The Chumby One: More powerful, less cushy - <AUTHOR> http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/09/30/the-chumby-one-more-powerful-less-cushie/ <comment><USER2> For $100 I could see this gaining greater adoption. I think one thing that would be beneficial, that they probably have considered, is making the dev platform easier. I'd love to have one and hack with it and even use it as a learning tool, if I wasnt restricted to using Flash Lite 3. (Just looked into it and they have ported a bunch of languages over - maybe the price drop will make this a platform of choice to hack on)

EDIT: Link for reference to what I found: <http://forum.chumby.com/viewforum.php?id=7>

</comment><comment><USER3> This article should be plastered with a massive red warning banner that says:

      CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE
      We are, ourselves, trying to develop a product inspired
      by the original Chumby that we hope will be its competitor.
      It is called the CrunchPad, and it will arrive in time
      to play Duke Nukem Forever.

      In the meantime please enjoy our UTTERLY unbiased
      opinion on the upcoming next version of the Chumby.

The article's contents don't seem valuable, either. They express an opinion about the Chumby and then at the end, say "Oh, except that thing in the picture that we've been criticizing isn't what we thought it was."

TechCrunch, are you sure you wouldn't like to impose a _voluntary_ embargo? ;)

</comment><comment><USER4> From the article:

UPDATE – Chumby is reporting that the Chumby One is much different from the Chumby shown here. The plot thickens.

</comment><comment><USER5> The new one looks like those horrible TV's that you see at bus stations attached to chairs with a slot for quarters.

</comment><comment><USER6> One word: ugly.</comment>


Ember.js - Rich Internet Applications Done Right - <AUTHOR> http://www.infoq.com/articles/emberjs

<comment><USER2> Hey guys, please take a look at the following app: <http://editgrid.com/untitled>

It's the coolest web-based spreadsheets application built 6 years ago using no library, no framework. I'm a fan of it. It was looking just like this current version 6 years ago and was pretty fast at even IE6. And its 6 years old JavaScript code follows the rules of coding good JavaScript code way more than Ember itself.

Here is another story: I was working for a competitor of EditGrid and built a Microsoft Excel clone with dozens of features in 6 months, using no framework, no library, 5 years ago. We were two guys at frontend and two other guys in at backend. And our source code was almost pure object orient, mixable, reusable and relying on MVC, event-driven programming.

I've been shipping rich web apps for more than 6 years and recently had the chance of working with both Backbone and Ember. Here is my feedback:

The size of Ember library is bigger than total source code (including an AI library) of the last multiplayer game I built.

And both of them solve no problem, simplify nothing. They just force beginners to not code crappy code and that's all. Good JavaScript code should benefit of functional programming very well, like some NodeJS apps and libraries. They got no understanding of FP. Especially Ember relies on a horrible idea that increases the cost of development very huge. Very ironically, ember code is not reusable, not mixable with other web apps. It's not even unobtrusive, pollutes Object prototypes. When you finish your app, you got a huge garbage that has not even one piece of reusable code.

To summarize, there is nothing Ember does right. It tries to solve already solved problems in a very absurd way and is very irrelevant with the new problems JavaScript community tries to solve (such as code-reuse with NodeJS apps, it's partly solved)

It's the new, communist North Korea of JavaScript world.

<comment><USER3> I think that you should check out Angular.js. I have a blog post on it. Basically to write the app "no library no framework" (or even using jquery) - would be a lot more work. I think that you're trolling but I'll bite and link you anyway. [http://edwardhotchkiss.com/blog/2012/03/11/jekyll-live- searc...](http://edwardhotchkiss.com/blog/2012/03/11/jekyll-live-search-with- angular.js/)

<comment><USER2> I'm very happy and satisfied with my current development kits and methodology. I use no framework and don't write any classes.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming>

<comment><USER4> Please write an article about your approach, I am really interested.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If we're discussing JS client MV* frameworks, take a look at the demos of the various options (including Ember.js, Backbone.js, Ext.JS, AngularJS) on:

<http://addyosmani.github.com/todomvc/>

I've been getting into AngularJS myself, which is positioned as an alternative to Backbone, KnockoutJS, etc.:

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9588921/ember-js-vs- angul...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9588921/ember-js-vs-angularjs) [http://zdam.posterous.com/angularjs-vs-knockoutjs- knockout-g...](http://zdam.posterous.com/angularjs-vs-knockoutjs-knockout- gets-kod)

(AngularJS is undergoing a flurry of development so don't use the v0.9.19 branch on the site - instead, wait for v1.0 to be released, since v1.0.0rc2 is already out. <http://angularjs.org/#/> )

<comment><USER6> That's a great project. I've been learning coffeescript, backbone, etc and it's dawned on my how little I know about JavaScript, even though I've been using it for years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I went to the ember.js home page, which looks a lot nicer than parent article. Looks pretty cool. Anyone have any input how this compares to backbone or knockout?

<comment><USER8> That was my first question too. This is the best summary I found:

<http://smus.com/backbone-and-ember>

It links to a much longer IRC argument between their respective evangelists -- the whole thing is an interesting read if you like that sort of thing. But the takeaway is that Ember is pretty opinionated about how to connect views to subviews to templates to models to controllers to data stores, and backbone pretty much lets you/makes you do it yourself. So backbone might mean you're writing a lot of boilerplate, and ember might mean you're locked into decisions you don't like and slowed down by cruft you don't need -- same old tradeoff.

I'm excited to give ember a try, because my initial response to backbone was "wait, where's the rest?" I was expecting the level of handholding of, like, Django. So it'll be interesting to see what that's actually like in practice.

<comment><USER9> I've been extremely impressed with Knockout; just the right amount of "opinion" to make things easy without being too imposing. Its data binding interface is exactly what I was looking for to connect my models to views.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The quality of the code images honestly put me off reading the article.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can click to enlarge them, or you can click the link in the figure text to be taken to the correct GitHub revision of the file :)

<comment><USER11> Why are they images in the first place though? It's just code.

<comment><USER12> Sidenote: I love how Posterous has nice github code integration. I wonder what other blogging systems have something close/similar (for when I have to move off P).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is almost the best article I have read about Ember.js which is not a compliment in this case because there are so few of them. I dont even mind images for code parts, because of rarity of this content type. I like Ember a lot but it still has a long road ahead, until community matures around it and helps out with more blog posts, examples, tutorials. Best of luck because its cool stuff.

</comment><comment><USER14> Anybody else confuse this with ender.js at first? Time for another rename!

</comment><comment><USER15> By having all these images for the code sample makes it almost useless for me to tag and read later in one of my instapaper-esque tools.</comment>


Leaked IMF convo about ominous 'event' in Greece, ultimatum to Germany - <AUTHOR> https://www.rt.com/news/338201-wikileaks-imf-greece-event/ <comment><AUTHOR> Here are the transcripts of the conversation posted by Wikileaks yesterday.

[https://wikileaks.org/imf- internal-20160319/transcript/IMF%2...](https://wikileaks.org/imf- internal-20160319/transcript/IMF%20Anticipates%20Greek%20Disaster.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER2> What are the actual goals of the IMF? I'm struggling to understand why it is in their interest to bankrupt Greece.

<comment><AUTHOR> >The IMF assesses whether domestic policies promote countries' own stability by examining risks they might pose to domestic and balance of payments stability and advises on needed policy adjustments. It also proposes alternatives when countries' policies promote domestic stability but could adversely affect global stability.

[http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/globstab.htm](http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/globstab.htm)

In other words, poorer countries are often forced to take un-repayable loans to deal with a tough situation, they then find themselves subject to the true intentions of the IMF, which are difficult to discern.

The IMF often says one thing while doing the other to mask its actual goals.</comment></comment>


Uber is not the only tech company that mishandles sexual harassment claims - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/20/uber-is-not-the-only-tech-company-that-mishandles-sexual-harassment-claims/ <comment><USER2> But they seem to be the only one with a former female engineer who can write well and is willing to do so.

One of the less obvious lessons from this is the power of good writing. I know Susan Fowler's story is compelling on its own, but I believe her ability to write about it so well resulted in the backlash Uber is facing today.

Her blog post is engaging, to the point and her narration sets the right tone and hits the right emotional chords.

