, it continues beyond even our own planet, maybe we are truly one with the universe and everything it represents, we are simply the creation, not of an external super intelligent aliens, not future versions of us running Matrix 2.0 for shits and giggles but because it simply is the way it is designed, the same way we discover math in our own reality, and how it reveals answers, it must be that we are the simulation, not the simulatees or simulators.

<comment><USER2> > _I really don 't think a logical, academic review of what I think the > reality is of much use [...]_

If the line of reasoning precludes itself from factual considerations, there might be very little point in discussing it other than perhaps for entertainment. Because if we're consigning ourselves to exchanging arbitrary stuff we simply made up, this becomes a collaborative fiction thread. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but I do feel we should mark it as such. But even in fiction there are rules - readers expect a certain amount of logical consistency.

> _our idea of ourselves is actually not unique, that we are just a very large > variation of the basic properties of consciousness (something we can 't > really quite put a finger on), then it can be said that we are in a > simulation, for the same reason, you dream_

Just because these statements appear in the same sentence doesn't mean they're connected. If I understood correctly, you're asserting that: a) the human experience is not unique, neither on the individual nor on the species level and b) this experience is a variation of the basic properties of consciousness even though nobody has any idea what that even means and _therefore_ c) it follows that we are living in a simulation in which d) we're all daydreaming. It's not difficult to see at which junctions your audience loses the ability to follow along.

> _Only when our innate animal like instincts are squelched can we experience > reality in it 's rawest and purest form, something buddhist tibetian monks > often frequent_

It's true we can't much trust our senses and unaided intuitions at all. That's why we have very cool sensors and mathematical models. You can't meditate your way to scientific discovery.

> _such narrow mindedness can only come from the choice to view reality and > oneself with the same set of practices used in laboratory or whatever > environment where such mentality has been useful_

This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what goes on in a laboratory. The scientific process is not a mechanism designed to confirm arbitrary postulates.

> _Quantumn theory suggests that we live in our own simulation create by us_

Here the onus would be on you to show how you came to that conclusion.

<comment><USER20> okay so what do you suggest or want out of this discussion? I'm afraid I don't have answer to all your questions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> We could be living in a multi-verse world. That's partly what the LHC experiments are trying to discern. If there are infinitely many universes then I think it would make it less likely we're in a simulation even if we are able to create our own simulation.

<comment><USER22> > If there are infinitely many universes then I think it would make it less > likely we're in a simulation

I'm not sure how this logically follows...why would this make it less likely?

<comment><USER21> Say there are 100 universes. Suppose each universe has 1 in 100 chance of making simulations and if they do they make 100. Your chances then of living in a simulation are ~50%. It's much different than assuming a single universe in which case the advent of simulations almost assures that you're living in one (assuming the author's line of reasoning).

Edit: in summary the pace at which new universes arise could rival or exceed the pace at which simulations could be created.

<comment><USER23> Yes, but the cardinality of the multiverse is hard to grasp. There are uncountably infinite universes, just as there are uncountably many points in time. Every breath streams endless bifurcation.

<comment><USER24> maybe measures would be more applicable than cardinalities?

If there are $\mathfrak{c}$ universes, it can still be meaningful I think to say that one in ten of them contain a simulation (though, $\mathfrak{c}$ might not be the right cardinality? Maybe $2^{\mathfrak{c}}$ would be closer? I'm not sure.)

I suppose there is also the question as to whether to consider two identical simulations in two different universes to be the same simulation or not, and how to take that into account when considering the chances that one is in a simulation or not.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Cambridge YC Alums: How'd you spend your funding? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm curious if any past Cambridge alum would volunteer how roughly the finances worked out during the three months.

I realize it must vary by startup to startup but I'm hoping to get some general sense of the standard expenses most all startups would have.

<comment><USER2> Your largest monthly expense will be rent and food.

I did a startup in another college town, and this is how it worked out:

\- Rent - $1,000 / mo

\- Food(3 guys) - $400 / mo

\- Electricty (12 PCs/servers) - $150 / month

\- Business internet access (hosted our own servers) - $150 / mo

Another big expense will be the incorporation costs, which can run as much as $500 (varies per state).

In the end, it ended up being $1,800 / person for the entire summer. We already had all the equipment, so none of that was included in the expenses.

<comment><USER3> $500 for incorporation is a very low figure for some states. If I remember right, the cost of incorporation as an LLC in Massachusetts (which is what I was researching at the time, because that's where I am) runs about $1000 between what you end up owing the state and what you end up owing the lawyer; incorporating as an LLC in any other state means you need to register as a foreign corporation with the state if you intend to do business in that state (in MA: lease property as a corporation, pay salaries as a corporation, own property as a corporation), which in Massachusetts runs about $1000 between what you end up owing the state and what you end up owing the lawyer.

Other states may be more lenient on when you need to register as a foreign corporation or cost less to incorporate or register as a foreign corporation. Also, for some startup models, it can make sense to incorporate in Delaware when you start development and then worry about the whole foreign-corporation thing when it's time to start hiring employees rather than adding partners.

<comment><USER4> Yeah we filed our own LLC formation for $90 in Delaware + ~$250 for our Registered Agent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Are 3 month leases easy to get in the Cambridge area? Is the rent higher for such a short lease?

<comment><USER6> There are lots of sublets available because of all the college students going home for the summer. Check Craigslist.

<comment><USER5> Oh, right. Good thinking.</comment></comment></comment>


Keybase's browser extension subverts its encryption - <AUTHOR> https://palant.de/2018/09/06/keybase-our-browser-extension-subverts-our-encryption-but-why-should-we-care <comment><USER2> While they could have expanded better on their reasoning for not using iframes, I feel this is an overly dramatic post.

The browser extension is not their main product and they explicitly say so. The author is completely dismissing [0] the entire product just because of a side project, which in the worst case scenario could be fixed by the community by submitting a patch.

It is also strange that the author seems to feel the need to reinforce the sensationalism of this post by linking something completely unrelated to Keybase.

Also, where are the quotes on this post coming from? Where is the rest of the communication?

There is really nothing to see here.

[0] - "Initially, I planned to take a closer look at the crypto in Keybase, to see whether I can find weaknesses in their implementation. But that's off the table now."

[1] - "But as experience shows ([https://palant.de/2018/07/11/ftapi- secutransfer-the-secure-a...](https://palant.de/2018/07/11/ftapi-secutransfer- the-secure-alternative-to-emails-not-quite)), the claim "end-to-end encryption" doesn't automatically translate into a secure implementation."

<comment><USER3>
      The author is completely dismissing [0] the
      entire product

If he's looking for bug bounties (be it for cash, kudos, principles, or to see it fixed), and he finds a security bug and doesn't get a bounty, why would he keep looking?

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...

<comment><USER2> There are rules for bug bounty programs: \- [https://hackerone.com/keybase](https://hackerone.com/keybase)

<comment><USER4> Which one of those "outside the scope" categories would you say this one falls into then?

To me it reads like there's nothing preventing this bug report from deserving a bounty.

<comment><USER5> None of these bullets are "open and shut cases", but all are related without needing a major leap, especially the first one.

* Content spoofing / text injection

* Issues related to software or protocols not under Keybase control

* Reports of spam

* Vulnerabilities affecting users of outdated or unpatched browsers and platforms

Do I agree with their (alleged) actions? NO! But as I know several folks at Keybase personally, I'm sure there's another side to this story and I'm willing to give them some benefit to the doubt until I hear otherwise.

