Multiple 7-Zip Vulnerabilities Discovered - <AUTHOR> http://blog.talosintel.com/2016/05/multiple-7-zip-vulnerabilities.html <comment><USER2> I am appalled at how unseriously 7-zip seems to take security.

The changelog only says "Some bugs were fixed", with no mention that there are serious security flaws. The homepage doesn't mention any vulnerability.

The installer is not signed, downloads are over HTTP only, and there is no hash available neither on the homepage or on the forum announcement linked from the homepage (the latter is served over HTTPS so it would be a reasonable option); thankfully you can dig around Sourceforge downloads to find a SHA-1 automatically generated by Sourceforge. So I can personally verify the integrity of downloads, assuming Sourceforge can still be trusted, but 99% of users won't do this, and more worryingly it's a strong signal that the developers may not understand or value security very much: you have to wonder if maybe they're not themselves downloading unsigned software over HTTP all the time.

<comment><USER3> You can be appalled, but it's not like anyone's paying them for the work that they do.

If you want to help them, I'm sure you could contribute some additions to their build process or something that would help them tighten up security. But I think it's funny that you're so shocked that a popular free software project isn't perfect.

Be the change you want to see.

PS: who cares if the devs are using unsigned software downloaded over HTTP? I care about using signed software (and then I suppose the transport doesn't really matter), but that's totally unrelated to what the devs do on their own computers.

<comment><USER4> Every time an open source project is criticised, you get people saying "why are you criticising, you should do the work" \- to the point that this seems to be a mechanism to shutdown any and all criticism of any open source project via special pleading.

One can be very grateful for the work done on an open source project, and recognise that I have no right whatsoever to expect them to hop to it, but I am always free to criticise their work whether it is free or not. Just because a project is open source doesn't mean nobody can utter a bad word about it.

<comment><USER2> Thank you. To be clear, I don't mean that as a criticism of the developers, who as the parent points out do very useful work and do it for free. But I feel that it's important to have an objective look at the current shortcomings in the state of 7-zip security, both in order to understand what needs to be done to fix it, and in order to warn current users until those issues are fixed.

7-zip is a widely popular basic utility, like a web browser. A flaw in 7-zip is very serious, because as I pointed out elsewhere simply opening a .zip file will allow an attacker to exploit it. And while there is a strong security culture among web browser developers, 7-zip doesn't seem to have that culture (yet).

There is certainly a massive budget and manpower difference, but a lack of mention of security fixes in the changelog and a lack of hashes isn't a manpower issue, it's a culture issue.

As a side note, compromise of a developer's machine is a big deal in my opinion: it could be easy for a criminal entity to slip in a tiny change in a large patch that introduces a vulnerability; and depending on how builds are performed, a criminal could patch the final .exe with no visible change to the source code. These are tailored attacks, but for a very widely distributed program it would easily be worth the criminal's time.

<comment><USER3> I'm glad you care so much, but I don't think you can fix a culture issue by explaining it away. The best way to set a culture where there hasn't been one before, is to lead by example.

Re: side note; the vulnerability described in the well-known Ken Thompson paper has been exploited just once in the wild. It's cool, but you could say the same thing about trusting Windows or proprietary drivers or hardware.

<comment><USER5> I counter the Thompson claim as vastly overstated risk when I see it here. I hadn't even heard that it was ever done before. Do you have a link or the project/time? I try to track these things.

<comment><USER3> [https://web.archive.org/web/20100305234633/http://www.h-onli...](https://web.archive.org/web/20100305234633/http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Virus- infects-development-environment-743003.html)

Took some digging, but there it is.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for digging. I'll be damned! Somebody did pull it off. On my old, favorite platform as well!? So, one time on record.

Still supports my claim that reproducible builds and Thompson are mainstream buzzwords where our real concern per Orange Book days should be: coding defects in compiler source; effects of optimizations; malicious developers; trusted distribution of _source_ ; bootstrapping first, verified, local compiler. That's basically a human and machine verified compiler with simple code and signed zip's. Knocks out Thompson attack as side effect and negates reptoducible build need except for debugging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Now this is a case for sandboxing. A decompressor has one input file and one output directory. It should not have the power to change any state outside those files.

A key point here is that not all code needs to be secure. Some code just needs to be kept in a box.

<comment><USER7> Even if it's in a box, you need to pull the thing you want back out of the box. A malicious file could put a payload into the destination file.

<comment><USER8> Yes, by containing the payload and decompressing it.

The difference is that by not sandboxing it, that malicious file could also cause its payload to be executed in the permission scope of the decompressor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The discovered vulnerabilities are in the 7-Zip application's UDF and HFS+ filesystem image support.

<comment><USER3> I didn't even realize 7-Zip could open those.

<comment><USER10> 7-Zip is the VLC of file containers.

<comment><USER11> It is my default whenever I'm on Windows. Everyone loves to close the "trial" window on software when there's usually a better open source alternative. The hidden gem in 7-Zip is you can set file association, it's just not enabled by default which makes it seem more complicated to newcomers than it really is.

<comment><USER12> PeaZip is like a friendly version of 7zip, and uses the 7zip code. 7zip is not very well maintained, whereas PeaZip has regular releases.

<comment><USER13> > 7zip is not very well maintained, whereas PeaZip has regular releases.

16.00 2016-05-10

15.14 2015-12-31

15.12 2015-11-19

15.11 beta 2015-11-14

15.10 beta 2015-11-01

15.09 beta 2015-10-16

15.08 beta 2015-10-01

15.07 beta 2015-09-17

...

How is that not regular?

<comment><USER12> Perhaps lately. Prior to this past November, the stable release advertised on their site had been stuck on the same version for years, without even any point releases. And they use SourceForge for hosting.

The code quality may be excellent, but it just seemed to me that they were not too well organized, logistically, compared to other projects.

<comment><USER14> Why would they need regular releases? This is not a web startup, it's an archive compression/decompression tool. It worked perfectly well 5 years ago.

<comment><USER11> I was wondering the same. Unless it involves a security being ignored for a year or more, I don't see much of an issue with a lack of updates. I rather a developer takes their time to write their code vs. speed coding and publishing new bugs left and right.

<comment><USER12> I find it unlikely that there would be no memory leaks needing patching, no important compiler updates, and no API-compatible dependency updates that should've been applied to the stable release.

The Linux Kernel, Firefox, and lots of projects have some sort of Long Term Service branch where simple uncontroversial improvements are added.

Modern best practices for releasing open source software are important, and a project that doesn't seem aware of any of them makes me concerned about their attention to detail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm a tad confused. Say I had 7-zip installed - how would I be vulnerable? Hacker Henry knows I use UDF or HFS+ filesystem, AND gets me to trust them and download their maliciously compressed file, AND I extract it with 7-zip, which is exploited by one of these vulnerabilities?

If Henry can do all that, why couldn't Henry just get me to trust them and download a more robust malicious file in the first place without worry to what type of filesystem and decompression software I use?

<comment><USER16> The vulnerability isn't to do with what file system you're running, it's to do with using 7-zip to view the contents of archives in those file formats. Which means if someone wanted to view ala DVD ".iso" which used the UDF specification, then they could be vulnerable if they use 7-zip.

I remember it used to be common place to open .iso files with WinRar back in the 90s. I wouldn't be surprised if a sizeable number of people now use 7-zip similarly

<comment><USER2> I just did some testing and it's even worse than that: 7-zip completely ignores the file extension and snoops the file format based on the file contents only.

So simply opening a malicious ".zip" file on Windows could trigger the HFS+ vulnerability. Using 7-zip to open any file means you have a HUGE attack surface.

EDIT: One simple way to mitigate this issue would be to just throw a confirmation prompt if the file extension matches a known format but 7-zip is about to run a decoder for a different format.

<comment><USER17> IIRC, 7-zip does tell you if the actual format is different. At least it does when I extract some DMGs; it tells me it's actually an HFS "file".

<comment><USER2> Not on Windows, at least. The properties dialog can tell you it uses HFS+ if you ask for it, but it's too late because the HFS+ code has already been executed.

<comment><USER17> I meant when right clicking the archive am choosing "Extract to..." or something using Explorer's context menu.

<comment><USER2> Interesting, it does display a warning in this case! But it doesn't interrupt extraction so if it's a malicious file the code will still execute.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I always found it strange that 7-zip appears to be developed by a single individual, despite being very popular.

I know the fact that this lone developer apparently resides in Russia has caused 7-zip to be outright banned in certain places.

<comment><USER19> > I know the fact that this lone developer apparently resides in Russia has > caused 7-zip to be outright banned in certain places.

That's a particularly ignorant approach, especially considering the whole thing is open-source and auditable.

<comment><USER18> _> ignorant_

That's my tax dollars at work. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Darn 16.0 upgrade insisted on rebooting my Windows.