This is the perfect example of "the pen is mightier than the sword."

</comment><comment><USER3> We probably wouldn't even be thinking twice about it if this behavior was going on in Wall Street (not saying that's a good thing, but we sort of give that industry a pass since "that's how things are there")

But SV has cultivated a bubbly and "doing good in the world" image for itself. That comes with advantages and goodwill, but it also raises the moral bar for the industry.

<comment><USER4> Raising the moral bar: seems like that's also an advantage? (If we manage to do so.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't get the lame excuse that somebody who is a manager has some high technical breadth or is a high performer. From working in Silicon Valley I can't recall thinking that some random manager would be irreplaceable. Verify the claim then fire the idiot. Sexual harassment is not hard to stamp out after making a few examples of people at a company.

</comment><comment><USER6> "If sexual harassment is this entrenched, what is the answer?"

Well, one answer is to create stronger federal legislation that criminalizes this kind of behavior and protects plaintiffs. The ruling in the Ellen Pao case exposed the weakness of current law and judicial precedent.

Until plaintiffs feel secure in bringing charges and until companies feel true fear (legal and financial costs) in getting caught, I doubt much will change.

<comment><USER7> > Well, one answer is to create stronger federal legislation ...

That is one answer, but it's not a very encouraging or empowering one. The people currently in charge of the US federal government seem less likely than the average government to implement this sort of change. But leaving aside our harasser-in-Chief and his party's firm grip on the legislative branch, _federal legislation_ isn't something most people feel they can do much about anyway.

What I'd like to know is: what can I as a man in the tech industry do about this -- aside from not harassing people, which seems like a bare minimum.

<comment><USER8> > "what can I as a man in the tech industry do about this -- aside from not > harassing people, which seems like a bare minimum."

Those may be obvious basics, but starting at ones own (work) environment seems like a good idea:

Deliberate about the own behaviour and thinking. Acknowledge the existence of sexism. Speak out against sexist behaviour (starting with things like sexist jokes), even if it costs you your manhood in front of your (sexist) male co- workers. Don't think that it's only the job of your female co-workers to point out sexism and harassment.[0] Keep in mind that you can always decide just to go back to business and try to ignore the sexism around you - your female co- workers can not so easy.[1]

Oh, and when I look through the comments below the article at TC one more thing: Don't play the white knight or expect a medal for not being sexist - not being sexist should be a matter of course.

[0] Like "My female coworkers never complaint, so I thougt it's okay to just ignore or even enjoy sexist jokes and other innuendos."

[1] Disclaimer: Since I'm part of the rethorical "you" I have to admit that I caught my self just choosing the "easy way" more often than I wished.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I really wish this was a headline that surprised me.

I've always felt like I work at a company that would handle this well, but I don't particularly want to find out.

</comment><comment><USER10> This article makes many sweeping generalizations and references unattributed sources and people.

This is barely journalism - anybody can make unfounded accusations, but to indict an entire sector of industry based on 2 past incidents and one current pending unsubstantiated one is ridiculous.

<comment><USER4> Journalists do often report on what they learned from anonymous sources. No, it's not transparent, intentionally so. When that happens, you need to decide whether you trust the journalist to vet their sources.

<comment><USER10> Indeed.

From her profile:

> Megan Rose Dickey is a reporter at TechCrunch focused on diversity, > inclusion and social justice.

One of her latest articles:

> Dear White People, You Suck At Diversity

Most of her articles come with a huge SJW slant. The second title is directly racist. Also, it's odd that her article comes out the day after the Uber allegations.

Her use of anonymous sources and clearly biased views predisposes me to discount her vetting, especially with her profile and background.</comment></comment></comment>


Facebook secured an e-money license in Ireland,paving way for Messenger payments - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/07/facebook-just-secured-an-e-money-license-in-ireland-paving-way-for-messenger-payments-in-europe/ <comment><USER2> mahmoud lacoste</comment>


The Human Obsession With "Formal Proofs" is a Waste of Time - <AUTHOR> http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion94.html <comment><USER2> Isn't this just a rehash of the lates 19th/early 20th century intuitionits vs. formalists debate? Even though Gödel had shown that the ultimate goal of the formalist program is unattainable, they still mostly won that debate by being able to produce more meaningful results. The radical intuitionist, with whom the author seems to sympathize, did not only reject the axiom of choice, but even things like the law of the excluded middle (i.E. they assumed that "A or not A" is not necessarily true). That makes many proofs considerably harder to perform, if not totally impossible.

Not surprisingly, the formalist program was also more fruitful for endeavours like computational logic and the theory of computation, which resonate with the formalist tenet that mathematics is just the manipulation of strings of abstract symbols according to specific rules.

This <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer-Hilbert_controversy> gives some of the context.

<comment><USER3> I think it's more a "Humans vs Computers" debate. Some background:

Tom Hales cleverly reduced the Kepler Conjecture to the solution thousands of linear programming problems: if all the solutions are bigger than something, the kepler conjecture is true. Then he had a computer solve the LP problems, and the result was that Kepler was true.

However, his solution was informal in the following sense; he didn't have a rigorous proof that the solution of the LP problems was accurate, nor were his programs proven correct. Now he is attempting to redo the proof in HOL, a formal theorem proving system.

More background: no math paper is completely formal. All involve some handwaving, especially the 200 page monsters that appear in Annals of Math. An example from a paper I'm currently writing: "It can be easily seen by elementary calculus arguments that..."

Doron is arguing that the mathematical community is holding Hale's computer proof to a higher standard than it would hold a comparable 200 page human- written paper. Basically, he is claiming that we should accept an informal computer-assisted proof just like we would accept an informal human-written proof.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> One can prove, ab initio, that 1+1=2 in less than ten lines in Coq.

Algorithms are _meaningless_ without accompanying proofs. There should be --- and is --- a continuum of formality. The 20th Century has been unique in recognizing the fallacies and contradictions of completely informal reasoning; why give up when we're finally ahead?

<comment><USER5> >> Algorithms are _meaningless_ without accompanying proofs.

Most of what we write as coders (and in fact, most of what the world runs on) are algorithms without proofs which "mostly" work.

In fact, you could call almost all of our strategies in social interactions "heuristic algorithms"!

<comment><USER5> To whomever rated me down -- why do you think that human-written software has so many bugs? It's because we don't take the time (and don't have good strategies yet) to effectively "prove" that our code/algorithms exactly meet the program specs. To write code, we need to make certain idealizations (e.g. thinking about "doubles" as actual real numbers) which actually have tricky corner cases.

So many areas of life cannot easily be mathematically analyzed. Hence, our brain resorts to algorithms which work "most" of the time, which is luckily usually sufficient for survival.

<comment><USER6> It's typically because we don't even write a spec :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's hard to see how a computer would produce a proof of the Banach-Tarski "Paradox" ( <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=411043> ) without going through effectively the same steps as a human. It doesn't seem likely that it will be reduced to calculations, or simple formula manipulations such as can be performed by Mathematica.

And in case you think that B-T is irrelevant, informal reasoning about infinities produced all sorts of results that caused people problems. Formal reasoning about infinities gave us calculus for real, that works wherever it's known to work. And I use infinities on a daily basis designing and implementing systems to assist with tasks similar to air traffic control and automated target tracking.

Computers can be used to explore and experiment with numbers, geometry and some structures, and will probably one day be able to assist with exploring more abstract concepts, but as things stand today, there's a great deal of mathematics that no one can see how to do with computers.

To say otherwise is to demonstrate ignorance of both fields.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'd agree with the author that only logicians are interested in formal proofs.

But what the author describes as the Hilbet-Bourbaki method is simply what math _is_. Any mathematician will tell you that if you're not proving theorems then you're not really doing math.

Anyway, what good is a computer proof if it doesn't provide any insight ? (which is usually the case). A good proof usually illuminates _why_ some mathematical statement is true, and that is why computer proofs are usually looked upon with suspicion by many mathematicians.

After all, a computer simply churning out the answer (42 ?) doesn't advance the state of human knowledge at all.