<comment><USER6> If this vulnerability can fit those 4 categories, what kind of vulnerability would you be confident would qualify for the bounty?

<comment><USER5> That's the problem, I feel their exclusions from bounty are too wide. This vulnerability if confirmed should be eligible for some bounty imho. That said, they published the exclusions publicly, so getting butt hurt over not getting paid when they said you wouldn't feels a bit petty to me.

<comment><USER6> Why do you say he's butt hurt? He doesn't even mention not getting paid. The post is about Keybase not taking a security vulnerability seriously. Is it petty to warn people about an insecure product?

<comment><USER5> > Why do you say he's butt hurt?

I didn't. It was a generalized statement about the bounty terms, not directed at any one person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have to say I am surprised and disappointed. Keybase has up until now been a shining example of doing crypto right but still accessible and easy to use. This decision falls strictly on the wrong side of the line of acceptable compromises.

> there were technical reasons why iframes didn't work, though I forget the > details

It could be that there is one or a couple of engineers at Keybase who made this decision and are also the same entity that replied to the bug bounty. It feels like they haven't thought it through properly or brought it up for proper discussion inside the organization. Let's hope that they remedy this and adjust their general approach to this if this gets enough attention.

On the other hand, even if this is addresses, unfortunately it's an indicator that other compromises in this category are done in other parts of Keybase.

<comment><USER8> When they started asking me for my private key and claiming it'll be secure because it's "encrypted" that raised a red flag for me.

Then I found out that they're not using popular and audited libraries like OpenPGPjs instead... writing their own!

<comment><USER9> Filippo Valsorda had a blog post on uploading his private key (back in 2014) in which he actually publicly uploaded his private key - encrypted, that is, as it is uploaded to Keybase [1].

Of course, it goes against orthodoxy to share/upload your private key, but I'm not sure I've ever seen a good rebuttal to Filippo's post.

It seems to me though that you're reducing the entropy of your key from the 2048 bits or whatever to the entropy of your key phrase, which would normally only be some 100 or so bits (if you have a decent one) - but I'm not informed enough to judge the details. However, it seems to me that Filippo is, and he did upload his private key (encrypted) - so how bad is that, really? Anyone got some substantiated insights there?

[1] [https://blog.filippo.io/on-keybase-dot-io-and-encrypted- priv...](https://blog.filippo.io/on-keybase-dot-io-and-encrypted-private-key- sharing/)

<comment><USER10> Security strength of RSA is much lower than the key size.

2048-bit RSA gives you only ~112 bits of security.

<comment><USER9> That's very informative, thanks. So indeed, with a good passphrase the drop in security is minimal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Avoiding it is fairly easy, by isolating all of the extension's user > interface in an <iframe> element.

Right, but if the social network website can modify the HTML that the Keybase extension is injecting, then surely it can also modify the iframe's URL to an attacker-controlled one? Or, for that matter, replace the event handler on the "Keybase Chat" button itself before it even gets clicked?

I'm not an extension developer, so there might be APIs available to extensions or restrictions on webpage JS that I'm not aware of, but I suspect the only secure way to do this (if you don't trust the page you're embedding in) might be to have the extension communicate with the native Keybase app, which then opens a chat window with the appropriate user, similar to how the 1Password browser extension works.

<comment><USER12> Yes, I didn't bother expanding this further. Spoofing Keybase UI would still be possible, but users would notice that their message doesn't get sent. Still, the only complete solution would be to delegate even the initial message to the app rather than asking uses to enter it on the webpage. Unfortunately, browsers don't let extensions open trusted UI at will...

<comment><USER13> Sure they do, you just get a prompt saying 'you sure you want to open keybase?', with the option to skip this prompt in the future

<comment><USER12> By "trusted UI" I meant user interface within the browser that clearly doesn't belong to the webpage - such as the browser action's pop-up. As I said, an extension like Keybase could delegate this action to their app. Other extensions don't have this option because they don't have a native component. This is the reason why so many have implemented questionable or outright insecure solutions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Keybase also silently subverts smartcards for in-memory keys per my findings here: [https://github.com/keybase/keybase- issues/issues/1946](https://github.com/keybase/keybase-issues/issues/1946)

In general I find Keybase to be a step forward in user experience and two steps backwards in terms of actual security. They just don't seem to care about the latter at all and have not demonstrated any cooperation with standards bodies like the OpenPGP working group where members have expressed interest multiple times in adding generic URL uids to the openpgp public key itself to replicate and decentralize the idea of social media based trust bootstrapping (the one good idea from Keybase in spite of terrible execution). Instead they insist on their complex proprietary walled garden system that does not integrate with existing keyservers and throws everything on the bitcoin blockchain for reasons.

Keybase has become the IE of crypto and I can't take any security project seriously that even -integrates- with them.

<comment><USER15> They don't throw everything on the blockchain for no reason. They specifically back up the root of the merkel tree into the blockchain.

Honestly, the OpenPGP world has so competently failed at usability and is only adopted by the most hard core of nerds. Even I have stopped using it for the most part.

And that it is two steps back in security overall is just not true. Maybe in some individual features that you care about, but not in general.

And the same thing counts that always counted, crypto that nobody is using is not protecting anything.

The have mostly moved on from GPG any a different libraries now. The GPG is mostly a legacy feature.

<comment><USER16> > OpenPGP ... is only adopted by the most hard core of nerds.

This seems pretty inaccurate.

* Lots of software projects sign their releases with PGP.

* Almost all Linux distributions sign their software with PGP. If you use Linux, your security relies critically PGP.

* Github has support for PGP, and I see people use it.

* My random server hoster happens to sign all their emails with PGP.

You could claim that all these systems are run "by the most hard core of nerds", but at that point the statement loses its relevance.

<comment><USER17> The GP was pretty clearly talking about PGP in the context of ordinary encrypted communication between people (like email). Keybase isn't competing with PGP for signing releases. In the field that we are talking about, PGP has absolutely failed to gain widespread traction outside a certain hard core group of nerds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> So I wrote essentially the same chrome extension (albeit a different interface, which definitely allows for this vulnerability):

[http://lettergram.github.io/AnyCrypt/](http://lettergram.github.io/AnyCrypt/)

[https://github.com/lettergram/AnyCrypt](https://github.com/lettergram/AnyCrypt)

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/anycrypt/hddfngccl...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/anycrypt/hddfngccl..).

It worked fairly well (haven't tested it in a bit), but I had to reverse engineer pretty much all the Keybase APIs at the time.

The thing is, the author is totally correct. I wrote mine as a proof of concept, and quite frankly was surprised that the Keybase chrome extension (even a year ago when I checked) had the same issue(s) my implementation did...

That being said, this isn't an "end-of-the-world" kind of thing, I think there are several easy solutions to this problem as the author pointed out. Personally though, only 3 people use my extension with me. I couldn't get anyone to use the Keybase extension.. so I really think they should just update that phrasing on their extension page (perhaps add a warning) and let it be.

</comment><comment><USER19> It cannot be said often enough: when you reference someone else's JavaScript in your solution in a way in which it has access to either the DOM or user interface components, it's no longer your solution. You therefore cannot, with any level of integrity claim that your solution is secure as you simply don't know what's happening in that bit of JS which is loaded by the solution into the user-space.

</comment><comment><USER20> The keybase.io website offers a "Please send us feedback & bug reports" link[0]. As a keybase user, I intend to do so.

[0] [https://github.com/keybase/client/issues](https://github.com/keybase/client/issues)

</comment><comment><USER21> It seems like some analytics software like FullStory and possibly MixPanel would automatically log the messages.