Should not be necessary in 2016

<comment><USER21> Explorer integration is a finicky business.

One huge tangle of dependencies, most of which concealed by COM abstractions. Even if you kill explorer.exe, something somewhere may end up holding a reference to your binary with a reboot being the only way around it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> collective yawn</comment>


For Xobni, Why It Is Good Time To Sell - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2008/04/20/for-xobni-why-it-is-good-time-to-sell/ <comment><USER2> When is it ever _not_ a good time to sell to Microsoft, if they are interested?

<comment><USER3> If the terms they offer are not worth it to you.

<comment><USER2> But how likely are the terms to get better down the road? And, if Microsoft is interested enough in your idea, are the barriers to entry really sufficient to keep them out of the solution-space?

<comment><USER3> The latter is clearly case by case. The likelihood of terms getting better depends on the company's trajectory. That is, in this case, if Xobni grows by two orders of magnitude in important metrics, their valuation is likely to grow as well.

<comment><USER2> Sorry, I remain unconvinced. If Microsoft thinks that the problem-space that Xobni solves is interesting enough to attempt a purchase, I suspect that if rejected, they would put their attentions to building or buying a substitute. Even if Xobni's userbase grew by two orders of magnitude after the fact, I suspect that once the Microsoft ship has sailed, it won't be stopping in that particular port again. In this case, since Xobni's product is parasitic upon a product of Microsoft's, I doubt that somebody else is going to come along with a more attractive offer in any event.

So: I think for Xobni the time has come to sell, and try to get the best deal they can. And, in the general case, if one is building a product that is parasitic upon a major platform, and the platform vendor makes an offer-- ring the bell, it's dinner time.

<comment><USER3> No problem. Your response is very limited to this case, while I thought you asked a more general question about why you might pass on a Microsoft offer.

Consider the edge cases, which is always a great idea.

If Microsoft offered them $1 today, clearly it is not appropriate to sell, despite Microsoft taking them time to _be interested._

If they turn down the offer, and 6 months later grow to 10M users from 100K, clearly the terms should change.

Now your point seems to be that they won't change because Microsoft won't offer any terms again, ever. However, in my experience, this is not how M&A negotiations usually go. The door hardly ever closes for good. And it is quite common for people to walk away only to resume shortly thereafter (months) with different terms.

Now whether Microsoft decides to pursue it or not is a different story, and I don't know enough about the internal workings of Microsoft to know the likelihood of that.

As for other offers from other buyers, I don't see why not. I don't use Xobni now, but if it is a general solution that is generally applicable to email, that solution is presumably valuable to more than just Microsoft.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


A History of Misses for RadioShack - <AUTHOR> http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/for-radioshack-a-history-of-misses/ <comment><USER2> I was an employee as they transitioned away from hobbyist electronics and into cell phone pushing. Commission based sales intentionally pushed employee effort away from technical competence and towards harassing everyone that walked through the door into a shitty phone contract.

In my view, they made two critical mistakes:

1) The bing/G+ mistake - letting other companies set an agenda that had them relying on execution outside their area of competence. They wanted to push phone contracts and TVs like walmart, but they lack the retail space and brand recognition to do so. This transition can be made (costco comes to mind), but Radioshack bet the farm on it and lost.

2) Maliciously pricing hardware components. I say "malice" very intentionally. Things like adapters, resistors, and pots cost literal pennies coming out of China. Hobbyists will happily pay $1 for a $0.10 item to avoid sourcing it from the factory or ordering from a catalog. $8 is a different story. Going to Radioshack went from "awesome, what will I build this week?" to "man, they're really fucking me on this".

Couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch. Radioshack's death is long overdue.

<comment><USER3> Do you know of any retail stores that still sell electronics components besides Radio Shack? Honestly, that will be what makes me the saddest when they go - when I _really_ need a switch, resistor, or LED I just don't know of any other store that I can walk into and have it _right now_.

<comment><USER4> Fry's has a decent component selection depending on the exact store, but nothing in the Bay Area I've seen compared to HSC in Santa Clara; it's a huge warehouse full of everything from aisles of reels of surface-mount components to shelves and shelves of used test equipment.

<comment><USER5> Not everyone lives in California. I did for 2 years after getting my BS in EE, and Fry's was something I had never seen the like of in my life. Both northern and southern Cali have an unusual concentration of electrical engineers.

RadioShack is the only retail store I have heard of, in Delaware or Maryland or southern New Jersey, that has resistors, capacitors, bread boards, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Even 10 years ago I remember walking through Fort Worth, TX looking at their headquarters and thinking. "This thing is dying". I am even surprised it lasted this long.

> It could have been Amazon.

That is a bit of a stretch. Maybe it could have been Newegg.

Yeah it made bad decisions but along with other brick and mortar electronics stores it was competing with online stores.

You can see them trying. I guess this:

[http://dit.radioshack.com/](http://dit.radioshack.com/) (Do It Together)

is their attempt to attract the new maker and tinkerer crowd. That is a cool idea but it is probably too late.

<comment><USER7> wow, didn't know about that `dit` subdomain. Good context!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The problem with RadioShack is that I can't walk in and pick up a Raspberry Pi. That's the space they used to occupy. And the person who sold yesteryear's equivalent knew their stuff...more than just another cellphone sales clerk.

<comment><USER9> The problem with RadioShack is that you _can_ pick up an Arduino or (probably, by now) a Raspberry Pi there, but you didn't know it.

<comment><USER10> They were a good place to find a Beaglebone Black when they were in short supply too! No crazy markup either.

<comment><USER11> "No crazy markup either."

Possibly, the only thing in the store fitting that claim.

Not even sure its true. Went to the website and I can burn a gallon of gas and an hour of time and pay local sales tax for $89.99. We'll round that up to $100 for expenses and annoyance. I'd pay someone $5 to fetch it for me to avoid the wasted time and having to wait in line and hear all about the great deal they could offer on a cell phone, so I feel rounding up to $100 is fair.

Or UPS can drop one off tomorrow (well, worst case, Friday) for only $67.99 and ordering it takes less than a minute compared to the agony of going to RS.

So sure, I'll pay about 1/3 less to get it from Amazon.

If I have plenty of shipping time adafruit sells then for $55 (plus shipping, they hide their shipping costs deep in the checkout process so I donno and I won't shop there because I can't compare)

Digikey will match the price $55 and they're honest about shipping estimates which would be $3.22 USPS first class (maybe), or $10 if I want UPS (eh, just use amazon) And living nearby I'll get it tomorrow or Friday at worst.

Lets be realistic, I have a busy-ish day today and I can't get out to RS anyway until maybe saturday, so Prime is not only cheaper but faster, and if I had to squeeze every penny I could save another $5 or so by ordering from digikey.

<comment><USER12> > having to wait in line

No worries there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When I was a child my parents both worked full time jobs and could not afford a day care service. They left me, a 7 year old, at the local Radio Shack because it was a place that kept my attention for hours while they worked.

When the first Tandy's started coming in I would spend a lot of time learning how they worked and how to program them to do things. Customers took notice of this young kid and his abilities and wanted it for themselves and their family. Over time the staff recognized the amount of sales I was generating and provided my Mom my "referral cut".

From that early exposure I may not have had otherwise, computers and technology went on to shape my life and are core to the successes I've enjoyed over the years.

While I can't speak to Radio Shacks business models, I am thankful for the shelter and education that one store and their staff provided me.

<comment><USER14> Funny if that would happen today, the cops would be called, your parents jailed, and you would be taken away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Radio Shack should take more cues from the Hackerspace scene and actually turn their stores into functional commercial hacker spaces .. like, with a "Genius- bar" like atmosphere where you can go in, solder stuff up, buy parts, get assistance from professionals, and so on.

I wouldn't be where I am today without the Radio Shacks and Dick Smith Electronics shops of the 70's and early 80's .. there were many a glorious day spent, hacking away in their computer section, or talking to their knowledgeable staff who - besides being able to operate a cash machine, could also tell their MOSFET's from their NPN's and not only that: they enjoyed helping their customers. A lot of that was lost over the decades, but I really believe that there is a generation of hackers out there ready to rediscover the joys of going to a well-stocked hacker-friendly electronics shop for assistance. It has to be focused around the hackerspace scene though, because that is where the real market for electronics and technology parts lies .. and in this day and age of Internet-economies (seedstudio, lady ada, et al) there has to be a corporate culture which understands the nature of the scene: its all about the kids, yo, and in particular - the kids who would be able to repair that pinball machine and CAT-can equipment, if .. only .. they had .. the right parts.

</comment><comment><USER16> I remember looking through the RadioShack catalogs all the time... Sad to see it now, but I recall an Onion article with the headline to the effect of "RadioShack CEO can't figure out how stores make money". I think it may be too late.