<comment><USER9> What the author is disagreeing with, the Hilbert-Bourbaki method, isn't mathematics as the proving of theorems, but rather the proving of theorems as a necessarily formal task; that is, that when one is doing a proof it ought to be done in a (preferably intuitionistic) formal system with no steps omitted. The alternative, and what almost all mathematicians do in practice, is to informally lay out a proof that any professional mathematician (but, perhaps not a computer) can follow, filling in details as necessary.

Further, formal computer proofs are rarely wholly generated by computer. Rather the user specifies goals and tactics which the computer verifies or refutes. If one is using a reasonably powerful logic (ie first-order and not propositional) there are only relatively small tasks that can be automated. Hence, the result is often equivalent, or, at least, close to a human generated proof in terms of what is illuminated about the mathematical statement, but every step is necessarily valid.

Further, there is a field of modern mathematical logic called proof mining which concerns itself with the analysis of fully formal proofs and can often obtain illuminating details from a formal proof that wouldn't be possible from an informal equivalent.

This isn't to say that all mathematics should be formal in the sense indicated, but just to point out that it remains an interesting endeavor that is worth keeping an eye on. Also, note that the author /does/ think that formal verification of this sort can be useful for software development which is indeed what formal methods are mostly used for these days.

<comment><USER8> Some quotes:

"and I believe that mathematicians who continue to do pure human, pencil-and- paper, computer-less, research, are wasting their time."

"The axiomatic method is not even the most efficient way to prove theorems in Euclidean Geometry."

The author _is_ disagreeing with math as practiced by most mathematicians: proof using only pencil, paper and coffee.

BTW, formalism is only a fairy tale mathematicians tell their children when putting them to bed at night. In our hearts, we're all closet platonists.

<comment><USER3> He isn't disagreeing with the _goals_ of math as practiced. All your quotes illustrate is that he thinks the usual _methods_ are woefully inefficient.

More quotes:

"and I believe that mathematicians who continue to do pure human, pencil-and- paper, computer-less, research, are wasting their time." _If they learned how to program, in, say, Maple, and used the same mental energy and ingenuity while trying to use the full potential of the computer, they would go much further._

I.e., human + computer >> human.

"The axiomatic method is not even the most efficient way to prove theorems in Euclidean Geometry." _Thanks to Rene Descartes, every theorem in Euclidean Geometry is equivalent to a routine identity in high-school algebra,_

I.e., verifying algebraic identities is easier than euclidean proofs, especially if done by maple.

His main argument is simply that computer-assisted proofs should not be held to a higher standard than human-only proofs.

<comment><USER10> "I.e., verifying algebraic identities is easier than euclidean proofs, especially if done by maple."

If something like that has been discovered, fine, use it, and solve geometry problems in that way in the future. But how would that have been discovered without doing classical mathematical proofs? I don't think that some problems can be solved algorithmically proves that the same holds for all problems.

<comment><USER3> He isn't arguing against classical mathematical proofs. He is arguing that informal computer assisted proofs should not be held to a higher standard than informal human created proofs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The maniacal obsession with unassailable formal proof gives mathematics its credibility, above all else. There is a lesson here for all other endeavors that seek truth: Rigor uber alles. Take nothing for granted.

</comment><comment><USER12> Here's the link to the Dec 2008 issue of the Notices of the American Mathematical Society that this article is in response: <http://www.ams.org/notices/200811/index.html>

</comment><comment><USER10> I think he forgot to make his point, and the whole article is just flamebait.

</comment><comment><USER13> The question I see here is whether you are interested in Mathematics as end, or in the Application of Mathematics as an end. Certainly, if all you need is an algorithm that works, don't write a formal proof. However, if your mathematical work is foundational for some future algorithm, you need to know that p(x) holds for every x, not just a bunch that you tested.

Most students do not need to be concerned with (and indeed, are not instructed in) formal proofs. But, if we are going to push math forward, we need to lay a solid foundation of axioms and proofs.

</comment><comment><USER14> It is not true that the best way to do geometry is by converting everything into algebra. Proving simple geometric stuff like, the three altitudes of a triangle all intersect at a single point, is a pain using coordinates. Just because it's possible to convert problems in domain X into problems in domain Y doesn't mean that domain X is pointless.

</comment><comment><USER15> What human obsession with "formal proofs"??? Have you heard of religions?

<comment><USER16> Funny you mention it, because when I hear "obsession with formal proofs" I immediately think of Anselm and Plantinga.</comment></comment>


Facebook AND Instagram are Down - <AUTHOR> Both Facebook and Instagram are down. (from Sweden) <comment><USER2> Looks like they are back up.

</comment><comment><USER3> Both are up and running!!.

</comment><comment><USER4> are, no is.</comment>


Facebook blames a server configuration change for yesterday's outage - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/14/facebook-blames-a-misconfigured-server-for-yesterdays-outage/ <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19391736](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19391736)</comment>


Science vs. Music - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3oItpVa9fs

<comment><USER2> I see a _lot_ of material for an E&M and Waves course...

I also liked the Faraday suit... it seems like something out of a medieval context.</comment>


How to make biodegradable 'plastic' from cactus juice [video] - open-source-ux https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07c2cfz <comment><AUTHOR> Looks similar to "kombucha leather": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds8ZFzOwGeI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds8ZFzOwGeI)

<comment><USER2> Wow! Thanks for linking this.

I do arts & crafts and I use some animal protein based products, leather and other non-vegan stuff and I am looking for vegan alternatives.

As for TFA, I'm aware of a product called "Cactus juice" used in woodworking for stabilization. Does anyone know if it is similar to what was shown in the video?

<comment><USER3> The stuff used in woodworking is a resin, just heavily diluted, so I guess it's the same thing just with additives. I once forgot to close the bottle of it properly, and next time I tried to use it (months later) it was all dried down into a plastic-like hard stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I had some interest in that topic a few months ago, but still have some rather general questions. The idea sounds great, but it is hard to tell how helpful it is for the environment without doing some sort of a life-cycle assessment of the entire process. Question such as how sustainable is it if we need three cactus leaf to make one sheet.

Also, asking if someone might be able to answer or to point me where to read more. Is there a link between making plastic from plants and the plastic property of being non-toxic and/or biodegradable? Some plants are toxic, I would suppose this leads to toxic plastic. Same for biodegradability, how do we know the process of making plastic using plants (naturally biodegradable) plus other "things" leads to a plastic that is biodegradable?

</comment><comment><USER5> Indonesia already a biodegradable plastic replacement (in production) called bio-cassava bag [https://www.avanieco.com/portfolio-item/bio-cassava- bag/](https://www.avanieco.com/portfolio-item/bio-cassava-bag/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting. Most 'biodegradable' plastic isn't going to be very helpful as far as I have understood. See link below. This one seems to really biodegradable, but like with any of these materials it's the industrial process that will define its success potential.

[http://theconversation.com/when-biodegradable-plastic-is- not...](http://theconversation.com/when-biodegradable-plastic-is-not- biodegradable-116368)

</comment><comment><USER7> No real mention of its properties...

For example, Is it waterproof? If I were to package meat in a film of the stuff, would it start dissolving into the meat?

<comment><USER8> It says it degrades after a few days left in water, so not really viable to replace plastic bottles

<comment><USER9> But a great replacement for plastic grocery bags. And packaging for dry goods.

It doesn't have to replace ALL plastic uses. It's perfectly fine if it's just a replacement for specific uses.

Eg. Using a glass bottle instead of a plastic bottle

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > How to

Can't decide whether this is a clickbait or "rest of the fucking owl"</comment>


Unexpected performance of Javascript Arrays - <AUTHOR> http://jsperf.com/push-multiple-items-into-array

<comment><USER2> I haven't dug into this in detail, but On first glance this looks like a "micro benchmark", meaning that the runtime is likely changing the code that's being executed.

(Edit: The while loop is probably being unrolled, for example.)</comment>


Why does Google think the slowest animal is the sloth? - <AUTHOR> https://www.tedsanders.com/why-does-google-think-the-slowest-animal-is-the-sloth/ <comment><USER2> Google serves the most popular answers, not the correct ones. Most search piggybacks off google's advertising, so similar results.

</comment><comment><USER3> The last line is a bummer. It does prove the question asked, though.