I just signed up for keybase and was definitely steered towards installing the browser extension. I quickly uninstalled it because I found it annoying, though.

</comment><comment><USER22> if you are going to encrypt a message, it must at some point be input without encryption. Just like you wouldn't type a sensitive message with someone looking over your shoulder, you can use common sense and limit use of this extension.

Keybase is fantastic.

i've been using keybase for 2 years now and have had no issue accessing my files through kbfs.

with keybase teams you can store secrets at rest and make them easy to access across your team.

the client loads 10x faster then slack and has nice ux.

<comment><USER23> > if you are going to encrypt a message, it must at some point be input > without encryption.

How do you feel about someone else composing the message that "you" (your encryption software) are going to encrypt? Because that's what the article is talking about.

<comment><USER22> I feel like it would be best to avoid using their extension, but I am more concerned with the features and security of their core products.

And I would think it is analogous to running kbfs on a machine with a virus or keylogger.

And one nice thing is your root key is still protected by a paper key which you can physically secure, and use to de auth any compromised device keys.

For the casual user who is just getting into keybase, social integration like this may be worth the risk in order to help onboarding new users. Once they start seeing the real benefits of using keybase, they can delete the extension and still make use of the good stuff.

Finally, keybase is open source right? They are a small team and might not have the resources to improve the extension, but just getting the first iteration out there might be enough to attract contributors who see its value and can improve its security.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This isn't a hard bug to avoid, but it would take completely reimplementing the extension so that all of its UI beyond the "keybase chat" button lives in the extension rather than being injected into the page, and having the chat button do nothing but call the extension with the username of the intended recipient.

I understand why Keybase principals don't want to do that, because the extension is an addon that probably doesn't do anything in particular for them as far as adoption goes. I'm not sure I understand why they continue to ship the existing extension, knowing that it's insecure.

And I don't see any excuse at all for editing the bug report on Github out of existence - that strikes me as sufficiently sketchy that I may no longer use Keybase at all, and certainly will no longer rely on it to be especially secure.

<comment><USER12> Security bugs don't live on GitHub, they are on HackerOne. It is up to the vendor whether to make them visible. This particular one is still hidden, probably because I have code there demonstrating how this issue could be exploited.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Where do those quotes from Keybase come from? Private email?

<comment><USER12> Bug report on Hacker One. While it has been resolved, it hasn't been made public for some reason.

<comment><USER25> Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Meh. I wouldn't (and didn't) trust Keybase anyway.

My reasoning is that you're given some encryption software (keybase javscript on its website or browser extension) but the software is changing all the time: it might get re-downloaded on a tab refresh, the extension might download a "new version" or whatever... So basically you're supposed to trust an always changing piece of code (can you be auditing every piece of javascript that you download? every version of that javascript?) and you running in a super-connected runtime (like a browser). What could possibly go wrong?

I am not an encryption expert at all, but I feel a lot safer doing my crypto on a regular environment (linux shell or whatever) and then sending the cyphertext via any other mean (web, email, whatever).

Back in the day you could use pidgin to chat on the Facebook chat, and it was possible (and relatively easy) to use the OTR plugin to have really end-to-end encrypted chats. But (guess what?) Facebook later disabled the possibility interacting with its chat via external non-facebook-branded clients (afaik)

<comment><USER27>
      Facebook later disabled the possibility interacting with its chat via external non-facebook-branded clients (afaik)

I don't think that's true, actually. The existence of Caprine[0] seems to suggest otherwise!

0: [https://github.com/sindresorhus/caprine](https://github.com/sindresorhus/caprine)

<comment><USER28> I remember when Pidgin OTR worked fine with the old Facebook Chat, which I believe was based on the XMPP protocol. The move to Facebook Messenger deprecated this API and I don't think it works anymore.

In the case of Caprine, it appears not to use any official API and is just scraping the web page for the right elements. This seems quite fragile and also a non-trivial body of code.

<comment><USER26> this is exactly what i meant. thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Keybase is fine for throwaway encryption that only needs short-term wire security to protect data that will be useless next month.

I wouldn't use a keybase key for anything that should be rendered eternally unbreakable, based on side-channel threat analysis alone. Private keys are not something that should be sourced from a website.</comment>


Ask HN: Search Engine Selector below address bar - <AUTHOR> Rather than always having to switch my default search engine by going through some settings, wouldn't it be nice just to have a set of buttons that I can configure that appear just below the search I make in the address bar? I type in whatever keywords I want, and then I click the icon for the search engine I want to use. For example if I want to search Amazon products, I can click on an Amazon button. If I went to search the Chinese search engine Baidu because I just type something in Chinese that I want to search for, I can do that. And then perhaps if I do nothing, I could just hit enter and get a Google search if that is my default. What would be wrong with that? How do I get this technology? It seems easy enough.<p>And my default search engine could still display autocomplete possibilities below these buttons. <comment><USER2> What you describe is what Firefox browser already offers by default: [https://imgur.com/a/CZeUiSe](https://imgur.com/a/CZeUiSe)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I'd love to see it as the second line, and the auto complete options. Probably dreaming to think this would be possible in Chrome?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> DuckDuckGo's bangs feature is not far away from this - '!auk Harry Potter' will search for Harry Potter on the Amazon UK site.

<comment><AUTHOR> I like this idea, but perhaps not as user friendly as a button, and I guess requires I begin with DDG as my search engine rather than whichever one I want to choose.</comment></comment>


Rules of Growth - <AUTHOR> http://austenallred.com/rules-of-growth/

<comment><USER2> Lol. I hate this list.

I don't want it to be true, because I want to believe in the best of people.

Unfortunately I think you may be right. It seems like the people that succeed in marketing are the people that agree with this. We all want to be Don Draper, but we probably just need to be (lil) green patch.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've become pretty cynical, I suppose.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is why I hate marketing. Unfortunately, it works.

(dang it, I just added some bad press)

</comment><comment><USER4> Haha amen to #8</comment>


OpenStreetMap in Crayon - <AUTHOR> http://crayonmap.heroku.com/ <comment><USER2> Stamen made some lovely world wide watercolour tiles: [http://maps.stamen.com/watercolor/#12/37.7706/-122.3782](http://maps.stamen.com/watercolor/#12/37.7706/-122.3782)

They explained the process on their blog: [http://content.stamen.com/watercolor_process](http://content.stamen.com/watercolor_process)

</comment><comment><USER3> The jquery resource used in this page is not being loaded over HTTPS, so my browser configuration (Chrome + HTTPS Everywhere) is refusing to load it, which means none of the page works.

This is a really easy fix, just changing [http://ajax.google..](http://ajax.google..). to //ajax.google... will load it over the same protocol used to load the full page.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Went ahead and made the fix.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is the best thing to show to the "Google Maps is better" crowd. It's a poster child for the importance of open-data sources. Kudos to this. Try doing that with Google's data. Even if you worked in the right department, you would have to pass this through management. With open data you just have to do it!

</comment><comment><USER5> A similar thing:

[http://dessine-moi-une-ville.makina-corpus.net](http://dessine-moi-une- ville.makina-corpus.net)

I think it's a limited area though.

</comment><comment><USER6> Getting a Heroku Application Error.

<comment><USER7> Same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Very cool! In case anyone else wants to poke around the source, here it is: [https://github.com/mapmeld/Crayon-Canvas](https://github.com/mapmeld/Crayon- Canvas)

</comment><comment><USER9> Here's San Francisco:

[http://crayonmap.herokuapp.com/#map=12/37.774650/-122.434216](http://crayonmap.herokuapp.com/#map=12/37.774650/-122.434216)

</comment><comment><USER10> I'd recognize Pittsburgh anywhere, even in Crayon.