<comment><USER17> [http://www.theonion.com/articles/even-ceo-cant-figure-out- ho...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/even-ceo-cant-figure-out-how- radioshack-still-in-b,2190/) (2007)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> In Canada, radio shack re-branded themselves as "The Source". I found this out because one day I needed some banana plugs in a hurry and, for the first time in nearly a decade, thought of radio shack. I went to a nearby mall where I knew there was a radio shack (because I walked past it fairly regularly). I went in and couldn't find anything even resembling a part.

I spoke to a very bored cashier and said, "Wasn't this store a Radio Shack before?".

"Yes!", he said "We changed the name."

"Oh. What happened to your parts section?"

"We got rid of it."

"Why did you change your name? Radio Shack must have been one of the most recognizable brands out there!"

"Well, I guess it was recognizable for the _wrong_ reasons."

"Ooooh".

When I thought about it, the main reason I hadn't set food in a Radio Shack store for years was because the parts section had been shrinking (and becoming more neglected and disorganized) year after year. The store was gradually being taken over by either stuff you could buy cheaper elsewhere or Radio Shack exclusive junk that would break if you looked at it wrong. Instead of focusing on the stuff that at least some people need, Radio Shack focused on the stuff nobody wants.

<comment><USER19> They were forced to change the name as they had lost the rights to use it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Source_(retailer)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Source_\(retailer\))

Briefly: international Radio Shack stores were put under control of InterTan, a Tandy spinoff. When Circuit City bought InterTan, Tandy cancelled the licensing agreement to the Radio Shack name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I would LOVE if Sparkfun did some kind of a deal with Radioshack. I mean, SFun is what RadioShack should be right now, and they definitely could use some physical presence... ah, dreams... going through an online catalog of hobbyist stuff is not half as fun as discovering gadgets while getting to touch, play and feel them

<comment><USER21> If they wait another 3 months Sparkfun can probably buy RadioShack if they really want to.

Bad move though, RS is damaged beyond salvage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I have fond memories of Radio Shack from when I was younger, and it would be a shame to see it die out.

So ... is there anyway to reverse its course?

Well, If I'm Radio Shack's CEO, here are the facts I need to face:

1) Radio Shack cannot compete based on price or breadth of selection against big-box stores, let alone the Internet.

2) The initiative a few years ago to hire highly knowledgable staffers who could offer expert advice didn't work. It's just not economically feasible to employ people with those qualifications in a retail store, and anyway, that alone isn't going to keep the store afloat.

But I think there's still a way for Radio Shack to be a viable company; it would just require some radical changes.

Look at Build-a-Bear, across the mall corridor. The experience of building your own bear from scratch can't be replicated online. Sure, you can order a custom bear online, but kids love Build-a-Bear because they get to witness the stuffed toy's construction from start to finish. Build-a-Bear is as much an event as it is a store.

I think Radio Shack could fashion itself into something similar, but for electronics and gadgetry.

Remember those popular Radio Shack 50-in-1 science project kits? Imagine a Radio Shack where you come in, choose a project, and then build it right there in the store. A kid might come in and buy a robot kit, or a solar-powered race car kit, and they'd be able to assemble it there, with all of the tools (soldering irons, etc.) provided, and with assistance from trained (but not necessarily expert) staffers. STEM is really big in schools right now. Maybe Radio Shack could market itself as a place to pick up STEM skills, and even partner with schools.

But it wouldn't have to be limited to kids stuff. An adult might come in and participate in a DIY electronics workshop: "How to replace an electrical outlet" or "How to work on a circuit board."

Along the same lines, imagine if every Radio Shack had a 3D printer available to rent. You can upload a 3D model to its website, or choose a model in store, come in and watch the printing process, and eventually (yes, I know, it takes hours!) take it home.

With this sort of strategy, Radio Shack wouldn't necessarily need to recruit domain experts, because what would be needed is not a wealth of general knowledge, but some very specific knowledge about a relatively small number of specific projects. A highly motivated high-school or college student could be taught how to lead people in constructing the projects or running the workshops.

That is a Radio Shack I would totally patronize, and it's a strategy that shields the store from needing to compete solely on price or on breadth of selection.

<comment><USER23> As someone who has been walking into Radio Shacks off and on for a good many years (but was never a TRS-80 owner), it often seems as if there's an awful lot of rose-colored hindsight going on with Radio Shack.

Yes, they carried a lot of DIY components and had individual managers and other employees who could be pretty helpful and knowledgeable. But, mostly, they were where you pretty much had to go for cables and such pre-BigBox and pre-Internet and they had a broad enough retail reach that they were really good for that. And they complemented that with a bunch of toys and (mostly) craptascular and overpriced stereo equipment.

In other words, IMO, they were always a pretty mixed bag and were never particular havens of hackerdom. I'm sure some will disagree but I'd suggest that this is a pretty selective window into how Radio Shack made its money.

BTW, I like the DIY/Maker vision. I'm just very skeptical that it would support the type of real estate that Radio Shack has or otherwise lends itself to a large scale business plan. (Would love to be proven wrong.)

<comment><USER24> Not to totally disagree with you, but there's something to be said for walking into a store and holding stuff in your hands before buying it. It's true that you can get any possible component you want from the internet, but on the other hand it's much more fun (funner? Is there even agreement about whether that's a word?) to walk in and fiddle around with components and imagine how you might use them in your own designs. Radioshack has all kinds of buzzers, motors, switches, etc, and some of them are even pretty ridiculous and over the top, which is awesome. You can make your own little Dr Evil Doomsday device for like $10, which is way more entertaining than a movie. I hope Radioshack manages to persist.

<comment><USER11> "there's something to be said for walking into a store and holding stuff in your hands before buying it."

Yes, I always, every time, end up feeling "This is a PITA having to drive across town and haul the screaming kids and coordinate schedules and park far away and burn more than an hour of my life for the privilege of paying three times as much as amazon prime for the same cable and argue with a teenage sales droid about why I don't want a $25 extended warantee in case it breaks (well, thats more a best buy thing, another place I never go to anymore). Oh and I pay $99/yr or whatever it is for prime which I'm "wasting" if I'm not using prime... I'm never going to this store again and next time I need a HDMI cable I'm pulling out my phone 24x7 frictionless and paying $3 at Amazon, not $10+ at RS after investing an hour". The next time I need a cable or gadget I think about going back to a retail store, cringe a little inside, and whip out the phone and order it online instead.

If you're into "real" electronics I live within 1 day shipping range of Thief River Falls MN (aka digikey) so I pay for cheap shipping and get it the next morning anyway, and there is a huge tigerdirect midwest shipping depot 1 UPS day away (actually less, I've paid for 3 day shipping and gotten stuff in 12 hours before, that was weird). Deal Extreme can air ship me non-UL listed fake FCC cert gray market stuff faster than I can get real stuff from California for less than the shipping from CA, which always freaks me out.

Retail just doesn't have a purpose anymore other than perishable fresh food. Its just obsolete. Like worrying about the disappearance of buggy whip manufacturers, or horse stable facilities in major city downtowns.

(whoops edited to add there is one use for retail electronics and its traveling. The only time in several years that I walked into a retail electronics store was when my bluetooth earbud got drenched in a sudden downpour and wouldn't come back to life while I was traveling far away from home, and I kinda sorta needed it for a business conference call, so I paid 2x amazon price at best buy for a replacement and was fairly happy to do so. So airports, train stations, bus stations, tourist traps.)

<comment><USER25> "Retail just doesn't have a purpose anymore other than perishable fresh food. Its just obsolete."

Not everyone has internet and not everyone has a credit card or debit card to buy online. There are ways around those like a public library for internet and a prepaid card.

It's not common to match all that but it will happen. Some people might even like holding something before buying it (pictures can't tell you everything).

<comment><USER11> "Not everyone has internet and not everyone has a credit card or debit card to buy online."

This seems to boil down to people who are removed from the modern economic system are unable to participate in the modern economic system.

Another way to look at it is we strongly segregate by income, so its quite possible retail will live for a little longer in poor urban areas, although it will be doomed in the 'burbs and is already kinda doomed in rural areas.

"Some people might even like holding something before buying it"

I admit you're partially correct, my short list of "fresh produce" probably needs clothing stores and plant nurseries/garden stores. And some crafts, when I go to the woodworking store I pick thru the aisles finding just the right piece of wood for the job. Fine art, hand made as opposed to mass produced posters or whatever, is probably something best purchased in person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The Internet of Things is poised to take off in the next couple of years. I just got into electronics and there's a whole world that's opening up right now due to miniaturization and economy of scale.

As some have mentioned, being a go-to place to pick up your Raspberry Pi, Espruino, Arduino, etc. and have literally all the modules and parts in stock so you don't have to wait 9 days to get it from China would be a huge opportunity. Robotics is probably going to start taking off too.