<comment><USER4> Deletionism[0] is a plague on Wikipedia's culture. Time and time again have I seen useful content deleted, because a moderator would rather purge something not sufficiently high quality than expend the effort to actually fix it.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia)

<comment><USER5> Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't have moderators, but admins. Their function is not to moderate article content, but rather carry out technical duties like page protection. They don't personally decide if an article should be fixed or deleted. They close deletion discussions in which the editing community reaches a consensus on whether an article meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. This is not based on quality or usefulness, but rather notability. [0] If you're dismayed at deletionism, I suggest participating in these discussions and making arguments based in Wikipedia's policies and demonstrating notability with sources. I do, and I've saved many articles in the area I edit.

In this specific case, the article was proposed for deletion (a step behind a deletion discussion) and no one opposed it. The reason wasn't just based on quality issues, but also notability and original research. If you're interested in improving the page, you can request undeletion. [1]

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability)

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Ob...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Objecting)</comment></comment></comment>


Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/apps/2019/06/10/mozilla-will-reportedly-launch-a-paid-version-of-firefox-this-fall/ <comment><USER2> I'd be happy to pay for Firefox, but I have a few points that are important to me. They are probably not very realistic but here they are anyway:

1\. _I would like my money to go into Firefox development and nowhere else._

I certainly don't want my money spent on their content business, even if it is used as a leverage to generate more money for Firefox development. I'm torn about Rust development because I certainly would love to see Rust flourish, but if we allow the money go into personally preferred projects it becomes hard to draw the line.

2\. _I would like a Firefox with absolutely no strings attached._

\- No Pocket, not even a trace of it. The proper place for Pocket is a plugin.

\- No experiments, labs or whatever they call it (see Mr. Robot for an example)

\- No network connections to third party hosts as long I haven't explicitly opted in.

\- Safe search off by default

\- No predefined search engines

\- No predefined start page

3\. _I would like Mozilla (as a whole and not only the Firefox branch) to be more careful with the selection of their businesses partners._

I'm am not aiming at their co-operations with Google, Yandex and the like, which are OK for me. At least as long as my points from above are respected. Specifically I'm OK if the free version of Firefox continues to be sponsored mainly by Google. I'm not OK with business deals of the kind they had with Cliqz for example.

4\. _I would like to be able to pay without having to be logged into a Firefox account._

This is actually davidhyde's idea from another thread [1] but I added it here because I fully agree.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20144726](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20144726)

<comment><USER3> I'm pretty sure you are right now paying a lot more money to companies doing a lot less efforts Mozilla is currently doing. And now you are asking even more of them, just as a condition for maybe giving them something day.

See, that's one of the weirdest problem in FOSS: the fans hold them to a way too high standard, making it twice as hard to thrive. Once because it's hard to make money as an open source, benevolent product in a world of free for all. And another time because the very people that should be supporting you will always say you don't do enough.

<comment><USER4> I generally agree with this (FOSS fans can be wildly too demanding, especially for the tiny amount of cash donated)

But is the comment above really too high a standard? If a paid version of Firefox doesn't (1) at least strip the adware out, and (2) actually fund Firefox development, then what would even be the point?

If you want to blanket donate to everything Mozilla, you can already do that today. [https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/](https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/)

<comment><USER5> I think a default search engine and default first tab is fine as two examples where that list of demands is excessive.

And depending on what "no network connections to third-party hosts unless I've explicitly opted in" means, this probably breaks CDNs, multi-host content serving, and lots of common js distribution mechanisms in ways that normal users will find confusing and result in "Firefox doesn't work" if that's the default it ships with.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure why that is excessive, except that Mozilla made (maybe still does, I'm not sure) most of their money from getting paid to put search engines as their default. How hard is it to pop a dialog in the installer or on first run to let you pick? I don't think that is unreasonable.

And the default tab just means loading a blank tab up. The last time I used Firefox, this was already a setting that you could pick.

<comment><USER5> When I last installed it, the default tab was the Firefox home page (or some other Mozilla landing page), which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I find a lot of open source software insufficiently opinionated. Can't decide? Make it an option. Want to be "fair" to all? Make it an option _and_ prompt the user during installation! As a user, I like when I have options but when some kind of sensible default has been pre-selected to shorten the time and mental effort between deciding to install and the first "wow" moment.

<comment><USER7> You may be surprised at what the default looks like now-

[https://i.imgur.com/hGe837H.png](https://i.imgur.com/hGe837H.png)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'll buy whatever they're selling. I'm very happy with Firefox quantum, and I'd like Mozilla to have a sustainable income that doesn't come from the AdTech/surveillance industry.

<comment><USER9> I'll buy too. I spend hours every day using firefox. It's worth almost every price they could demand. But I still hope they give me some freedom back I had before quantum.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> There is a class of products with strong elements of charitable contribution. For example Plex Pass, endangered species chocolate, LWN subscription, and select blockchain tokens--and maybe this too. There are hard to pin down non- commercial benefits to purchasers mixed in with traditional value drivers.

With Plex, I purchased a lifetime membership not because I valued any of the added features (I don't use them to this day), but because I got so much value out of the project that I felt indebted and wished to express my gratitude. I wanted the project to live on, and I also got to brag about my deeds on tech forums. The incredible scaling characteristics of software allow me to already enjoy most of the benefit from the free/open base edition alone.

Here are reasons for my "charity-driven" purchases:

\- Admiration for project vision and desire to ensure its longevity

\- A sense of gratitude due to incommensurate value enjoyed for very cheap or free

\- Wanting to belong to the community and feel like part of the journey

I find myself valuing these items as "real commercial benefit":

\- Strong privacy guarantees

\- Cost-plus models such as selling managed storage, bandwidth, etc.

\- Subscription to updates backed by regular human labor

\- Access to premium support/SLA

</comment><comment><USER11> This looks like they're not so much launching a paid version of Firefox-the- browser, but a paid subscription service, including e.g. a VPN service. This is in line with their recent push towards Firefox as a brand for related services and products like Firefox Send and Lockwise in general, with the browser being specifically referred to as Firefox Browser.

So presumably, Firefox accounts will become a freemium service, where paid accounts have e.g. higher limits for Firefox Send, a VPN, etc.

<comment><USER12> If Mozilla is able to setup Firefox as a turn-key noob-friendly solution for a more secure and private web experience, then I can definitely see this as a sustainable business model.

For that however, many things (which are far from trivial) have to be done. Among other things:

      1. Focus on security. That means among other things:
       1a: Reducing core code complexity (for example, removing Pocket and integrating it only as an opt-in extension)
       1b: More audits
       1c: More Rust (and Servo by that extension)
      2. Focus on integrating more privacy-enhancing features, such as:
       2a: Reducing the effectiveness of browser fingerprinting
       2b: Integrating more features from Tor-Browser into vanilla Firefox. Would be even better if they integrated Tor out of the box too.
           In fact, Firefox should perhaps aim at 0 difference between TBB and vanilla Firefox.
       2c: Reducing reliance on (user-hostile) search engines. Perhaps integrate DuckDuckGo as default search engine in the future?
      3. Focus on marketing campaign which includes super noob-friendly (video) tutorials. I'm thinking something in the Kurzgesagt style.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> As long as it's all FOSS, this sounds like an excellent idea. I'd gladly pay for Mozilla to stop being beholden to Google.

<comment><USER14> Is it still FOSS if it's paid?

<comment><USER15> As long as all of the source is available under FOSS licenses, yes. Free as in speech, not free as in beer, remember?

Question is, will Mozilla actually stick to that? What the paid features also be open-source, at least to whatever extent the concept of source code applies?

<comment><USER13> Ideally, Mozilla would let us pay to use their servers, while also providing an OSS self-hosted version with equivalent functionality.

(Firefox is available under the MPL, which is a sort of compromise between copyleft and MIT-style licenses. So it'd be difficult to make any new FF feature entirely closed source.)

<comment><USER16> MPL does allow closed source extensions, Netscape wanting to create a proprietary browser on top of Mozilla was the main reason MPL was created and they didn't use something like GPL.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Yeah, this is a kind of misleading headline. I can't predict the future, but AFAIK there are no plans to launch a paid version of Firefox.

There are plans to launch paid subscription services & products in a Firefox brand family. Some of services may even be independent from the browser and be separate standalone apps & products. Some of the services may even - gasp - work in a non-Firefox browser.