</comment><comment><USER11> Just of of curiosity -- is it possible to do something similar using the Google Maps API?

<comment><AUTHOR> Google has made some great map mods internally, but it'd be impossible to do this with their API, without the underlying vector data.</comment></comment>


Stolen Camera Finder - find your photos, find your camera - <AUTHOR> http://www.stolencamerafinder.com/

<comment><USER2> This is a really brilliant idea. I wonder, though, what you would do if you found photos taken with your camera? Is there really any action you can take?

<comment><USER3> Well if there is also GPS metadata in the photos you could find the bastard :)

I wonder what other uses this has, though, because it means that if someone has one photo taken with your camera they can find them all (as long as they're publicly hosted). Could be pretty creepy.

Edit: doesn't work for me -- the 'Canon Canon PowerShot SX210 IS' does not write serial information in the exif.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> With the iPhone(s) becoming the most used camera on flickr it's a shame this won't work for iPhone (at least 3gs)... "does not write serial information"</comment>


Apple and Google release Covid-19 exposure notification API for app developers - <AUTHOR> https://angel.co/today/stories/apple-and-google-release-first-seed-of-covid-19-exposure-notification-api-for-contact-tracing-app-developers-19508?email_uid=1275688361 <comment><USER2> Another API trap, yawns</comment>


Google Still winning search wars, Microsoft big loser - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/18/google-shows-healthy-january-growth-in-us-search-volume/

<comment><USER2> I was about to leave a comment about how this isn't really news. It feels like every search market share update for the past few years has been the same - Google gains, everyone else loses or stands still.

I love Google's search product, but this trend is deeply troubling. Websites live off of search visitors, and you wonder as the Google monopoly grows stronger and they feel the pressure to increase quarterly earnings, how they might try to siphon off even more of the search traffic for their own profit. With no other alternatives, it could mean bad things for the web.

<comment><USER3> Can you explain what "they might try to siphon off even more of the search traffic for their own profit" means? How does one siphon off search traffic? By building a better product?

<comment><USER2> Google could siphon off traffic by adding more ads, integrating direct lead generation forms, or funneling visitors toward Google products. For example, take a look at the search results examined in this blog post:

[http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/google-stops-showing-search- resul...](http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/google-stops-showing-search-results-for- certain-queries/1947/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't begrudge Google continuing it's march up the popularity. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I don't find it troubling either. At least not right away. It would be troubling if 1) Google uses unfair means to increase it's dominance. If company produces a great product and everyone flock to it, you can't really bitch that. 2) If Google uses it's dominance in search market to shut out competition in other market.

<comment><USER5> I think part of the issue isn't that Google is doing evil so much as once you get a certain market-share, it causes problems. People generally don't care because the problems that are happening aren't problems for end-users; they're problems for advertisers.

If Google becomes the only game in town for search, their ad rates will rise simply because advertisers won't have another outlet for search advertising. Likewise, ad rates at Yahoo are suffering today since the mindset is always to advertise on Google and the greater competition in Google's ad auctions make their pricing a lot higher. Personally, I find it a good reason not to run ads on Google (since it's cheaper for the same thing), but if Google's dominance keeps going up, it's going to cause problems.

So, even if Google does nothing, by getting to a certain size (compared to the overall size of the market), it causes problems. Of course, I'd much rather Google in that position than Microsoft <<shudder>>.

I don't begrudge Google either - they've acted as good corporate citizens offering a wonderful service. However, even if you're good and doing nothing wrong doesn't mean that problems don't arise.</comment></comment>


Do you doodle in meetings? Don't throw these masterpieces away. - <AUTHOR> http://www.techpovera.com/blog/2007/06/doodling-in-meetings-ancient-but-widely.html <comment><USER2> I've managed to get my average daily meetings to zero and the one thing I miss is my great opportunity for doodling. I always doodle and it's always the most productive thing that happens at any meeting.

Riding bicycles and doodling. Two things I recently rediscovered. Haven't tried them together, yet.</comment>


Invoicing tool build for freelance web developers - <AUTHOR> https://effo.io <comment><AUTHOR> Would love some feedback from fellow developers on this project</comment>


Archeologists Discover a Perfectly Preserved 4k-Year-Old Tomb in Egypt - <AUTHOR> https://mymodernmet.com/khuwy-egyptian-tomb-saqqara/ <comment><USER3> "Discovery" is a big word. Egypt is currently in full-dig mode, because of the political and economic situation. I'm not a scholar, but I bet there are dozens of sites like this that are already well-known, and are simply waiting to be "opened up" when local authorities need some good press and/or a shot of foreign cash to "protect priceless artefacts". This is, coincidentally, one of those times. And guess what, surprise surprise, "foreign dignitaries" are given little tours - I bet a metaphorical hat was passed at the end.

In the end, the question is always how well this stuff can be preserved once unearthed. In a country like Egypt, even the ground is not safe - once a place is marked, the risk of illegal digging happening is fairly high. But showering them with money comes with strings attached (including the chance of large portions ending up in someone's pocket). Sigh.

<comment><USER4> Its likely that the "foreign dignitaries" either paid for the work already (in exchange for access to research material) or by sponsoring museum tours on these or other objects.

The majority of digs are done (paid for) by foreign universities, with oversight and eventual ownership of the items by the Museum of Cairo. Most foreign digs that I know of are paused, and have been since 2011/2012 - <USER2> ousting of Mubarak. The "season" for excavation limited, and a disruption of a few years was enough for a heavy uptick in looting.

A lot of important (but less newsworthy) sites are now bare - funding for security is not limitless, and without even annual oversight very hard to maintain. Sites of greater value ($ value) are more closely guarded, and perhaps even less likely to be looted if the Egyptians are leading the dig.

I have no direct sources (and haven't looked), I've only heard secondhand from my wife who works in a related field.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What if the tombs and mummification's where ancient attempts at doing something like current cryonics. And we are just going there, unearthing them, and not fulfilling our future part of the deal? :-p

<comment><USER6> Well mummification involves removing the brain and major internal organs so at least physically it probably won't work.

I think the goal was to have a good time in the afterlife. And I guess by disturbing their graves we've prevented that from happening :-) Or, they had already enjoyed a few millennia there and don't mind the change...

On a serious note it is surprising to see them just let large groups of people in to touch and snap pictures

<comment><USER7> They didn't believe in "life after death" like Christians do. After death, your soul got rigorously tested. And if it passed the tests, you got to the afterlife. It was actually a lot more complicated, in that they thought that there seven souls, but whatever.

Bottom line, though, was that survival in the afterlife depended on the integrity of your mummy. They removed the brain and internal organs because mummification didn't work, otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> 4000 years old and it's already the Fifth Dynasty. In another professional life I was a classicist, and I thought I dealt with old stuff there, but Egypt is just so impossibly ancient it makes the Greeks look like a bunch of Johnny Come Latelies. Deep time...

<comment><USER9> Forgetting about the Minonian and Cycladic civilizations? Greek mainland didn't develop until later, naturally, but it started in the thousands of little islands, the Aegean archipelago, and the big one, Crete. The Minonians had established trade routes with the Egyptians during the 5th dynasty, IIRC. DNA evidence revealed they were there as early as 9000 B.C., with cultural influence between the Minonians and Egyptians going both ways.