There's still hope if they bring in the right CEO/management team.

<comment><USER27> IoT and tech classes for seniors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> So sad, RadioShack is still somewhere to go and get components if you need something not too exotic in a hurry, they have a respectable supply of arduino stuff in most stores too. Bricks and mortar sources for this stuff will be hard to find soon.

This article also explains to me why RadioShack was called Tandy in the UK

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm into hobby electronics and I've reluctantly shopped at Radio Shack pretty frequently over the past couple of decades.

I say reluctantly because I just _hate_ going in there. The employees are never trained on anything yet are unbearably insistent on helping. They used to ask your phone number and address for any purchase, any at all. I just returned a $10 item the other day and they would only go through with the return if I gave them an address, phone number and email address.

I shop there to pick up a quick part I need and don't feel like waiting for it to be shipped to me and they are the only game in town. I can't even imagine shopping there for a cell phone, tablet, batteries, anything mainstream. It doesn't surprise me at all that they are going out of business.

<comment><USER30> This is exactly it.

I'm old enough to remember some of the expansions they tried in the 90's (a battery store, seriously?), but not old enough to remember the cb days.

To me, going to the local RadioShack was almost always a means of last resort or a lack of patience. The store was dirty, staff was consistently rude, and the merchandise was wildly overpriced.

Slowly, the phones and other even more overpriced consumer electronics started taking over the stores and the DIY sections became nearly non-existent. Now, I shop at actual hobby DIY stores which have much better selections, pricing and customer service than RadioShack ever had and probably ever will.

RadioShack itself is dead -- management is trying to force a big box concept into a small store and just doesn't get it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Weeelll, I always thought the RS stuff was rather inferior, for example, the soldering irons were not good. The Heathkit versions were much better.

But far and away my favorite store was the EE supply shop in the subbasement of the Steele building at Caltech. It was absolutely stuffed floor to ceiling with parts, and in a very small room. There was everything needed to build everything from stereo amplifiers to radio equipment to digital electronics.

I'm reminded of Tacoma Screw, a local chain that specializes in machine bolts and screws. It sounds too specialized to be viable, but it's a great place to get very good quality fasteners. I use them for my car, they're far better than hardware or auto store fasteners.

</comment><comment><USER32> Such an interesting story. To really appreciate it you have to understand how _central_ it was to the "tech" scene in the late late 70's and 80's.

During those years RadioShack _was_ the maker movement. All the stuff you see today, Arduinos, pretty much everything in the AdaFruit[1] shop, that was RadioShack then. And unlike the Internet (or Jameco, or JDR, or Mouser or MPJ or any of a number of mail order places, you could walk out and get a resistor right now and the transistor you needed to finish a project or try something out.

Several things have conspired to make that harder, not the least of which is soldering got harder, chips got more complex with less documentation, and for a long long time "kids" could care less about building stuff. Now that its somewhat cool again they don't have a good 'tech' craft store.

For a while I fantasized about starting a store chain called 'Prototype Electronics' that would be focused on just that mission. Helping people get the stuff they need at a price they can afford to make cool things. I thought it might be fun to open up 'kiosk' type stores in makerspaces where the makerspace could share some of the revenue. Such a place would sell filament for 3D printers for example, and the RAMPS boards, and something like 80/20 materials, maybe the MicroRAX line. The trick being there would be certain things you could go in there knowing they would have it, cables and such sure, but things like a stepper motor or a common driver transistor. Sadly I don't see 'Hobbyist Retail Store' on the YC RFS page :-) a lot of work for relatively small margins.

[1] One very credible path might be to take the AdaFruit website, buy enough stuff to stock 1,000 stores in towns across the country, and see how it works out.

</comment><comment><USER33> I worked at RadioShack one summer about 5 years ago during college, and it is frankly not surprising to me that the business is failing.

RadioShack was never able to offer competitive pricing on anything besides cell phones while I worked there, and would frequently employ somewhat dubious business tactics when it came to pricing (permanent "sales" on many things like batteries, "sales" where the sale price was the same as the normal retail price which was only disclosed in small type on the bottom of the pricing label).

RadioShack had an employee compensation system which STRONGLY incentivized cell phone sales resulting in the infamous aggressive phone pushing. At RadioShack you were (and maybe still are?) paid minimum wage plus you received a percentage of the gross store revenue each day if it exceeded the daily sales target (a few thousand iirc), a fixed amount for each extended warranty sold ($1-2 iirc), and an amount for each phone sold (something like $20-50). At our store we never had the customer volume to hit our sales targets, and so the only way we could make money was to sell phones.

The employee turnover at my store was insanely high, and none of the employees knew anything about electronics (including myself at the time), computers, or AV equipment. This was generally OK though, as most of our customers were also not tech savvy and couldn't tell the difference. Customers overwhelmingly came in to buy AV cabling, batteries, digital TV antennas, and analog to digital set top boxes. We never sold a TV or any other high value item while I was there.

Perhaps RadioShack will be able to pivot, but if not, I don't think the world will be that worse off.

As an aside, I felt bad pushing phones and worse charging ignorant people $30 for an HDMI cable that could be had from eforcity for under a dollar, and would therefore frequently steer customers away towards Amazon for such items. This practice somewhat perversely earned me regular customers, and by the end of the summer I was running what amounted to an off the books IT support desk out of the store where people would bring in their laptops and phones and I would troubleshoot their problems for 50-100 bucks. Thanks for providing me with retail space for my small business RadioShack!

</comment><comment><USER34> I last went into a Radio Shack about ten years ago. As someone whose first computer experiences were on a TRS-80 Model III and Color Computer, I was mortified to see them selling an HP branded Apple iPod (Yes, such a thing existed. I had to look it up to make sure my memory wasn't deceiving me. What a great example of adding cost with no value: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod+HP](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod+HP)). The young sales clerk didn't understand my discomfort. I had to explain that Radio Shack formerly actually made things, they didn't just act as the last in a line of middlemen. I had to explain to him that HP also formerly made some really cool hardware. It says something that Apple was able to turn both of these companies into sales channels while building their own retail outlets.

</comment><comment><USER35> Count me among the people sad to see this once-awesome company decline. My dad was a mechanical engineer, and built our first stereo set and television from Heathkits. He used to take my brother and I to Radio Shack on weekends and the place was always buzzing.

<comment><USER36> I'm sad to see it go, too. I used to love playing on the local store's TRS-80, and I was a member of their battery of the month club.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> _We can see echoes of this in the current mad dash by the Silicon Valley giants to become conglomerates. Google, Facebook and others also fear that their original mission will become obsolete and so they are buying anything new for billions of dollars to avoid a fate like RadioShack's._

The article lost me on this point. I think Google and Facebook are trying to aggressively expand the reach of their original mission, and not acting out of fear that they will fail like RadioShack has.

</comment><comment><USER38> Radio Shack has been doomed for more than two decades. I remember my first visit to a Best Buy in the early 1990's. The store was clean, they had lots of inventory, and most importantly, the employees understood the concept of service. The few times that I'd go to Radio Shack after that, it was because I had to, not because I wanted to. Service matters, and Radio Shack's management operated as if they were your only option for too long.

</comment><comment><USER39> If RadioShack wants to survive, it needs to get back to it's roots: DIY hardware.

Right now, if I walk into a RadioShack, their employees are incompetent in even basic DIY electronics and their selection is sad.

Hire passionate DIY and hacker type employees, and start basically operating as a retail version of Digikey.

How many times as one of us realized in the middle of a build that we need a .2omh resistor and we concede that an online shipment will take a few days to get here?

</comment><comment><USER40> It's not my only bad experience with Radio Shack, but they ripped my Mom off by not accepting a valid coupon for a cellphone. They stalled for a while, then told her to buy it anyway and redeem the coupon the next day. My Mom is the type to do that, but the next day they refused to redeem it. I stopped shopping there.

They may have been the offline Newegg once, but I won't be surprised when they file for bankruptcy in a decade or so.

</comment><comment><USER41> My favorite memory of RadioShack was the free flashlights. Every couple of weeks, there would be a coupon in the newspaper for a giant flashlight. They were wonderful. You could cast a beam at the top of a tree a block away. The only thing was - they took 5 or 6 D cell batteries to work, and you had to buy them.

You could call it brilliant marketing or a little douche-y. In either case, we had fun. Fond memories.

</comment><comment><USER42> I think its a similar story for DIY electronics shops everywhere - there's one here in Australia called Dick Smith Electronics that really doesn't sell much DIY electronics anymore ... they're now mainly retailers - phones, TVs, sim cards, PC parts, sound, cameras. Few weeks ago I asked one of the staff if they sold Raspberry Pis but he'd never heard of it.

<comment><USER43> In Australia, Jaycar (and to a lesser extent Altronics) have long taken over from Dick Smith.