Think of things like Firefox Send, Firefox Monitor, Firefox Lockbox, a system- wide VPN, an in-browser secure proxy. Specific plans are still in progress, but I don't think any of them are literally "you pay for browser now"

</comment><comment><USER18> Finally, a proper way to vote with my wallet in the browser wars. I'm sure Firefox can make more money from me individually by allowing me to pay them, rather than funneling me through Google for some eyeball $$$s, especially since I've personally switched to DuckDuckGo.

Actually that makes me wonder - how _does_ Mozilla currently make money off me if I've stopped using Google searches in Firefox?

<comment><USER19> How much would you pay for Firefox per year?

<comment><USER20> Not OP but I would pay $5-10 per month without blinking an eye.

<comment><USER21> Similarly, if there were a $20-50/year option, I'd probably go that route.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I see more than a few comments with some form of "I would pay if X/if not X/does X/does not X". The article, which has limited details, says that it would b some bundled services, such as a VPN service (like what Mozilla partnered with ProtonVPN for as a limited trial before) and online cloud storage.

At this time, it doesn't seem like this would be a paid version of the Firefox browser with a different feature set. Any decision of that kind could confuse people and hurt the Firefox brand, IMO.

Can we instead put out our wishlist of services that we'd want Mozilla to handle because we trust it?

1\. I'm stealing at least one idea from elsewhere in this discussion, which is a private paid email service with standard protocol support (like IMAP) with cheaper pricing for multiple mailboxes.

2\. Another would be a revival of the Persona (authentication) project and service. In light of Apple's announcement of "Sign in with Apple" in WWDC, this would make a lot more sense for people who trust Apple now, but don't really like the idea of trusting a for-profit corporation forever or have some other reservations with "Sign in with Apple". Persona can actually work with "Sign in with Apple" and many other providers.

3\. A hosted Bitwarden or Bitwarden-like service that can work on multiple platforms and browsers could be interesting.

</comment><comment><USER23> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20144521](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20144521)

</comment><comment><USER24> Not sure about a Mozilla-run VPN. I'd trust them to have a competent-enough service, but I would definitely not expect them to try resisting any western government getting hold of their logs (though I guess the claim of any VPN to actually accomplish this is dubious at best).

Maybe a good option if you live somewhere like China or certain Middle Eastern countries where you need a VPN just to get news not controlled by the government, but all of the VPN users who just want to hide their IP when torrenting will probably look elsewhere.

<comment><USER25> I think the latter would be fine as well. The objective their is to block DMCA notices sent by bots not suboeonas that require a human to be involved. Those rarely if ever occur.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Good luck to them, assuming they stick to their principles. But IIRC, experiments with paid browsers have typically not ended well. What makes them think they can pull it off?

<comment><USER3> Because:

\- it's only an experimental additional source of revenue. They already got money covered, they are just trying to find new way to become more financially independent.

\- they don't intend to sell the current state of Firefox. It will still be free. They intend to add stuff on top of the already awesome experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Excellent idea bundling VPN and cloud storage. Currently using proton and iCloud (mostly though relying on self hosted Nextcloud). Hopefully they'll offer NextCloud too.

</comment><comment><USER27> Chrome crippling adblockers creates a huge opportunity for paid competition. I would gladly buy a browser just to be sure adblock will always work.

Of course, FF + uBO is free, and one can always make donations. But buying a product feels different.

Also, businesses can expense what they buy with an invoice -- usually not the case with donations.

</comment><comment><USER28> I will pay for this IF they improve their PDF view/print. I know a lot of people say this, but it's just a really important feature for me which is really poor in Firefox. And I do pay for software and contribute financially to open source projects.

</comment><comment><USER29> Interesting bundling their services via the browser. Its a single point of entry vs Google (seemingly) access disjoint. Password management, notes, file transfer (and storage?) browse and secure connections through one browser is something I think Id want.

</comment><comment><USER30> If they want us to pay, they MUST provide dev tools that are as good as Chrome's, if not better.

My team builds a lot of PWAs, and Firefox simply did not provide good enough diagnostic tools, so we couldn't use it in earnest (even though we really wanted to).

<comment><USER31> What specific functionality of the Chrome dev tools did you miss in Firefox?

<comment><USER30> Ability to stop/start/reinstall service workers, view app manifests, validate app manifests, add apps to the desktop etc, store local results as global variables in the console. Connect mobile devices and run a local server on the mobile device.

There are more, but I can't think of them currently.

<comment><USER32> The UI is not very pretty, but about:serviceworkers lets you reinstall or unregister serviceworkers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'd happily pay as long as:

1\. It also funds Thunderbird.

2\. Their focus is on privacy/no telemetry, security and overall experience. NOT more rebrands!

3\. It helps pay for continuously updated blocklists, miner blocking lists, anti-content farm lists etc. that get built into the browser rather than through add-ons.

4\. Curated add-ons that are funded especially around security - too many add- ons don't get updated.

5\. Real profile management and switching.

6\. An expert mode with a proper download manager (pausing, reordering etc.)

7\. Self-maintaining, self-repairing and self-updating options so it ALWAYS just works.

8\. An outreach program to get websites/apps/etc. that are broken to fix them so we don't have to open up an instance of Chrome.

<comment><USER34> You can (and I do) specifically donate to fund Thunderbird: [https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/](https://donate.mozilla.org/en- US/thunderbird/)

Unfortunately, I believe that general Mozilla funding no longer supports Thunderbird in any way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> If this move will let Mozilla fund its operations, in an honest and straightforward manner, while doing things that peeve the surveillance&brochure&bigmoat dotcoms, that seems potentially great news.

</comment><comment><USER36> Looks to me like they'll be charging for an integrated VPN service; not like they're releasing a separate version of Firefox with proprietary components.

Brilliant way of funding free/libre software.

</comment><comment><USER37> When it comes to dependence on ad-tech money, the writing is on the wall:

> Cost per click on Google properties — which roughly measures the amount > Alphabet charges advertisers for each ad served on its web sites — dropped > 29 percent from last year and 9 percent from last quarter, which might be > alarming investors concerned that Google's pricing power for ads is eroding. > [1]

Additionally, Firefox is losing users, around 50,000 - 100,000 per day. [2]

They now want to add all kinds of additional stuff in order to make money. For a browser this is a death sentence. A browser can not be more than a browser, and ad tiles are the only practical way of making money next to search engine deals. While a pro-version of Firefox is certainly an interesting idea which can be sold to a tech-savvy minority, it neither can diversify their revenue in a meaningful way, nor is clear yet whether Mozilla is going to offer a paid Firefox version, or simply tries to upsell a software bundle branded with their name.

Mozilla paid around 30 million to aquire Pocket (one of their supposed foundations for making money), but there isn't any data to show whether they are profitable with it. Given the low number of ads in Pocket, they probably aren't profitable. In 2017, according to their financial report, they only made 2,5 million with Pocket ads.

Opera is the only other major browser that has to survive without having a tech giant behind them. They do everything they can to make money with Opera. And it has boiled down to ads in the start page and licensing. There's nothing more you can do.

Opera is surviving on three kind of deals: [3]

– search (ca 60%)

– ads in start page

– licensing deals on mobile phones

Licensing is off limits to mozilla because they have lost the mobile market.

So all that is left is ads on the start page. Its that simple. There's also a lesson to learn for Mozilla from the time Opera abandoned Presto: [4]

> "Because of our switch to the Blink engine, our retention rate on desktop > users is much better now. This is because most websites work in Opera since > we're using the same engine as Google. We think we've become more relevant > after we moved over to the Blink platform, and more companies now start to > work with us," Boilesen said.

> "We've got twice as many developers on the desktop browser now than we had > with Presto, because all [our] resources went into maintaining Presto. The > only error we made with Presto was that we kept it too long. Our change to > Blink was because we wanted to get on the offensive with regards to > innovation, we used too many resources to keep Presto competitive."

There are only two ways. You either stay innovative and keep up with the times, or you downsize and develop for a small niche group. Mozilla is doing neither.