<comment><USER10> Not until there was writing. The Egyptians had writing 5200 years ago compared to Linear A 3800 years ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's great that there is normal interesting archaeology news.

Hopefully the current curse of pseudoarchaelogy crap (looking in your direction discovery channel) will die out.

It's never aliens.

</comment><comment><USER12> Can recommend the History of Egypt podcast:

[https://egyptianhistorypodcast.com](https://egyptianhistorypodcast.com)

</comment><comment><USER13> Would be interesting to know how this one escaped the grave robbers.

<comment><USER14> Even today there are still whole pyramids buried in the sand. There's still a lot to be discovered out there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I dislike when articles like this (or any, really) embed images from Instagram. I have all Facebook domains blocked in my hosts file, so all I ever get is broken DOM elements.

<comment><USER16> As opposed to rehosting (stealing?) the picture from its original source? It is after all an embedded instagram post of the Official Ministry of antiquities in Egypt showing a shot from inside the site.

<comment><USER17> Then perhaps the ministry of antiquities needs to stop using terrible services.

<comment><USER16> Of course, the Ministry of Antiquities should stop using the service the rest of the world finds perfectly acceptable but that 1% of vocal HN'ers are rabidly opposed too.

<comment><USER18> Now we should all forgot about ethics and privacy because almost everyone find it acceptable, mostly because they doesn't care ?

<comment><USER19> Boycotts rarely work. We'd be better off raising awareness of Facebook's misdeeds and using that to awareness to build a grass roots campaign for policy change. In parallel with that, we should be having a discussion about what sort of legislation would be most effective at curtailing Facebook's (and everyone else's) bad behaviour.

<comment><USER17> Or maybe, people could _choose_ not to use services that don't respect their privacy if they care about privacy? Surely, that's not expecting too much from people?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Article title is "Archeologists Discover a Perfectly Preserved 4,000-Year-Old Tomb in Egypt" \- which I surmise due to some title restriction yielded the "4k" abbreviation. Let's remember - there are people who depend upon text to speech. Let's think of them when it comes to abbreviations and how they sound phonetically when used outside the AV domain.

4000 years ago is also around the earliest estimated age of the Llangernyw Yew tree [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llangernyw_Yew](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llangernyw_Yew) One subject in which the abvitiation of years is not recommended, for phonetics alone.

<comment><USER21> "k" is an internationally standardized prefix. Anyone on this site would know it means 1000.

<comment><USER20> Agreed that as a unit prefix which is prepended for an abbreviation within the audience here, it's a bit of a go to. But with the number 4, the connotation wavers on first sight, even here due to AV biasing at play. Let alone the phonetic fun that combination yields.

Sorry as I spent most of the day pedanting over UI's and clearly not switched out of that mode - my bad. Sorry.</comment></comment></comment>


Instant 8-bit alpha PNG converter - <AUTHOR> http://www.8bitalpha.com/ <comment><USER2> I've got improved pngquant that gives significantly better results than original version, gd2 library and often rivals pngnq:

<https://github.com/pornel/improved-pngquant>

It is a bit slow (converts image several times feeding back result's quality back to the algorithm), but difference in quality is significant:

<http://geekhood.net/8bitalpha.png> \- converted via website

<http://geekhood.net/imagealpha0.7.png> \- converted with pngquant 1.3

<comment><USER3> Any chance to build this with libpng14? I think compiling fails for me because I do have that modern version installed and not libpng12.

<comment><USER2> It definitely works with 1.4.1, but the bundled Makefile sucks.

Just compile *.c and link it against libpng in whatever way your system requires.

<comment><USER3> Thanks!

I am clueless when it comes to compiling though so for me that stop right at "linking". I only know that that has something to do with those .o files. :-)

I did find <http://pngnq.sourceforge.net/> and just installed that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow, I go on holiday away from a decent internet connection and next thing you know, HN front page. Urk.

Hope it all works well for everyone. As mentioned, the source is all on github (<https://github.com/thingsinjars/8bitalpha>) so if there are any improvements, fork away.

I'll try and keep an eye on it in case something breaks but I'm a bit limited to an iPhone SSH client on a foreign country's network so play nice. :D

I'm glad people are finding it useful, though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great work, many thanks for the source.

Ah, now I see it's a far cry from pngng/pngquant

[https://github.com/thingsinjars/8bitalpha/raw/master/image.p...](https://github.com/thingsinjars/8bitalpha/raw/master/image.php)

Some php gd2 conversion, gets the job done but it's not as sophisticated.

Still, huge potential to slide in other solutions, even via shell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Mac users should check out ImageAlpha for optimizing 8-bit PNGs: <http://pornel.net/imagealpha>

<comment><AUTHOR> I was actually looking for a Windows equivalent to that when I found this wesite.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Source code is available on GitHub: <https://github.com/thingsinjars/8bitalpha>

</comment><comment><USER7> Thank you a lot for the tool. I had no idea I could compress PNG so much, without loosing too much quality. I will be a heavy user of this.

<comment><AUTHOR> To clarify, I didn't make this site, just discovered it while googling how to accomplish this without Fireworks.

The "beauty" of 8-bit png is how it degrades acceptably in IE8, IE7 and even IE6.

Try comparing a large round icon in 1-bit alpha (ie. gif) vs 8-bit alpha, it's much much better.

<comment><USER8> IE7 and IE8 can display 32bit (24bit for RGB + 8bit for alpha channel) PNGs fine by the way. IE6, of course, only supports alpha transparency on 8bit PNGs.

<comment><USER9>
      IE6, of course, only supports alpha transparency on 8bit
      PNGs.

IE6 does not support alpha transparency, in this case it treats colos with alpha component as fully transparent i.e. PNG8 with alpha transparency is treated as with index transparency.

<comment><USER8> Yes, you're correct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> What is the difference to using say optipng?

<comment><USER10> Here's a real example, using a test image that has a lot of different alpha values in it, and a 24-bit alpha channel:

        Original:    87047 bytes
        optipng -o7: 82489 bytes
        this tool:   22585 bytes

The main difference, other than size, is that optipng produced an exact copy of the the original, while this tool is lossy, and threw away a bunch of data from the alpha channel. The win is that for the majority of all web cases, 8 bits of alpha is plenty.

<comment><AUTHOR> Note that it's not perfect for all cases, but it's certainly acceptable for small icons.

Here's a 32x32 icon I converted down to 8-bit alpha and then 1-bit, and then resized the whole group so they could be more closely examined:

<http://i.imgur.com/XTksy.png>

<comment><USER2> I was able to convert it without noticeable degradation down to 7 bit:

<http://geekhood.net/bitcoin-32bit.png>

<http://geekhood.net/bitcoin-7bit.png>

(using my pngquant)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yah, after looking at the source I saw they are only using php's gd2 library on 8bitalpha.com which is definitely inferior to your work.