Jaycar stores stock a reasonable supply of electronics components, and has outlets in most parts of Australia.

See [http://www.jaycar.com.au/stores.asp](http://www.jaycar.com.au/stores.asp).

<comment><USER42> Yeah agreed Jaycar is decent, although they still don't sell the RPi - although they have got a good range of Arduino gear. RS Components is I believe the main RPi supplier in Aus - fast & free delivery as well. I just ordered the Model B+ from them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I remember when my Dad was part of a Tandy (aka CoCo) Computer Club hosted out of a local Radio Shack. He used to take me along and I'd swap games with other computer hobbyists on 5¼-inch disks.

My Dad also taught me how to build a desktop computer from scratch. We'd go to Radio Shack to pick up all the parts.

It's sad to see how far they've fallen from that kind of a destination.

</comment><comment><USER45> It is unfortunate but I think a lot of the people that are keeping Radio Shack alive are the people that shop there out of pity and love for what 'once was' such as myself. Very sad, I hope they make a turnaround, and gain some focus. They are truly a brand I would be loyal to pretty much no matter what they did.

</comment><comment><USER9>
       RadioShack also knew how to ride a wave. During the
       CB radio craze of the 1970s (you had to be there to
       understand)...

Sure, I understand. It's just called "Facebook" now.

<comment><USER46> That would work if Facebook only allowed you to communicate with people within 10 miles of your location. And if all you were likely to talk about was radios and traffic.

<comment><USER47> 20 years in the future when a similar reference is made about facebook: "That would work if $NewTech only allowed your to communicate with people you went to high school with, and if all you were likely to talk about is cat videos."

<comment><USER46> 20 years in the future? It sounds pretty accurate to me _right now_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Please, let RadioShack hire Bret Victor as their Johnny Ive-style visionary: [http://vimeo.com/97903574](http://vimeo.com/97903574)

</comment><comment><USER47> 6ft micro usb cable: Radioshack $9.99 Monoprice $2.59 Business isn't going to boom when you charge 3.8 times as much as your competitors.

</comment><comment><USER48> My very first computer was a TRS-80... what a joy to hack on as a wonder eyed eight year old.

</comment><comment><USER49> I used to hang out at a "Radio Shack Computer Store" in high school. One day the manager said a businessman was coming in to see the TRS-80 Model 16 he had on the floor and that he had no idea what to show him. I had been playing with it for a while (tricked him into giving me root) and I hooked up a couple of TTY's to it and setup the accounting software they had on the shelf with some dummy data. The customer came in, I demo'd it all to him showed him how someone could change a customer on one terminal and the person on another terminal would see the change. He bought it on the spot. The total was $20,000 with all the parts, TTY's, terminals and everything. Needless to say from that day forward the manager of that computer store gave me free reign. I could order anything from the catalog they didn't have on the floor and as soon as it came in I'd set it up and play with it and then connect it to the floor setup. I'd demo using multiple printers (A/B for Dot Matrix -vs- Daisy Wheel) and other cool features. Over a time I started getting requests to help people set this stuff up in their offices and that lead to my first business when I was in 10th grade.

I keep thinking RS could join forces with someone like Adafruit and create this same thing around the Maker movement. That said, I'm not sure the retail space and labor costs plus insurance would pay off, it would be a tricky model. But if somehow they could capture and bottle up this sort of thing for the next generation of technologists and do it at a scale that paid the bills they'd be back in the pole position on a massive trend.

However, with online purchases and AdaFruit being able to deliver stuff to me in time for my "weekend hardware time" I'm not sure there is a place for this in the malls of America. It would require a massive cash infusion and a complete redesign from top down of incentives and management to even get a crack at it. Perhaps someone with the money will buy the name and retail space and gut the rest and try a shot at it. That said I think stuff like TechShop [1] might already be headed there and they're aware of the challenges of cost of space and having the right vibe for hackers.

It's easy to underestimate just how insanely expensive retail space is in a mall, plus having labor, insurance and marketing costs it would be hard to justify selling parts against companies that have 1/10th the cost in their business models. In order for RS to succeed it would need to focus on the personal one on one wonder and discovery experience. That's harder then it sounds to staff and execute against and maintain margins to support the costs to operate the business. If I had the capital to fund it I'd love to take a run at something like this but it would have to be a big change and most likely the best route would be to take them private so you can make brutal sweeping changes rapidly and get the right kind of people in along with rebuilding the culture and the branding. Even after all that it would require a burn rate on a daily basis that would equal what some startups spend in a year. I'm not sure you could make the argument that it would be money well spent. If I were going long and had the capital I'd love to dig in and work out the model but the scale of this thing will most likely never allow the kind of entrepreneurial sprit it needs to be revived unless Elon Musk is bored and wants to back it, but I think he's a bit busy.

[1] [http://www.techshop.ws/](http://www.techshop.ws/)</comment>


Beware of Cranks: Misguided attempts to solve impossible mathematical problems - <AUTHOR> https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/beware-cranks <comment><USER2> While many people who become preoccupied with "problems" like these are operating in bad-faith and can't be swayed otherwise, I would be very surprised if a large number of them (if not most of them) weren't just lay people who were simply curious, who had poor experiences learning math or technical subjects growing up, and for once read about some mathematical "problem" that was accessible to them, were excited by it, and set about exploring it not realizing it was actually a red herring.

And unfortunately, if you lack a good foundation, you won't be able to realize the "problem" you're working on is actually a red-herring, and the rabbit holes you wander through when researching these "problems" will just teach you further bad habits and crankery.

For the sake of those people, I don't think it's fair or right to immediately assume bad faith and take the attitude of "run for the hills" when met with anyone who's gone down such a path. And I don't think it's right to make a mockery of them either (except of course for the ones that start trying to write books, teach seminars, or submit papers about their "discoveries" without ever getting it right).

Instead maybe we can point them towards resources so they can fix their faulty foundation and find more productive ones? No need to engage them further. Just give them something -- even something canned -- to sate the obvious curiosity that they have and give them a little direction. At the very least we can not mock them and assume bad faith -- there's nothing wrong with being curious.

<comment><USER3> A "crank" is a very specific type of person, who will not heed any constructive criticism and in fact deliberately avoids resources from the establishment. Any dismissal is viewed as a conspiracy by the establishment to keep their brilliant ideas from dismantling the establishment's sacred cows.

Like concern trolls, their goal is seemingly to waste the time and energy of anyone willing to listen or engage, except they're not doing it wittingly, so you just wind up feeling like a jerk when you inevitably have to ignore their latest 20-page ramble and get some real work done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've talked with a bunch of cranks and my experience resonates with this article. I believe in reasoned argument and persuasion, probably to a fault, but I never managed to change any of their opinions in the slightest.

One of them had a theory that every electron was made of two photons going round and round. After pointing out a few of the many problems with that he tracked down where I live to try to report me for "censorship".

<comment><USER5> You are only very rarely going to win over somebody committed to an irrational belief (who usually already holds it in plain contradiction to available facts) with logical arguments.

<comment><USER6> I completely agree. But might some fraction of such people be "won over" by methods other than logic? Asking them how they got interested, perhaps, and drawing out what in their past caused them to become so obsessed?

Or even by redefining the goal of the debate?

It may be that I'm giving too much credit and most are truly hopeless. But so often with "people problems" I've seen approaches work beautifully and which in retrospect seem obvious. But in the moment I would never have thought up because I was considering things so narrowly.

<comment><USER4> In my experience, most of these people are over twice my age and slip into condescension the second I stop laying down logical arguments. If I don't argue against them logically, they invariably walk away triumphant, thinking they've just educated some ignorant young man. It makes the problem worse, so I might as well not talk with them at all.

In any case, their stories are all remarkably similar...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I agree with the main argument but would like to note "crank" in not an all or nothing description. Sometimes the problem as publicized doesn't exactly match the precise problem. For example you can trisect an arbitrary angle if allowed an infinite number of steps. Sometimes the problem is in breaking the abstraction layer. For example one of my kids thought you could make arbitrarily slow motion videos by taking slow motion videos of slow motion videos. And that brings up the issue of how to handle a crank. I loved that my son thought through the video issue and didn't want to inhibit future thinking. We ran some experiments taking video of the tv and it was fun. Sometimes people won't accept counter arguments and evidence (sometimes that person is me) and there's a time to move on. Still, in my experience few people are true die hard cranks and most people respond well if given the right direction.

</comment><comment><USER8> > 3\. They don't understand what it means for something to be mathematically > impossible.

This one gets a lot of technically competent people.

I spent a very unsatisfying 45 minutes vainly trying to explain to an eminent biologist that no, really, some statements really are _undecidable_ -- and no, that doesn't mean that at some future time we'll figure out a new approach that lets us decide them.