[1] [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/04/alphabet- earnings-q4-2018.ht...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/04/alphabet- earnings-q4-2018.html)

[2] [https://data.firefox.com](https://data.firefox.com)

[3] [https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/02/browser-maker-opera-has- fi...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/02/browser-maker-opera-has-filed-to-go- public/)

[4] [https://www.zdnet.com/article/show-me-the-money-how-opera- st...](https://www.zdnet.com/article/show-me-the-money-how-opera-started- thinking-about-the-bottom-line-and-what-that-did-to-its-software/)

<comment><USER38> My greatest hope at this point is that some small group survives whatever happens and becomes the new Firefox, like Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox did with the original Mozilla. Maybe the Servo team?

Mozilla has seemed way too big to me for the actual useful development they accomplish (which is quite a bit! But the company's _giant_...) for years, and this move stinks of "death spiral" :-/

[EDIT] and Firefox has _been_ the new Mozilla browser since, what, 2.0? Bloated and slow. The original was so easy to sell to friends and family in no small part because it was snappy and light, even on early 2000s/late 90s (still-running desktops from a few years earlier) hardware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I'm unsure how many of the comments here read the article at all, but I see this as a smart move. Built-in VPN and cloud storage makes a lot of sense. They're building enough features between Lockwise, Send and soon VPN and some cloud storage, they're going to have a compelling package.

Toss in a secure @firefox.com email to use on the included cloud storage and Mozilla has my money.

</comment><comment><USER40> Take my money!

I've received incalculable value from using Mozilla products and I'll gladly pay to support them, especially when it comes to increased privacy.

<comment><USER41> I really hope there is a Paid Mozilla email service in there somewhere. That's what will get me to instantly sign up.

<comment><USER22> I've been donating to Thunderbird the past few years when it started accepting donations just for it (instead of being a donation to Mozilla though Thunderbird was spun off as a community driven project with some support from Mozilla).

If Mozilla comes with a paid email service focusing on privacy that's not just a white label rebranding of ProtonMail (which I won't use) or another existing provider, I'd surely be one of the first to try it out. Something that's preferably cheaper for multiple mailboxes with own domain support would be awesome.

<comment><USER42> Why would you not use ProtonMail? Genuine case of out of the loop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Good. Anyone who wants to avoid the internet becoming a Google/blink monoculture should be happy to pay for this.

</comment><comment><USER43> I use Firefox and have setup a monthly donation anyway. I understand that many people need something extra in return to give their money. So if there is a paid version which gives access to some _services_ like VPN or storage, and it works better than donations, then why not.

</comment><comment><USER44> The original interview is here: [https://t3n.de/news/mozilla-ceo-chris-beard- anbieten-1168614...](https://t3n.de/news/mozilla-ceo-chris-beard- anbieten-1168614/)

</comment><comment><USER45> I'm a long-time Firefox/Mozilla user, and I'd give it a try for $10/month. It would be an easy sell to me if it includes a reasonable amount of online storage.

</comment><comment><USER46> Remember when Opera had a free version with an ad on it? Ah those days...

Hopefully Mozilla will not go down that path. I certainly don't think so with all they are doing in respect to privacy.

</comment><comment><USER47> I already donate to Mozilla, and I'd be happy to pay to fund an actual open source browser that's not being produced by an ads company.

</comment><comment><USER48> Looking at their previous partnership with ProtonVPN, ten dollars a month for a VPN seems a bit high. My self hosted Algo instance only run ~6 a month with tax.

Maybe if they also gave some cloud storage it would be worth it. Being able to store a veracrypt volume with my important data in the cloud securely would be nice.

Current options seem to be Amazon, Google, or Dropbox. Spideroak has the "hive" but there's not really an option to just upload stuff, it needs to reside locally and be mirrored.

<comment><USER49> > Looking at their previous partnership with ProtonVPN, ten dollars a month > for a VPN seems a bit high. My self hosted Algo instance only run ~6 a month > with tax.

You are not the target market for this product. "A few more dollars than my self hosted solution..." is a sentence that typically takes you way outside the target audience of most products in this vein.

<comment><USER48> >You are not the target market for this product.

I've been using Firefox since it was Firebird. The people who did not abandon it are technically savvy folks who enjoy controlling our browser experience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'd pay for firefox. Relatively fine quality FOSS deserves it, so long as the "do no evil"

</comment><comment><USER51> Let's hope it includes blocking auto-play videos from TheNextWeb.

<comment><USER52> About:config Media autoplay default: 1 Media autoplay allow muted: false

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> They kind of have to go that way (offer extra VPN/storage as a service for a monthly fee), their market share of users has tanked since their last deal with Google, they're not going to get that kind of money from them any more. Gotta diversify.

</comment><comment><USER54> $500M a year isn't enough to develop Firefox?

<comment><USER55> Most of their money comes from Google. I presume they see a future where that becomes less likely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I would pay for a browser that didn't spy on me everywhere I went, this doesn't fit the bill for me.

<comment><USER57> How does it spy on you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Netscape is back on the menu, boys!

</comment><comment><USER59> If it's a paid version of Firefox this means it will respect our privacy by having no telemetry, no remote code execution via Normandy, etc, or will it be the same thing in that regard?

<comment><USER60> Better than Chrome will ever be.

<comment><USER59> That's open to discussion. Even if Chrome sends your data to Google (and it probably sends more data than Firefox), at least you know the data is being received by Google and not by unrelated third parties, like when Mozilla sent full URL history of some users to an advertisement company: [https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing- cliqz-i...](https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-in- firefox/)

<comment><USER61> The logic here is that Google will never send/sell your data to third parties ?

How do you think Facebook et al gets a hold of your google data ? How do you think companies like Cambridge Analytica thrive ?

I am genuinely curious to know what your view of the world on these topics is and why are you so insistently (and apparently naively) defending google in this regard.

<comment><USER59> I said Firefox is bad at protecting my privacy. Someone compared Mozilla to Google, so I said that even Google is better. In other words I'm not defending Google, I'm saying Mozilla is even worse. I despise Google, too.

What's your proof that Google gives your data to Facebook? That doesn't sound right. On the other hand, I showed proof that Mozilla gives your personal data (list of URLs you visit, no less!) to a third party.

<comment><USER62> Are you hoping people don't read the article you linked or do you not understand the approach Mozilla used?

The data is not used to identify the user by building a profile and the source IP is removed on collection. Now of course there's a level of trust required in them doing what they say, but this is nowhere near Google et al's levels of data hoarding and reselling anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Will it be called ... Netscape 10? I'm honestly asking / hoping. Does AOL still own the brand?

<comment><USER63> Since I got crickets on my question (as well as downvotes - love you HNers!) I looked it up.

Answer: Maybe Facebook?

[https://boingboing.net/2019/03/30/facebook- navigator.html](https://boingboing.net/2019/03/30/facebook-navigator.html)

TLDR; AOL bought Netscape, who sold it to Microsoft, who then sold it to Facebook.

Edit: Maybe not, the domain WHOIS shows it points to Yahoo! Oath Inc. - [https://www.whois.com/whois/netscape.net](https://www.whois.com/whois/netscape.net)

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> It will come with Premium Mr. Robot adds.

</comment><comment><USER65> A centralized VPN solution for all users is a terrible idea, and what is "secure cloud storage" going to offer that Dropbox doesn't?

I understand that developing a browser is expensive work and Mozilla need money to do it. I support them in this effort. But honestly no ones gonna buy this

<comment><USER66> I personally plan to, even though I run my own VPN & already pay for Dropbox. I definitely won't use the VPN, if the cloud storage looks decent I'll likely use it (since I already use encrypted volumes that I store in Dropbox, I only need to trust they won't delete/lose them).

I already donate to mozilla, I guess people have forgotten the web was during the days IE was dominant. I'm frankly shocked that so many web developers seem to be fine only supporting Chrome, at least those were the sentiments I was hearing when Edge went to chromium.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> I really want a version of Firefox that doesn't have adblock and is ad paid so it's free.

We could call it.. Chrome!

</comment><comment><USER68> Can we talk about the auto play video in the middle of this for a "Smell DJ" box for a moment.

People keep on trying to make the Internet of Smells and the devices keep on being bought by absolutely nobody. Who funds these things? Who thinks there's a market waiting to be tapped? I see some kind of scent-making box announced every four or five years and they all just fade without a trace.

This one can be controlled by Alexa. I doubt that's gonna be the wrinkle that makes it a must-have.