The problem is lack of Windows binaries, this is the most modern I can find:

<http://sites.google.com/site/bitdepthtools/downloads>

BTW this is the original image I am resampling down to icon size, it seems very challenging because of the multi-layered round edges and many gradients internally:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bitcoin.png>

<comment><USER2> For me OS X screenshots are the toughest — lots of shades in transparent shadow, smooth gray gradients (can't use posterization) AND three small gradients in close/minimize/zoom and couple of odd pixels for anti-alias of corners (can't use pick-most-popular algorithm).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> <3</comment>


6 Ways to Extract All Links from the Current Page - <AUTHOR> http://www.searchenginejournal.com/6-ways-to-extract-all-links-from-the-current-page/18032/

<comment><USER2> I feel sorry for people who base their business on computers but don't know how to use them properly or have anyone around that does.</comment>


Brazilian Prisoners Generate Alternate Energy While Cycling to Freedom (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/brazilian-prisoners-cycle_n_1662520.html

<comment><USER2> Straight from Black Mirror.</comment>


Kotlin Programming Language - <AUTHOR> https://kotlinlang.org/ <comment><USER2> Kotlin is now an officially supported Programming Language for Android Development

</comment><comment><USER3> Hopefully the folks in the IRC channel are much less dickish then they were a few years ago :)</comment>


A light-weight forensic analysis of the AshleyMadison Hack - <AUTHOR> http://blog.includesecurity.com/2015/08/forensic-analysis-of-the-AshleyMadison-Hack.html <comment><USER2> Lightweight is an understatement. Listing of files and a bit of metadata extraction plus some simplistic analysis of passwords in the database. Clickbait at its finest.</comment>


Reentrant, read/write pthread mutexes - <AUTHOR> http://vicsydev.blogspot.com/2016/12/reentrant-readwrite-pthread-mutexes.html <comment><USER2> I think the better word here is recursive mutex, not reentrant mutex. Because contrary to the implied claim on that page,

      "The basic pthread mutex leaves a lot to wish for. Support
      for reentrancy would allow varying lock granularity on the
      call site."

pthreads provides recursive mutexes via the PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE mutex type specifier. It was in the 2004 POSIX specification as an XSI extension, but moved to Base in the 2008 specification. No environment is certified to POSIX 2008, AFAIK. Linux/glibc and linux/musl are the closest, I think. But recursive mutexes, and specifically PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE, are supported everywhere I've checked, including all the BSDs, AIX, and Solaris.

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe, recursive implies calling self to me. Nice, forgot about that one. Though this little nugget is faster than even the basic mutex once you start utilizing up/downgrades. I will however look into replacing manual tracking of write depth with PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE and compare performance. Thank you.</comment></comment>


Obama Barraged By Pot Questions For Youtube Town Hall - <AUTHOR> http://corruptpolitics.tumblr.com/post/2963746610/obama-barraged-by-pot-questions-for-upcoming-youtube

<comment><AUTHOR> Go to <http://www.youtube.com/worldview> to view questions and sort by "All Questions" to view top questions.

</comment><comment><USER2> Isn't the commentary on YouTube well known to be the absolute worst discussion on the internet? Just what quality of questions were they expecting from that community?

</comment><comment><USER3> Continuing to ask a question when you know the answer is not going to change the answer. Tough luck.</comment>


Adopting Lessons from Offline Ray-Tracing to Real-Time Ray-Tracing [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://advances.realtimerendering.com/s2018/Pharr%20-%20Advances%20in%20RTR%20-%20Real-time%20Ray%20Tracing.pdf <comment><USER2> I've seen a couple white papers on modern rendering techniques that were actually developed in the 50's or 60's and one day someone happened noticed that modern hardware could easily do it in real time now. I wonder how many gems there are out there from the past awaiting rediscovery and reuse. Ray tracing may not really fit that but it is cool to see hardware opening up more and more real time use cases. The images in that paper make me feel like we are right around the corner from a neat trick to use the low resolution ray tracing to modify traditional lighting towards realism.

</comment><comment><USER3> Transparent object like glass are also a problem for path tracing. Bidirectional path tracing can improve this but it's hard to predict which rays from a light source will be visible to the camera.

It's amazing we can now have photorealistic images in seconds. But I think it will take some more years before studios can render the latest Avatar in realtime.

<comment> 0-_-0 An example of a hard to render situation (not just for path tracing) is visualizing caustics on the other side of glass, since you can't connect paths directly to light sources or the camera. (S[SD]*S type paths in path tracing notation). If it begins or ends with a diffuse reflection then it's _relatively_ simple to form a path by starting at the other end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've always been interested in knowing a "Real Time Pixar" value... The question is roughly, "What Pixar movie could we now convincingly render in real time?"

* Given, say, a $2,000 budget for a new PC (for CPU / GPU / Motherboard / Power Supply / Drives)

* Same resolution as the original movie

* Same frame rate as the original movie (24 fps?)

* You can use whatever rendering pipeline you want. It doesn't need to be RenderMan. And we explicitly encourage cheating, using the modern cheating techniques, if they exist.

* It does not have to be identical in output. You can cheat. But the differences need to be very minimal, even when you do a frame-by-frame still image comparison. Maybe blades of grass, or strands of hair, can be in different places, etc. But basically the same quality. The point being that if you had handed this image to the original team who made the movie, they wouldn't have had a problem using it instead of what they did produce.

<comment><USER5> Modern techniques seem to be more about ease-of-use for the artists rather than getting things to run faster.

Physically based rendering is mostly about ensuring that your models look the same across many different lighting conditions. IIRC, something like Toy Story "cheated" by having the artists change the lighting settings between scenes.

While Wreak it Ralph is the famous Pixar Movie for using a singular "uber- shader" that worked in all situations across the movie.

[https://disney- animation.s3.amazonaws.com/library/s2012_pbs_...](https://disney- animation.s3.amazonaws.com/library/s2012_pbs_disney_brdf_notes_v2.pdf)

The "Principled" BSDF was mostly about making things easier to control for the artist. IE: Making settings between 0 and 1, arbitrarily. And other such "user interface" issues.

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

Because the "cheating" way to get things to run at runtime the easiest is to encode it to H264, and then hit the playback button. :-)

One thing I learned is how a lot of video-game models have baked-in shadows (especially 2d perspective games like fighting games). The sun is assumed to be coming from a certain direction. So any shadows created by the sun are "baked into" the texture itself, and no need to calculate it during runtime.

Other shadows remain dynamic (Ex: a lamp in the background may still cast a dynamic, runtime shadow). And the combination is enough to trick most people into thinking they have fully dynamic lightning.

<comment><USER6> Fun fact: the Wreck It Ralph paper is widely cited as a starting point for many physically based shading systems used in modern game engines.

[https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/Resources/files/2013SiggraphPr...](https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/Resources/files/2013SiggraphPresentationsNotes-26915738.pdf)</comment></comment>


CERN Scientists Trap Antimatter for Almost 17 Minutes - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2386429,00.asp

<comment><USER2> Article in nature for the inclined [http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys...](http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys2025.html)

<comment><USER3> I was just struck by the accuracy of this: <http://xkcd.com/906/>

Thanks for the link! I wish I could follow it more closely, but overall 'tis interesting stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Has anyone heard if they managed to observe the effect of gravity on the particles? The Nature article was vague...

I remember hearing that this was one of the reasons why they needed to trap antimatter for observable lengths of time. To my understanding, they aren't completely sure yet which way antimatter "falls."

<comment><USER5> It will still be a while before this is directly observed.

We're fairly sure that it "falls" downwards for a wide range of theoretical reasons and also due to the 1987 observation of gravitational lensing in neutrinos and antineutrinos from a supernova. If we observe the opposite in a lab then it will be incredible because we'll have to reevaluate a lot of what we think we know about physics. If we observe it "falling down" then it will be an important result but not at all revolutionary.

<comment><USER6> "falling down" - does that mean gravity is an attractive force between matter- antimatter or antimatter-antimatter (or both)?

<comment><USER7> Antimatter has opposite electrical charge (and magnetic moment) from normal matter. It should have the exact same mass and interaction with gravity as normal matter.