<comment><USER9> Reminds me of an infamous VC story I heard years ago: A bunch of engineers tell him that feature X is impossible due to latency, and the latency is capped by the speed of light.

He challenges the team by asking them to speculate about options, if they managed to "disrupt" the industry by breaking that speed barrier, and gets mighty upset by these closed-minded engineers who are unwilling to accept any possibility of a breakthrough

<comment><USER10> Well, MOSH breaks through the speed of light latency limitation of SSH by ... predicting the server's response.

Although the laws of physics can't be broken, in certain scenarios we can simulate we have done just that. And often that's just what you need to get ahead of your competition.

<comment><USER9> You sound just like a VC!

"You're saying we can't do HFT between Tokyo and New York faster than the speed of light? Here's a completely unrelated product, that does something completely different, and the limit they're working with doesn't really apply to us. So it is possible! Maybe you should go to Burning Man, that would open your mind.."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> [http://norvig.com/beal.html](http://norvig.com/beal.html)

Peter told me he often gets candidate solutions that the sender hasn't even validated.

</comment><comment><USER12> If you can put the points of the compass against the straightedge, which gives you a marked straightedge, you can trisect an angle. But that's considered cheating. Archimedes is credited with figuring out this approach.

</comment><comment><USER13> I used to answer correspondence for the EFF Cooperative Computing Awards (which are an actual financial prize for finding very large primes) and people who wrote in were almost uniformly either kids or people meeting all of the criteria mentioned here.

Almost none of them thought it was important to understand any prior results about primality testing before submitting a claim for the prize, while a majority didn't seem comfortable with the idea of a mathematical proof or theorem. In general, they didn't have a sense that some properties are always true, some are never true, and some are sometimes true and sometimes not true, and that mathematical reasoning can often definitively establish which of these categories a particular property is in.

</comment><comment><USER14> "Beware of Cranks" shows a terrible understanding of how major progress in science and technology happens. If you go around flipping the "crank bit", sure, you will save yourself spending time evaluating lots of correct negatives and have more time to make on incremental progress, but you will also have a couple of false negatives, one or two of which will go on to change the world. World change is dominated by black swans.

Conversely, Thiel's Hereticon conference idea is brilliant and shows a terrific understanding of how progress in science happens.

</comment><comment><USER15> I wonder if Andrew Wiles had taken a different approach when announcing he had solved Fermat's Last Theorem if he would have been considered a crank. I would imagine that problem would have attracted nonsense solutions prior.

<comment><USER16> That's a big hypothetical, though. Andrew Wiles had been producing sensible mathematics in the community already, so there was no reason to suspect him of being a crank. Also, his proof did not emerge in a vacuum, he pursued approaches that were already known to be connected to FLT.

As for FLT attracting nonsense solutions: Yes, plenty of them. It being such a simply stated problem, and immediately understandable to laypeople certainly exacerbated the problem.

<comment><USER15> Fair point I have no familiarity with his earlier work, or even that there was suspicion of a connection, I did mean for my point to be a bit more general, just seemed like a reasonable example

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Super curious---I actually never took trig (complicated story), so I don't understand the trisecting an angle thing at all. What is it that makes measuring the angle and then dividing that measurement by 3 impossible?

<comment><USER18> "Measuring" is not permitted. You are granted access only to an idealized compass and straight edge. There's a mobile game called Euclidea based on this which I'd recommend.

<comment><USER17> Oooh. I was imagining a compass like you're given in school, with labels on it, and ditto a ruler. :-)

<comment><USER19> That would be a protractor, which would be allowed if there were 340 degrees in a circle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> A previous discussion of Underwood Dudley's classic article: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14446708](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14446708)

</comment><comment><USER21> See also this site on weekends, when every "physics revolution" and "fix" for dark matter in cosmology gets posted.about.

A rare genuinely obligatory xkcd: [https://xkcd.com/1758](https://xkcd.com/1758)

</comment><comment><USER22> A long time ago, I spent the summer at my university where I was a mathematics major. I needed a job to pay for groceries, so I took a part time copy editing job at the math journal.

We got at least one "whack job" paper a week. Bear in mind this was when the internet was first getting traction, so I knew some of these guys from usenet…

lol

</comment><comment><USER23> > _In fact, members of the academy were so tired of being inundated with > quackery that in 1775 they passed a resolution not to accept solutions to > the problems of circle squaring, angle trisection, or cube doubling._

This is hilarious.</comment>


The War on Insider Trading: Market-Beaters Beware - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/magazine/in-the-insider-trading-war-market-beaters-beware.html?pagewanted=all

<comment><USER2> I would first like to preface this by saying that I think insider trading is wrong. And individuals who blatantly and obviously take advantage of privileged private information for profit should be punished. However for most cases I find that the punishment far outweighs the crime. When bankers and CEOs on Wall Street manipulate the market for their own gains or cause industry crashes based on reckless behavior and ordinary people lose billions of dollars in net worth the Wall Street hotshot get to walk away Scott free. In my opinion I rather have a guy who purchased options on a tip in making money versus reckless money managers who lost his senior citizens entire life savings. The mortgage crisis was completely avoidable and most people agree that what companies did bordered on the illegal yet no one has been prosecuted for crime. These high-profile prosecutions by the SEC seemed to be just a bit of posturing to get the image polished in the news.

Martha Stewart and Mark Cuban for both in the same boat, bad knowledge that their investment was about to tank in there were about to lose money. What normal person would sit back and allow their money to go down the drain. Especially when information is not solicited by you. In both cases it seems someone came to them with the information they did not actively seek it out. How could you not act on that tip. I'm not crying for multimillionaires but it's hard to ignore the fact that any normal Joe blow citizen would do any differently. this is exactly the case with the factory workers. The chief mechanical executive was observant of his surroundings and concluded something was up. He was not involved in the deal, no one came to him and give him information, he pieced the puzzle together himself. He should not be penalized for that.

The problem is the vagueness of the law. Laws should not be left open for wide speculation and interpretation of said law. Especially in finance, it should be as defined in particular as possible. We definitely should have fair markets, without it Wall Street would evolve into an even more chaotic and corrupt place. The people need to know where they stand and what they can and cannot do.

This type of disparity in the law and its enforcement is not unique to the financial industry. Drug laws and penalties vary wildly. The Rockefeller drug laws are some of the most notoriously lopsided legislation that was ever passed. You could do decades for possession of crack but only a few years of probation for the equivalent amount of cocaine.

Define the laws, level the playing field and enforce penalties uniformly. It's really just a simple as that.

On a funny note the guys who used a Croatian seamstress at the front first tried to hire strippers to solicit tips from bankers while they were partying at a strip club. Illegal, yes but funny as hell.</comment>


New Squid Genome Shines Light on Symbiotic Evolution - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-squid-genome-shines-light-on-symbiotic-evolution-20190219/ <comment><USER2> It'll be really interesting to learn how the squid interacts with the bacteria</comment>


Nike's Two Hour Marathon Attempt - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/nike-breaking2-marathon-eliud-kipchoge/ <comment><USER2> I'm surprised to see no mention of temperature here. The article says the temperature was 53f and "a little bit humid", and concludes with the Nike experts saying they disagreed that it might have been too warm, arguing that the temperature was perfect.

This flies in the face of much of what I've seen.

Alex Hutchinson wrote a wonderful article entitled "What will it take to run a 2-hour marathon?" in 2014[1], and in a subsequent piece[2] he lays out data from Paris officials who have found that the fastest elite runners did best with temps at 38.9f. This is a HUGE unexplained difference. Furthermore, with pacers blocking the wind more than ever, the Breaking2 effort would have given Kipchoge even less opportunities for evaporative and convective cooling.

"When French researchers analyzed the finishing times of 1.8 million marathoners over a 10-year period, they found that a race-day temp of 43.2°F produced the quickest times overall. But faster runners, who generate more heat, benefited from cooler temps, with the top one percent (green line below) peaking at 38.9°F. Midpackers (red line) do best in the mid-40s."

[1] [https://rw.runnersworld.com/sub-2/?_ga=2.79362900.1119941834...](https://rw.runnersworld.com/sub-2/?_ga=2.79362900.1119941834.1513383885-914977841.1512581592)

[2][https://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/whats-the- optimal...](https://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/whats-the-optimal- temperature-for-marathons)

<comment><USER3> 38.9°F is 3.8°C to save people a conversion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _But by then, he had won four major marathons and the Olympic gold medal, and what he lacked in raw physical potential he made up for with … something._

It seems like the next frontier in distance running optimization is the mind. Given the analysis on the runners' physiology, the only thing that really separated them was mentality.

This seems obvious, given the nature of distance running, but the article never mentions sports psychology or mental exercises the runners do to improve performance.