</comment><comment><USER69> I would do that in an instant if it:

Dropped WideVine

Dropped WebRtc

Brought back XUL Extensions

Otherwise, I'll keep using a pre-australis fork, until I probably eventually just decide to use Chrome. Firefox different distinguish itself from Chrome.

<comment><USER70> Wow, that's the most unreasonable take I think I've ever seen.

Also, Firefox doesn't come with Widevine. You have to click yes to download the module the first time you visit a page that uses it.

<comment><USER71> Dropping WebRTC doesn't seem all that unreasonable. It's not used that often and is a major source of information leaks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> There is no way Mozilla can remain a corporate entity and simultaneously make me feel like they deserve my money. It would require a complete clean break with Google, with the understanding that if they can't make it on their own, with their users, then it needs to be just a community project. If it makes money for Google, I don't trust it. If it supports Google, I don't trust it. And right now, Firefox does both.

</comment><comment><USER73> I'm a huge Firefox fan, but as many others here point out: for this to work in the long run they have to respect us and stop pulling all kinds of iRobot nonsense etc.

Mozilla needs to understand it is not OK to mess with my Internet banking client.

The browser is now critical Internet infrastructure and it is _not OK_ when someone scares me by force installing extensions.

Also while Normandie would have been OK with me of I knew about it ot annoyed me when I found out about it because of a mistake.

Mozilla could have had a 9/10 score but thanks to issues like this I rate them 7/10.

(Chrome however is far worse.)

</comment><comment><USER74> This is really scary. I keep getting messages from friends I converted to Signal, asking me to go back to WhatsApp since Facebook has a deal with their providers to not charge WhatsApp data.

Now picture those able to afford their first mobile plan, they don't have disposable income, they don't have the option to pay for Firefox, I'm afraid this will drive people to use Google even more.

<comment><USER62> It's a paid premium service, the free version will still be there.

People need to also stop thinking free internet services are genuinely free. Pay for things that provide value and if it's free, ask what value is in it for the provider instead.

<comment><USER75> Yup. The more "free" it is the more incentive companies/etc have to start misusing your data/etc. Google is "free". Facebook is "free".

If there's a cost I want to see that passed on to the consumer. Otherwise I can't trust a company, simply put.</comment></comment></comment>


Global stock markets lost $2 trillion in value after Brexit - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets-idUSKCN0Z92MZ <comment><USER2> Global stocks will bounce back, as happens with any event like this. The traders make their money and the markets correct.

Sterling, UK/EU banks and other sectors hit more directly could be in a more difficult situation though.

</comment><comment><USER3> Since most of that is owned by the 1% I really couldn't give a shit.

<comment><USER4> There are millions of "99%" folks with a 401k who are affected by this. And that's just the direct impact.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face is not a rational response to income inequality.</comment></comment>


Google photos allowed the wrong users to download videos - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/jonoberheide/status/1224525738268905477 <comment><USER2> Apart from the bug and the problems it led to:

This is probably the most degrading email I've ever read. Why didn't they try to write something empathic?

They've sent private (potentially critical) documents to someone else and the only feeling they admit it might provoke is "inconvenience". And they apparently aren't even entirely sure whether it may provoke such feelings, given that they chose to write "we apologize for any inconveniences this may have caused".

That plus the classic not to apologize for failing to keep user data private but to apologize for a feeling of inconvenience this may have caused. As if the problem was caused by the user.

It's like a formal version of "Hey, looks like in the end, you made a huge mistake by trusting us, Google, with your data. anyway. inconvenience? Sorry that you feel this way."

I think I'd struggle to write a worse notification letter. Who usually writes those things?

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah, these videos might contain extremely private information and have people in them that are publicly identifiable based on the video.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is tough, since this could kill careers, end families and destroy friendships, if the wrong photos where to end up in some public dump. It just requires one bad actor to know of this and abuse the service, trying to exfiltrate as many photos as possible and then run some ML face detection on the data set.

This mail is really shameful and lacks lots of information. If they have the log data, they should disclosure how many people got access to how many photos in which timeframe.

Google is really on a decline here.

<comment><USER3> I should have read the quoted mail with more focus, the timeframe is actually in there and it's rather short.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> See, the cloud NEVER loses your data - they even have decentral backups now! /s

</comment><comment><USER5> Expect a large GDPR fine coming their way</comment>


Caching could be the last thing you want to do - <AUTHOR> http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/07/24/caching-could-be-the-last-thing-you-want-to-do/

<comment><USER2> He does have a good point which is that caching when you are running many unoptimised queries is hiding the underlying problem. That said there isnt too much to see here other then dont rely on cache to save you and optimise other stuff first since cache might end up hiding the underlying problem making it hard to fix when you do need to.

</comment><comment><USER3> _In terms of future-proofing design, many applications are better off keeping it simple and (at least initially) refusing the temptation to try and solve some problems "like the big guys do"._

To me, this is the most important argument against knee-jerk reliance on memcache, sharding, (ironically) MySQL, NoSQL, or what happens to be the new fashion[1].

Understandably, buckling down and squeezing more out of the existing, tried and true, technology, is neither sexy nor exciting. However, you're no"big guy" yet, and, once you are, you'll kow that a bit of early tedium[2] can pay off.

[1] Like with clothing fashion, novelty is periodic, rather than monotonic.

[2] e.g. Google's early "cork board" servers could only be sexy in retrospect

</comment><comment><USER4> _Do your queries SELECT, only to use subset of columns? Or do you extract many rows, only to use a subset?_

All the database optimization in the world won't help you if your developers only know how to do

        SELECT * FROM MYTABLE;

<comment><USER5> Sometimes it's not that big of a deal. The idea is if you specify only the columns you need, sometimes those columns can be satisfied directly from the index (what's known as a covering index) and you don't need to seek around to the various data pages to pull the rest of the columns.

InnoDB though uses a clustered indexing scheme, where the rest of the columns are stored in the leaf nodes, so if you query by primary key, all the data is right there -- no extra seeking.

Anyway, obviously it's better to only ask for what you need, but it's not the stupidest thing in the world to SELECT with wildcard.

<comment><USER4> Well, also that you're not physically moving data you don't need across the connection.

I have literally seen "programmers" simply select like that and filter out the rows they want, or sort the entire table (and then filter out the rows), in their own code. Madness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sorry, I stopped reading at six sigma.

<comment><USER7> In this particular case, he could have written "reliably good performance is important". Which _is_ a sensible idea, buzzword or no.</comment></comment>


The Management Myth [2006] - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2006/06/management-myth/4883/

<comment><USER2> I've thought for a very long time that the MBA is the western equivalent of the Soviet apparatchik:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparatchik>

 _"Members of the "apparat" were frequently transferred between different areas of responsibility, usually with little or no actual training for their new areas of responsibility. Thus, the term apparatchik, or "agent of the apparatus" was usually the best possible description of the person's profession and occupation."_</comment>


Verizon To AT&T: Sorry, The Truth Hurts - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/16/verizon-responds-to-atandts-map-for-that-lawsuit-the-truth-hurt/1

<comment><USER2> I travel extensively throughout the US. I carry an iPhone and a BlackBerry on vzw (and also a vzw wireless broadband card with a Cradlepoint router).

The Verizon network wins hands-down for overall coverage/speed. If I am in a location with both 3G coverage _and_ available bandwidth on the 3G network, then the iPhone is a great mobile device. However, those instances are rare and quite often my iPhone is getting Internet access via the broadband card/Cradlepoint router over Verizons network.

</comment><comment><USER3> You know, I thought that they were doing somewhat acceptably in my limited experience with 3G... until I spent the weekend in Chicago with '3G' and 'Full' reception. I couldn't make or keep any calls, and the '3G' worked about 1/3 of the time.

Embarrassing to say the least. They work ok where I live now, but I'm likely going to switch away as soon as possible. Damn iPhone...

<comment><USER4> I had Verizon when I moved to Chicago, and now have AT&T for the iPhone. What a mistake. 90% of the time I have 5 bars of "3G" but the network won't actually transmit any data. Sometimes the phone flips back and forth from 3G to edge back to 3G, which most apps can't seem to handle. I drop well over 50% of my calls, while my wife's iPhone drops close to 90%.