An anti-electron is called a positron because it has a positive charge instead of negative. Antiproton (sometimes called negatron, but rarely) is just a proton with opposite charge. You can even make a hydrogen atom out of an antiproton and a positron, called antihydrogen. <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Antihydrogen>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Pretty impressive, but still not nearly long enough to survive a trip to the Vatican

<comment><USER9> I believe you are thinking of strange matter / strangelets :)

<comment><USER10> Or maybe just Anti-Popes

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> nearly 17 minutes = 1,000 seconds, or 16 minutes and 40 seconds.

<comment><USER12> Thanks?

<comment><USER11> see the news headlines ...

-"Stick Up: Antimatter Atoms Trapped for More Than 15 Minutes" by Scientific American

\- "Antimatter Trapped for Amazingly Long 16 Minutes" by Foxnews

-"Scientists hold anti-matter for 17 minutes" by Radioaustralia

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If only we could develop a small device (say the size of a briefcase) to convert electricity to antimatter and then slow release antimatter reaction back to electricity.

It would make electric vehicles much more economical than oil. We could finally make a ship that could pack enough punch to make a trip to the asteroid belt and back. To bring back the unobtainium.

<comment><USER14> The ability to carry road-trip quantities of antimatter in a briefcase would take the threat of terrorism to a whole new level. How much would you need to take out a plane? A building? A city?

Nuclear cars would be cool, too, but I think we need to consider the weaponizable nature (both for governmental military forces and for terrorists) of these technologies.

<comment><USER15> From Wikipedia: _The reaction of 1 kg of antimatter with 1 kg of matter would produce [...] the rough equivalent of 43 megatons of TNT. For comparison, Tsar Bomb, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated, reacted an estimated yield of 50 megatons._

I dare say this would take a briefcase bomb to a whole new level.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#Fuel>

<comment><USER16> There's no way to contain it without big, heavy equipment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> any speculation on when the head crabs are coming?

<comment><USER18> You need a resonance cascade for that to happen, which so far seems unlikely.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: A mechanical major, which language to start from scratch and how? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Scheme.

Cf. [http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/s...](http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/sicm/book.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> What are you trying to do with it?

1\. business app

2\. micro-controller - check out arduino its cheap and theirs a free development studio. example for controlling steppers and servos etc.

3\. games

4\. phones

<comment><AUTHOR> I dont have anything in mind but yes, something related to mobile, apps and machines (robots)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Presumably you mean mechnical engineering major.

That being the case, learn C for programming microcontrollers and embedded systems--not C++, not Java. Just simple plain old C.

If not that, Javascript, because it's everywhere and you can play with it in your browser.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much, Do you think codeacademy is better for me to kickstart or from somewhere else. Also what about python, do you think its important?</comment></comment>


A platform to provide FULL-TIME benefits for freelancers and contractors - <AUTHOR> https://www.tassleem.com/ <comment><USER2> The emphasis on "to soon offer". What are those planned benefits? The website doesn't list any.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, talk about vague. They've got a typo under "For Freelancers" section too:

"FGet hired from the client and get to work."

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for letting us know. Benefits will be listed soon.</comment></comment></comment>


To Keep Teenagers Alert, Schools Let Them Sleep In - <AUTHOR> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/to-keep-teenagers-alert-schools-let-them-sleep-in/

<comment><USER2> Wow, I had no idea US schools started at 7.20am. That would mean teachers arriving at 6.20am. Are their unions OK with that? In my country office hours start at 9. Is that not the same in US? If so, why are kids expected to need 2 hours less sleep than an office worker?

<comment><USER3> The school day ends much earlier than normal business hours.

Sleep time is as much a function of when you go to sleep as it is when you wake up...</comment></comment>


Show HN: User-friendly database builder for Humanitarian Ops, other markets? - <AUTHOR> https://www.activityinfo.org/signUp <comment><AUTHOR> We've been successful in building a user-friendly platform for collecting, managing, and analyzing data, focusing on customers in humanitarian and development operations. It's widely used by the international community in the Syrian crisis, and now for monitoring of the COVID-19.

It's evolved into quite a general tool, and we're exploring whether we can offer the tool to a broader audience or for different use cases.

* Some key features:

* User-friendly (relational) database and form builder

* Use offline on desktop or mobile, sync upon re-connection

* Very granular user permissions - limit access to specific records based on a formula

* Import spreadsheet data

* Built-in analysis tools

Would be curious to hear what those outside of the humanitarian world think of the tool and whether it would be useful in your line of work.

<comment><USER2> This looks like a good tool, but it took me a while to find the demo video to work out what the product actually is.

It looks to me like a simplified version of Google Forms and Sheets for NGOs but your home page is not communicating that to me. Your comment is better at explaining the software than your website

> * User-friendly (relational) database and form builder, * Use offline on > desktop or mobile, sync upon re-connection, * Very granular user permissions > - limit access to specific records based on a formula, * Import spreadsheet > data, * Built-in analysis tools

Now list these on your homepage with big screenshots or a quick video (no more than 30s seconds) to show people how great your software is.</comment></comment>


Startup friendly bank - your thoughts ? - <AUTHOR>

Hi all - I'm looking for some recommendations for a startup friendly bank. Ideally ones that: 1. deal with web startups regularly 2. have been involved with early stage external financing 3. even better if they have a location around Los Angeles
Any ideas or thoughts around startup banking would also be appreciated.
Thanks <comment><USER2> Why, specifically, do you need a bank that fits those criteria?

This time around, we chose to just open a business account with a bank that one of our founders used for his personal banking.

That said, the bank you are looking for is Silicon Valley Bank. They have a Los Angeles branch. But I question why you think you need to head straight there.

<comment><USER2> To clarify: what I'm saying is that your average commercial banking officer is probably going to be plenty helpful, at least until you're out of the seed funding days.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks - we are considering SVB. Why do you think it's too early to work with them?</comment></comment></comment>


Andrew Chen: Forget advertising - will virtual goods be the killer revenue model for Web 2.0? - <AUTHOR> http://andrewchen.typepad.com/andrew_chens_blog/2007/05/forget_advertis.html <comment><USER2> Personally I think virtual gifts is a dangerous business model. In some scenarios it can work, but you need a really good reasons to create artificial scarcity or else you'll piss people off and be very vunerable to competition.

Raise your hand if paying $2 to download a 200k ringtone makes you happy. How fast would that business model disappear if people were able to upload whatever they wanted from their PC or iPod?

Making money from virtual property is a great idea, but it can definitely "go against the flow" just like ads. You have to be really careful to only charge for things that people will buy because they want to pay for them.

</comment><comment><USER3> Anyone have any idea how successful facebook is with gifts?

<comment><USER4> I personally know no one who has bought one of these gifts. I can certainly envision people doing so, but not really on a large enough scale to be highly successful with it. Of course, this is all based on personal experience and supposition :).

<comment><USER3> No one admits to buying gifts, but I have a lot of friends with multiple gifts in their profiles. They didn't all come from the initial free one.</comment></comment></comment>


$82,982,977 USD: $ 0.04 Transaction Fee - <AUTHOR> https://blockchain.info/tx/8f1d3a8ef6b2d4a25d2f499279e01518b4770819ccbc39a765c4c326170c61b3 <comment><USER2> This is great. I think the downside, though, is the $0.04 transaction that incurs a $0.04 transaction fee.