That's pretty interesting, given that so many elite athletes have put such an emphasis on the mental part of their game:

 _I knew I was going to wrestle in the finals of the Olympics against a Russian and I knew he had been training specifically to beat me, but then I knew the guy was on steroids, That would help me. Whereas some might think 'oh he's cheating, for me you didn't pay the price. You're not as committed as I am. It'll tear him apart. He may be strong, but all I have to do during that 9 minutes of wrestling is loosen one single wire in his brain, make him do something that isn't perfect, and he'll fall apart. Besides the health effects, what you lose when you use steroids is mental toughness. The key to victory is that the strongest mind wins. You can get physical strength with steroids, but you lose the mental toughness (you would have gained) from brutal hard work. Steroids hurt mental toughness by serving as a crutch._ \- Dan Gable[0]

 _Champions aren't made in gyms. Champions are made from something they have deep inside them – a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have the skill, and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. To be a champion you must believe you are the best. If you're not, pretend you are._ \- Muhammad Ali[1]

 _Physically is a little bit easier, but the mental part is the hardest part, and I think that 's what separates the good players from the great players_ \- Michael Jordan[2]

[0][https://www.bjjee.com/articles/wrestling-legend-dan-gable- st...](https://www.bjjee.com/articles/wrestling-legend-dan-gable-steroid- users-lack-mental-toughness/) [1][https://goodmenproject.com/featured- content/the-power-of-vis...](https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the- power-of-visualisation-in-sports-and-in-life-s1s/) [2][https://youtu.be/xlFRZmUmaYI](https://youtu.be/xlFRZmUmaYI)

<comment><USER5> running may not seem like it, but the way you think about what you are doing especially in a race scenario can make or break you quickly... I recently ran a half and did almost all of my morning prep beforehand wrong.. forgot some key things, freaked myself out just before the race and did far worse than I had trained for... if you think you've messed up, you've messed up :)

<comment><USER6> A trick to get into a race (not based on empirical evidence, just my own experience) is to start counting in your head and turn off everything else. I counted 1-2-3 after I almost tripped in the beginning of a half marathon. Instead of focusing on beating myself up for almost tripping I just continued to count. Broke almost all my PB. Keeps you from thinking about messing up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A few week's ago I read a a paper entitled "Modeling: optimal marathon performance on the basis of physiological factors".

I found the topic incredibly interesting. In this paper (from 1991) the author examines the limiting factors in human running and tries to build a model that gives you a bound on how fast a human could run a marathon. The results he got is 1:57:58.

You can take a look at the paper here [http://fermatslibrary.com/s/modeling- optimal-marathon-perfor...](http://fermatslibrary.com/s/modeling-optimal- marathon-performance-on-the-basis-of-physiological-factors)

<comment><USER8> That paper is referenced in this story.

<comment> ng-user Amazing how people don't even open the article isn't it?

edit: opening it is the easy part, reading however proves challenging for some

<comment><USER9> what article? all i see are comments ... nice juicy comments

<comment><USER10> I'll often just read the comments, or read a portion of them and possibly even comment (if it's not entirely related to the submission, as discussion drifts), prior to reading the article. If what I'm commenting about is related to the article and I haven't read it (such as noting related info), I generally do a quick scan and search of the article to make sure I'm not repeating what it said.

I don't think there's anything wrong with reading comments first, and in some select cases commenting yourself. Comments are why I'm here. That said, it's worth keeping in mind whether you've read the article though and how that affects your interpretation of what you're reading, and what you want to say. Be signal, not noise (I think that's a perfect motto for HN and summarizes the rules fairly well).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Elite marathoners are incredibly fast. It boggles the mind. But, for me, I'm more impressed by Camille Herron breaking the world record (men's and women's) for 100 miles in 12 hours, 42 minutes, and 39 seconds which is a 7:38/mi pace.

Running a 7:38 mile would be really fast for most adults, but to do it over 100 miles is unthinkable.

<comment><USER12> Agreed. Amazing accomplishment that many runners even don't know about. I had a friend running the same race and it took him just under 20 hours. A seven hour difference boggles the mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I believe everyone physically able to should try running 13.1 mph on a treadmill just to get an understanding of just how fast these athletes run for two hours. It is incredible.

<comment><USER14> Indeed, it's absolutely mind blowing.

Top marathon runners average faster than five minute miles. That's sickeningly fast.

Back in high school my fastest single 1600m (a mile is 1609m, but one lap on a track is 400m) time was around a 5:15, and my fastest 800m was 2:27.

These elite marathon runners basically took my fastest 800m pace and repeated it 50 times.

Insane.

<comment><USER15> For comparison in the other direction the world record 800m is David Rudisha 1:40.91 (2012). That's also ridiculous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I was going to call out this article on the "Untold" part, but apparently it was released before the NatGeo video [1]. The video is a good watch. I didn't plan to watch the whole thing, but it sucked me in. You really get attached to the runners.

When Kipchoge started falling behind, they seemed to not be worried, but I felt that they should have tried to remedy it right away.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2ZLG- Fij_4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2ZLG-Fij_4)

</comment><comment><USER17> mindblowing writer and runner [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2195464.What_I_Talk_Abou...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2195464.What_I_Talk_About_When_I_Talk_About_Running)

<comment><USER18> Yeah. I recently read the book and amazed by how good of a runner he is, especially his discipline and dedication. Inspiring, even might to the non- runners.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Speaking as someone who has run a lot of marathons and half marathons, it would be more honest to describe this project as attempting to have a human run 26.2 miles in under 2 hours in perfect, laboratory like conditions.

It's a little insulting to marathon runners to claim this is a 'marathon' IMO.

Long but fascinating article though...

<comment><USER20> I don't know why runners are so snobby when it comes things like this.

What if it was an official marathon where they run with very strong winds at their back. Would you consider that achievement worse than perfect lab like conditions?

It's a certain distance, by foot. That's it. I also see snobbishness and even anger toward run-walkers. Even if they do the same distance in the same conditions.

<comment><USER21> It isn't just perfect, lab-like conditions. It's a different set of rules. The International Association of Athletics Federations sets standards of what constitutes a marathon. Nike's event didn't follow those rules, so results in the two can't be directly compared. It's apples and oranges.

The most undeniable difference between the Breaking2 event and what would be allowed in an record-eligible marathon is the pacers used. In Breaking2, they swapped in different groups of 6 people to run in a carefully-engineered triangle formation directly in front of the main runners. In a real race, the winner cannot draft behind others the whole way. Because at some point obviously the winner must pull ahead, and the rules disallow drafting behind anyone who isn't running the same race. So the rules specifically forbid exactly what Nike did with pacers.

When you change the rules in a way that you know has a quantifiable effect on the outcome (and I'm sure Nike can tell you the numbers since they used computational fluid dynamics and wind tunnels to select the best pacer formation), it's not comparable anymore.

Now personally I don't have any problem with Nike's event. It was a fun exhibition thing that inspired and challenged people. Probably some good research even came out of it. But it's still fair to point out how the results on this don't really count.

<comment><USER22> They could have played games with the groups letting them get lapped but that would have probably been very challenging to implement.

<comment><USER21> Ah, thinking like an engineer!

You're clever, but the IAAF is thorough. Rule 144.3 says:

"For the purpose of this Rule, the following examples shall be considered assistance, and are therefore not allowed: (a) Pacing in races by persons not participating in the same race, _by athletes lapped or about to be lapped_ or by any kind of technical device (other than those permitted under Rule 144.4(d))."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Amazing. I hope they make it happen.

</comment><comment><USER24> Did Tesla battery last the whole race? ;)

<comment><USER14> You're asking if the Tesla managed to drive a whopping 26.2 miles on a single charge?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is not news. Why is this in the HN feed? I read this article months ago.

<comment><USER26> To add to what arcticfox correctly said: we put the year on articles from previous years but this one is from earlier in 2017. Historical material is super welcome here too.

The "News" in "Hacker News" is like a second-hand clothing store in my home town called "New to You". Of course this article didn't qualify in your case, but that's the general idea. Older posts can't be new to all of the people all of the time but in the long run there are enough surprises to go around.

<comment><USER27> One would hope that discussions about whether repeating old news is interesting or not is encouraged.

<comment><USER26> HN's definition of 'interesting' is for practical purposes pretty established. Of course we don't all agree, but there's enough of a stable core that I wouldn't say it changes much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Wear Altra shoes (or something similar) and protect your feet.

<comment><USER29> Something wrong with Nikes?

<comment><USER28> There is strong evidence of a need to wear shoes that don't pinch the toes (push them together) nor elevate the heel to much.

<comment><USER30> I'm just one data point, but as a semi-serious runner I tried switching from ordinary Nike running shoes to the cushion-less, toe-heel-preferred style, and found it made no difference. I think all this business about "running shoes are bad for you" is an overblown fad, no different than all the other fitness fads that come and go.