<comment><USER5> Same here in CO Springs. AT&T "inflates" their connection information (more bars) on their phones. [citation needed I know] I can sit in my office with 4 or 5 bars of 3G and not bring up Google.com on my IPhone. I live on the top of a hill about a block away from an array of cell towers, but my calls rarely even connect (and drop all the time).

<comment><USER6> I've noticed this as well in an area with extremely bad reception (inside a skyscraper) - my iPhone seems to frequently default to showing 5 bars when it can't actually make or receive calls, but then when I go next to a window and it actually establishes a workable connection, the signal strength meter shows 1-2 bars.

I haven't seen a citeable source, though.

Edit: clarified a bit. Also, I wanted to add that I get one or more dropped calls basically every day, even outside (in Manhattan).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm astounded that AT&T filed a lawsuit over these ads. What would have been somewhat forgettable as a "snarky Verizon ad poking fun at AT&T" is now front- and-center in several media outlets, all with a positive Verizon spin. (Witness the comments here.) Even if they win (which is looking unlikely), all they've accomplished is getting the ads off the air - after drawing a huge amount of attention to them that they would not have otherwise received.

</comment><comment><USER8> What I don't understand is why hasn't AT&T fixed this problem? I'm sure they have enough capital to make the investment to end this discussion. If consumers are aware of this problem I'm sure that AT&T is. It seems like this would be a better long term solution than lawsuits.

<comment><USER9> It's possible that they're holding their cash to roll out something like WiMAX instead.

<comment><USER10> I think the proposition of a single WiMAX data network is just about dead. Hopefully the tech survives to drive things on the scale of municipal wifi projects - as it's a vastly superior technology than wifi in those situations.

But in any case, AT&T is firmly in the LTE camp.

<comment><USER11> that doesn't mean that Intel (who is firmly cemented in the WiMax camp) won't use its influence with Apple to get an WiMax-powered iPhone...

<comment><USER10> I don't doubt a WiMax-capable iPhone might happen, as a secondary data capability ala the existing WiFi support.

I just don't think it would be sold as a WiMax iPhone as opposed to GSM/CDMA/LTE.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> AT&T had a first mover advantage in smart-phones-for-the-masses market, but as Verizon starts offering comparable Android based phones with a much better network, they will lose this lead.

</comment><comment><USER13> I like my verizon, had them for about 10 years, but I hate them whenever I have to make/receive calls from home. The reception is junk, dropped calls, can only hear every other word.

Outside my house, perfect, inside junk.

Also their phone selection has been pretty crap until recently.</comment>


How to work in the US as a Canadian. - <AUTHOR> http://www.grasmick.com/canimfaq.htm <comment><AUTHOR> Also of use: <http://www.grasmick.com/nafta.htm>

According to this site it seems like it'd be fairly easy for Canadians to go and work for a few months in the US. I'm not a lawyer, so not 100% on any this but it seems fairly clear. I'm sure YC has real lawyers who will work out any details. This is just mostly to put my own mind at ease about trouble getting in. And it looks like it won't be much trouble at all.

<comment><USER2> My sister recently received a job offer from Microsoft at their Mountain View office. She will be moving there for the entire summer. I will let you know what the process involves. I am Canadian, and therefore concerned about this myself. (here's my email: firstname.lastname@example.com)

Someone please show us the light.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hi jward, The process is pretty easy for the TN-1 Visa, if:

1) You have a degree in a professional field (Software engineering, Computer Science, etc.)

2) Your employer can provide you with a letter confirming that you fit their requirements and will be employed for 1 year at X$ (the visa is renewable yearly) and is employing you in a field that is related your degree and expertise.

I am a Canadian and I just needed to go to the airport, just before leaving, and show the required documents (passport, diploma, grades, letter from employer) and for a small fee, I think ~80$, they give you a visa good for one year. Once there, you can apply to receive your social security number, etc.

Note that the TN-1 Visa doesn't work if you are planning on being self- employed or entrepreneur in the USA. The people at the border want to see that your employer will pay you and that you need to go there because you are highly qualified for the position. The visa is also voided if you leave your job to take another job or being self-employed.</comment>


Why counting should start at "zeroth" - <AUTHOR> We just had yet another big discussion of Dijkstra's "Why numbering should start at zero": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13186225
The mathematical arguments for zero-based indexing made sense to me as always, but I still couldn't get over the fact that a[2] refers to the third element of the array. If truth is beauty, and beauty truth, then why does the mathematically beautiful idea disagree with common sense counting of fingers?
I thought about it for a while, and had a radical realization: Common sense counting is wrong. It should start with "zeroth" instead of "first". It's not just about programming, but even everyday things like "my zeroth cigarette". The real world has tons of off-by-one errors that trip people up, that would go away if we consistently used "zeroth" to refer to the starting element of a sequence.
Here's a powerful example:
"The first year of the third millennium begins at 2001/01/01 00:00:00."
It's confusing in so many ways!
* The year 2001 is in the third millennium?
* But the year 2000 isn't?
* Hours start from 0, but days start from 1?
* Mommy, was there a zeroth year? When was Jesus born?
Now let's see what would happen if we consistently counted everything from "zeroth", from seconds to millennia:
"The zeroth year of the second millennium begins at 2000/00/00 00:00:00."
Music to my mind.
Actually, when you think about it, one-based counting isn't even consistent with itself! If you have a bunch of pigs with two-digit labels painted on their sides, then the first pig among the first ten pigs will be labeled 01, so the word "first" means simultaneously 0 and 1. With zero-based counting, the zeroth pig among the zeroth ten pigs would be labeled 00, and all would be right with the world. Not to mention easier to program.
What do you think, HN? Am I on to something here? <comment><USER2> Zero = nothing. 00:00 is midnight and is neither PM nor AM.

The only reason we have stupid 0 based indexing in programming is for looping. Nothing important hangs on the things you are concerned about. Which millennium doesn't really matter if it is confusing it is consistent.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a "red-team-as-a-service" you recommend? - <AUTHOR> I'm exploring pulling a red-team person permanently into a project, but can't quite justify a full time position.<p>Does anyone have experience with employing this as a service? Thoughts and recommendations? <comment><USER2> What do you mean by "red team"?

<comment><AUTHOR> A permanent function that tries to break into my systems in order to create structural pressure to think about security. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_team](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_team)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Name a specific issue that slows productivity while coding? - <AUTHOR>

Looking for specific things while actually working in a code base...ie "tracking through code libraries/hierarchy"..."remembering variable names"... <comment> alok-g In <i>increasing</i> order of importance:

1\. Interruptions and context-switching

2\. WTFs that are now everywhere, in language syntax, in libraries, etc.

3\. Incomplete or inconsistent libraries, with unexpectedly high learning curves (e.g. due to lack of good documentation), recursive dependencies, etc. Half the time goes into just wiring things together, whether code or data.

</comment><comment><USER2> 1\. Music that's not trancey enough to help me get in the zone or quiet enough that I still hear the office. Hard to find good music that hits both sweet spots.

2\. Library incompatibilities (Eclipse I'm looking at you).

3\. No code search to find specific methods across the entire code base.

4\. No here's what you were just working on list (especially important if you get context switched out to go fix fires and forget exactly what you were up to).

</comment><comment><USER3> This might seem trivial, but having so many editor tabs open that you can't see the name of the tabs anymore. Clicking one by one through the tabs to get to the one I want can break my concentration and throw me off.

</comment><comment><USER4> Answering market-research posts on HN. ;-)

Hey, it's true. I was happily coding along until I felt the need to check HN.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I was trying to stay away from the external factors like email/internet as those are pretty obvious and focus more an issues when you actually working and not being distracted :D.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> 1) Lack of good Unit tests. 2) Stupid colleagues. 3) Bad food.

</comment><comment><USER6> Builds that take a long time

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah I mean when you are actually coding though. I guess a better question would have been what "mental challenges" do you experience while actually coding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > ... a specific issue that slows productivity while coding?

Not periodically getting up and moving away from the task for an hour or so, to gain some perspective on the project and a bit of distance from the minutiae of coding solutions to many tiny problems.

Any number of times I have taken a break from coding, only to realize I was crafting the wrong solution by being too immersed at too low a level in the code.</comment>