For instance, there's this transaction for .02 BTC that incurred a $0.19 fee. [https://blockchain.info/tx/a2933a1dc53361a7770c2a9d998c1fe30...](https://blockchain.info/tx/a2933a1dc53361a7770c2a9d998c1fe30165609717e820f82668839091a2fc94)

I'm not sure why this tiny transaction cost so much more than the huge one, but being able to support 0.00045 BTC transactions at reasonable cost is the challenge.

This isn't just a fee challenge, but a blockchain-bloat challenge as well.

But if it can be solved, I think it would be a turning point for BTC.

<comment><USER3> I think because of the design of bitcoin $0.04 transactions are something they want to actively discourage. From what I understand of Bitcoin, the future will hold only large-scale transactions like this one, and as little sub- dollar transactions as possible. (because the network load of the system scales with the transaction quantity)

<comment><USER4> This, along with regulatory challenges, has hinted to me for at least a few years now that if bitcoin has any long term future at all, it will be as an exchange currency.

<comment><USER5> Its destiny is cryptogold where the store of value is in the security of sha256. In the future they will probably adopt new cryptography standards into the protocol as current encryption standards are broken down (ie, sha1 was used at first but you should not use it anymore due to its growing leakiness).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Having been recently charged a 4% worse FX rate than the going rate in an 5-figure international wire transfer, a world where the current financial transaction system is torn apart cannot come fast enough!

<comment><USER7> If you do this transfer often I recommend moving your currency to a brokerage and then doing a FX trade. You will often get close to BBG spot rate using IB.

<comment><USER8> How would you go about setting something like that up?

I assume this comes with quite a few caveats?

<comment><USER7> Sign up with a brokerage account, there are many. interactive brokers is one of the cheapest (I'm not affiliated). Then, link your two bank accounts with the brokerage. Buy/Sell you currency then transfer the funds via wire/ach...

<comment><USER6> Seems awesome for personal uses (which I expect to be doing on a fairly regular basis). I persume this might make business tax compliance a bit more complex, but at some point it may be worthwhile for me in that realm as well.

Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've never moved around tens of millions of dollars, so I don't know what the usual procedures and fees are. I have moved thousands around between accounts, and the fee is a couple of dollars, a tenth of a percent. It's hard to believe that the fee percentage for a normal wire transfer for those amounts is higher than that.

Given that, this doesn't seem like much of a big deal. I suppose it's neat, but when you're working with that much money, does a few tens of dollars matter?

Considering also that moving any significant amount of this money to Fiat to actually purchase anything will likely be massively difficult, involve huge fees and delays, and may even distort the entire exchange market, and it seems even less useful.

Infact, the largest USD exchange seems to be [https://www.bitfinex.com](https://www.bitfinex.com) right now, and this transaction represents around 2 weeks of their volume. It might well take months to convert this to USD without causing too much market distortion.

On an unrelated note, damn the CNY exchange volume is massive, and seems to dwarf the total USD volume. I wonder what's up with that?

<comment><USER10> Most CNY exchanges don't have trading fees. As a result, comparing their volumes to USD exchanges isn't really meaningful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> For those here who are wondering if bitcoin use is growing, here is a graph of transactions over time:

[https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all](https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all)

<comment><USER12> How come that doesn't correlate with this graph showing the dollar value of transactions:

[https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction- volume-...](https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume- usd?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=)

<comment><USER13> Because [https://blockchain.info/charts/market- price](https://blockchain.info/charts/market-price)

<comment><USER12> The decreased US$:BTC exchange rate doesn't appear to be sufficient to counteract almost exactly the increased volume of BTC traded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I hope that the recipient intends to use those funds on the darknet or overstock.com, otherwise the fees for converting even a fraction of that sum into usable money will _greatly_ exceed $0.04.

<comment><USER15> Does bitcoin have the kind of volume/liquidity to make that kind of exchange without causing a significant disturbance in the exchange rate?

<comment><USER16> No, it would cause a pretty big swing. Large sums like this are unlikely to be put on an exchange, though - they'd be done through a private sale.

<comment><USER17> You are misinformed. 217k BTC is only a fraction of the monthly volume traded on some of the largest exchanges: they trade 3-6 _million_ BTC per month ([http://bitcoinity.org/markets/list?currency=ALL&span=30d](http://bitcoinity.org/markets/list?currency=ALL&span=30d)), so one could trade 217k spread over 30 days without causing swings. (Only if you did the trade at once, it would cause one sudden swing.)

<comment><USER16> Dumping it all at once is what I had in mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Any guesses if this is related to the Silk Road coins the feds auctioned off not too long ago? Or the even more recent second auction?

<comment><USER19> unlikely since the bidding is still going/just-started.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Who has $82M in Bitcoins?

<comment><USER21> Keep in mind that some companies keep all their customers' BTC in one big "account".

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> If it was a credit card transaction, it'd be 2,406,506.

<comment><USER23> If it were a credit card transaction, money would have changed hands.

<comment><USER24> Care to elaborate?

<comment><USER25> The implication is that Bitcoin isn't "real" money.

Never mind that money is a social construct and is useful whenever two parties agree on a common value.

<comment><USER26> I think the implication is actually that the person sending this transaction was also the recipient.

<comment><USER25> Good point; your explanation makes more sense. I pretty much only use Bitcoin to buy lunch and laptop stickers, so I forget that people with significant amounts of it have to shuffle it like this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> A whole $.10 cheaper than sending a FedWire! that's <insert really small percent that I'm too lazy to do the math on>% cheaper!</comment>


Developing *mobile* applications; which platform has fewer serious problems - J2ME or Flash? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> As of now, you cannot compare Flashlite and J2ME. Its almost like comparing Javascript with Java. Flashlite has very limited capabilities . Add to it the limited capabilities of a mobile device.

If your application want to access phone's file system(r/w), or want to access phone's camera, FlashLite alone wont help. [its only possible with a java or python wrapper]

From my personal experience Flashlite is most suited for making quick visual demos/prototypes [within hours].

Right now Adobe is working on Flashlite 3.0 , which is expected to be the most robust release ever, complete with flv video support.

One great thing about flashlite is that, if you build and test on a single device, you can deploy it on ANY flashlite enabled device without any change[subject to some device factors like support for screensavers, wallpapers etc.].This 'build once, deploy anywhere concept ' is unheard of in J2ME development world.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I need to access the file system rw and camera. With Flashlite, I wonder if you have to be online also.

<comment><USER2> You will have to use a custom built Java or Python wrapper to access filesystem /camera.

Here is an example for a python implementation: <http://code.google.com/p/flyer>

Once installed Flashlite acts almost like a flash engine from which you can run swf created for flashlite.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> All of the high end (Nokia S80 style) phones can do flash light but there are still problems with it. J2ME runs across nearly all phones but some of the older phones (Nokia S40 style) have very small screens and the Java runtime seems to be painfully slow (the cpu's are quite beefy buy I suspect the memory access is slooooow). Be aware that despite it being Java there are quirks across the 50+ mobile phones that are in common use around the world. There are a lot of small companies that specialize in testing across this range though.

<comment><USER4> I thought Java was quite fast on Series 40, but of course it is slow on some phones, no question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> j2me is much more widespread. You could even give Hecl a whirl to put together a prototype ( <http://www.hecl.org> \- just remember to get it from subversion rather than the SF download).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks - I shall look into it. I remember reading that there were even more issues with J2ME running portably, than there are with Java in the browser on desktops.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> oh boy, I can tell that just by asking this question you clearly know nada about the mobile world...

good luck, don't let it discourage you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I am new to the mobile world - that is why I asked the question!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> you're better off using wap/ mobile XHMTL

</comment><comment><USER8> Windows Mobile</comment>