<comment><USER31> Came here to talk about that and see what people thought about barefoot running: either completely unshod or very minimal padding for protection only and not for landing cushion/support.

For better or worse, barefoot forces you to adopt a different gait. Stride length is reduced and landing is shifted more mid/fore-foot instead of heels. Now, can you do this in padded shoes? Sure. You just don't have much choice when barefooting: you will change your stride. If you view heel striking as a bad habit--maybe causing injury--this will prevent that at least.

Personal experience: old guy, unable to run much distance in regular shoes, and after a long conversion period changing technique, I can run a 5k comfortably without injury. Unshod. I'm trying to get up to a 10k. I do wonder if the technique will back-port to regular shoes or if the shod injuries will return.

<comment><USER32> My personal experience with this is that the real benefit for me with minimal shoes is that I forced myself to shorten my stride. I had to retrain myself by using a foot pod and a heart rate monitor that would beep if my cadence goes below 90 per minute. A high cadence forces my body to shorten its stride length and I think that has made a bigger difference for me in terms of injury than anything else. I've stayed with minimal shoes simply because it's easier to have a high cadence in light weight minimal shoes. Plus, the more padded shoes became unnecessary. Not sure if the technique works for you but could be worth trying.

<comment><USER33> I have the same experience, I couldn't even run 2 miles without inflammation flaring up in the knees (I tried to build up distance many times) - but after running with Evo barefoot shoes for about 2 years (which allowed me to run 10k:s without problem), I can now run with any type of shoes - but my technique is completely transformed with much shorter stride length and a high cadence.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


7-11 7pay terminating at the end of September - <AUTHOR> https://lin.ee/4CXvyAS <comment><USER2> I'm guessing no relation to the convenience store brand? Was thinking 7-11 had a payment thing. I know some brands want to develop their own payment systems instead of supporting Apple or Android Pay. Walmart has Walmart Pay and then CVS along with other retailers was working with some some payment thing called CurrentC while disabling their NFC terminals. At our local CVS store they now support Apple Pay, so maybe they gave up on that since 2016 - [https://9to5mac.com/2016/08/11/cvs-introduces-cvs- pay/](https://9to5mac.com/2016/08/11/cvs-introduces-cvs-pay/)

Also interesting my iPhone cable was fraying after slightly over 2 years, so bought a new cable while one of my family members were filling a prescription. I find it so interesting that a drug store seems to sell better cables than Apple. This one is what I believe braided, so far it seems more tougher and stronger.

Edit: Found a article about CurrentC. Looks like it never really took off, but was a way to try to save on processing fees. I don't get why companies get so upset about processing fees since it's a tax write off, I guess since it cuts into margins.

[https://www.applicoinc.com/blog/happened-currentc- platform-i...](https://www.applicoinc.com/blog/happened-currentc-platform- innovation-fails/)

I wonder with Apple offering their own credit card that gives higher cashback if that might make people want to shop at more merchants that accept it. I think it's kinda cool to pay for stuff using your watch, but maybe I'm a show off being in a small town. The first time using it in real life and the cashier mentioned how she doesn't trust it, which I'm a tech nerd so I understand tech more but I can see how people are afraid. Wouldn't surprise me if it was her first time someone ever used Apple Pay either. I have a relative who said he'd never do online banking because he doesn't want his information on the internet, yet his banking information is accessed by the computers in the branch in their database already. Wouldn't surprise me if the only difference is some fields in the database account table or a separate table for online enabled accounts. OnlineBankingEnabled, username, email, password (hopefully hashed!)

<comment><AUTHOR> > I'm guessing no relation to the convenience store brand?

7pay relates to 7-11 (Japan), which owns the US brand thru its holding company.

> Also interesting my iPhone cable was fraying after slightly over 2 years, so > bought a new cable while one of my family members were filling a > prescription. I find it so interesting that a drug store seems to sell > better cables than Apple. This one is what I believe braided, so far it > seems more tougher and stronger.

Apple seem to be allergic to strain relief and thicker cables, I too have a 7-11 cable that has lasted since the original iPhone 5.

> I wonder with Apple offering their own credit card that gives higher > cashback if that might make people want to shop at more merchants that > accept it. I think it's kinda cool to pay for stuff using your watch, but > maybe I'm a show off being in a small town. The first time using it in real > life and the cashier mentioned how she doesn't trust it, which I'm a tech > nerd so I understand tech more but I can see how people are afraid. Wouldn't > surprise me if it was her first time someone ever used Apple Pay either. I > have a relative who said he'd never do online banking because he doesn't > want his information on the internet, yet his banking information is > accessed by the computers in the branch in their database already. Wouldn't > surprise me if the only difference is some fields in the database account > table or a separate table for online enabled accounts. OnlineBankingEnabled, > username, email, password (hopefully hashed!)

Japan is a pretty conservative place too, I don't mind things changing slowly personally.

<comment><USER2> I guess 7pay never made it here to the US.

Oh you're from Japan? Cool! One of the places I've always wanted to visit, but sounds like a long flight. I know if I make it big in tech my dream is to travel full time but I think I'd prefer cruising. I know they have some repositioning ones there, so I guess you only have a flight back or find another cruise or fly to a nearby country after visiting for a few weeks. High speed trains sound fun too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> English:

Seven and I Holdings announced that 7–11's mobile payment service, 7pay, will cease operation at the end of September.

7pay started operation on July 1st. 1.5 million people signed up, but third parties were able to log into accounts and add funds to their own. Adding funds and new signups were stopped on July 4th.

As of July 29th, 38.6 million yen (~$300,000 USD) has been stolen from 807 people.</comment>


It's an Unequal World, but It Doesn't Have to Be - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/business/world-inequality.html <comment><USER2> Since this article is behind a paywall, I can't quite confirm my suspicion that this is pretty ironic.</comment>


3D-printed sugar network to help grow artificial liver - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18677627 <comment><USER2> Here is the press release from the original research team: [http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/penn-researchers- improve-...](http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/penn-researchers-improve- living-tissues-3d-printed-vascular-networks-made-sugar)

And a video demonstrating the process: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VHFlwJQIkE>

</comment><comment><USER3> I hate news like this. You read it and for a brief moment you go 'awesome', then you remember that you read it on the bottom of hn, and not the front page of every newspaper because it isn't yet tested, etc and ready for use.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hope it's tasty. The transplantation applications are amazing, of course, but the potential to 3d print a steak could have even further reaching implications.

<comment><USER5> I wonder what the limits are here in the long run.

Will we be able to print cooked steaks or will cooking still be required?

Will we be able to print a cooked steak, with off the shelf materials from the grocer for a reasonable price?

Will it be simple enough that I can press a button on my phone and have the steak ready by the time I arrive home from work?

Will I be able to order a pizza from a "designer" and pay for them to remotely print it to my house rather than deliver it?

<comment><USER6> You'll be able to get a new liver on demand! Jeez, forget about the steak!</comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft joining the ranks of referrer spammers?  - <AUTHOR> http://adblockplus.org/blog/microsoft-joining-the-ranks-of-referrer-spammers

<comment><USER2> I have to agree with monk.e.boy's assessment that they're probably just checking for cloaking. That's not exactly an exotic technique.

</comment><comment><USER3> Of course, anyone can set their reverse DNS to anything, and anyone can set their User-Agent string to anything... so I am not sure what, if anything, this says about Microsoft.

Did he check that the IP -> DNS -> IP "round tripped"?

<comment><USER4> $ whois 126.96.36.199|grep NetName

NetName: MICROSOFT-1BLK

$ host 18.104.22.168

184.108.40.206.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer msnbot-65-55-165-94.search.msn.com.

$ host msnbot-65-55-165-94.search.msn.com.

msnbot-65-55-165-94.search.msn.com has address 184.108.40.206</comment></comment>


Inline Caching - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_caching <comment><USER2> I am studying the Strongtalk code at the moment. I would be grateful for any more references to the subject of inline caching. Thanks all :-)</comment>


Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? - <AUTHOR> http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

<comment><USER2> Yes, it did. See the Cato report on the results here: <http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf></comment>


"Herd Immunity" and the UK Govt Strategy on Covid19 - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/iandonald_psych/status/1238518378039574528 <comment><USER2> better known as Zapp Brannigan strategy

Brannigan: "You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down. Kif, show them the medal I won."

</comment><comment><USER2> and in numbers by Irish TV [https://mobile.twitter.com/mattzarb/status/12387775882623385...](https://mobile.twitter.com/mattzarb/status/1238777588262338560)

UK is planning on culling its population by at least 277K.</comment>


Joshua Schachter: Elevator camera obscura - <AUTHOR> http://joshua.schachter.org/2007/07/elevator.html

<comment><USER2> This is reflection. In a similar camera, "view camera" <http://www.answers.com/topic/view-camera?cat=technology> the image is upside- down.</comment>