We want to date, not hire... - <AUTHOR> http://blog.koding.com/2012/06/we-want-to-date-not-hire/

<comment><USER2> You built a great team of a whopping four persons over two years using serendipity, congrats.

As you're starting to maybe realize, this approach doesn't scale.

You think you're special, that your employee requirements are way higher than any other startup's, because you're just that amazing and world changing. Mathematically, you're probably not, and every startup out there thinks the exact same.

Ultimately, you're going to have to suck it up and just hire people who can do the job. Those emotional stories about how Koding came together are great— you want to "date" (what a silly word, but let's reuse it) your founders. But wanting to build a full team like that is just delusional. There's only one "best engineer I've ever met" in the world.

Some reading for you:

[http://careercarrot.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/looking-for- roc...](http://careercarrot.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/looking-for-rockstar- engineers-is-like-playing-tetris/)

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

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure. They sound happy and optimistic, whereas you sound cynical and jaded. Perhaps they have different goals. And while the solution to the secretary problem is well worth the understanding, I'm not sure how applicable it is:

      1. There is a single secretarial position to fill.
      2. There are n applicants for the position, and
         the value of n is known.
      3. The applicants, if seen altogether, can be ranked
         from best to worst unambiguously.
      4. The applicants are interviewed sequentially in random
         order, with each order being equally likely.
      5. Immediately after an interview, the interviewed
         applicant is either accepted or rejected, and the
         decision is irrevocable.
      6. The decision to accept or reject an applicant can be
         based only on the relative ranks of the applicants
         interviewed so far.
      7. The objective is to select the best applicant with the
         highest possible probability.

Is this really how you do your hiring? I won't argue with 1 through 6, but I find that 7 doesn't factor in the danger of a really bad fit. So I always take the second to last candidate to cut my losses. :)

<comment><USER2> >They sound happy and optimistic, whereas you sound cynical and jaded.

Well of course, they're founders so they have to be happy and optimistic, and as an engineer in SV I get people like them wanting to recruit me every day so I have to be cynical and jaded :)

I think the secretary problem applies very much. Ultimately, they're looking with people that a) have relevant skills and b) will fit in the culture.

If, as they claim, they tried all conventional methods of hiring over the past few months (and they have actually met a significant number of people and not just two guys at a random meetup), then they are probably unrealistic in their expectations. Ultimately, past your first or second engineer, you're looking for someone to get shit done, not someone to braid your hair with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The koding.com home page ("landing page", whatever) is one of the stupidest designs I've seen in a while. It has a huge image hidden partially off the screen at the bottom, but the scroll bar (and mouse wheel) do nothing. That makes me go "fuuuuuu", pretty much.

It turns out they have invented a new way to get content onto the screen, you're supposed to let go of your mouse and press one of the arrow keys so slide the image into view. Double-you tee eff?

Combine that with their attitude, and it makes we want to ... do something else, basically. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> ok - fair enough :) one of our teammates shares your opinion exactly as you worded it :)

<comment><USER5> And you will listen to him or her from now on?

<comment><AUTHOR> we will need little more feedback than that :) it's "soooooo stupid" that i edit my comment on hackernews, and it doesn't take me back to the story.

but that's not the point...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3>
      Users were coming in, we were so happy – and one day,
      someone created a Linux Group on Koding, and he sent
      me a message "do you need help?" I replied in a few
      seconds, otherwise servers would have crashed before I
      could hit 'send' I said "yes, but we're also broke :("
      he replied "who asked for money?". That's how we met our
      awesome sysadmin, Aleksey.

Sounds like a good approach. Great post!</comment>


Should games firms welcome or fear Chinese conquest? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37850092 <comment><USER2> These are not games companies, but e-sports ones mostly. So the Monkey Islands, Baldur Gates, Worms and Witchers of world seem to be unaffected.</comment>


Memers are making deepfakes, and things are getting weird - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/28/1007746/ai-deepfakes-memes/ <comment><USER2> Deep Fakes are merely the next iteration of Photoshop. Before the 90's, faking photographs required extremely labor intensive processes performed by experts. Multiple exposure tricks, splicing, painting.

One could have expected that the development of Photoshop would have been hailed as the end of trustworthy information, but instead we got memes and photo manipulations such as [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shark-attacks- navy-diver/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shark-attacks-navy-diver/)

I think Deep Fakes are good. They're going to breathe new life into media and make it significantly easier to make films, music, and all kinds of art.

The public will come to understand AI-generated media as a part of daily life. People are not _that_ stupid. The media (the only ones decrying this) need to stop with the Luddite hysteria.

I've actually been quite involved with deep fakes and wrote a few pretty big sites to help democratize the tech (the average person can't run Google colabs and Python) :

[https://vo.codes](https://vo.codes) (over 40 celebrity and cartoon voices)

[https://trumped.com](https://trumped.com) (just Donald Trump)

I've already got a real time voice conversion software nearly finished. I can do Discord/Team Speak and talk as Trump and Gilbert Gottfried.

I'll probably do the same for video soon.

<comment><USER3> > merely the next iteration of Photoshop

I think you're significantly understating the impact here.

You're talking mostly about content-creation, and in this context there are a lot of positives; I certainly agree with your statement:

> They're going to breathe new life into media and make it significantly > easier to make films, music, and all kinds of art.

BUT. I don't think you can, with a straight face, say that there are going to be no negative impacts of this technology. You make a claim that this is just like Photoshopping in the 90s, but I think the key difference here is that in the '90s, there was a fallback medium; when photos became unreliable, you still had video, which couldn't easily be faked.

Looking forward to the next 5-10 years, how does anyone figure out what's true when photos, video, and voice can all be trivially faked by anyone? What reliably medium can we fall back to? This could lead to a real epistemological crisis!

> The public will come to understand AI-generated media as a part of daily > life. People are not that stupid.

My problem with this position is that it hand-waves away some pretty fundamental changes to the fabric of our reality. How exactly do you propose that people are going to understand the world, post-'fakes? If any video you see in your twitter feed could be fake, how can anyone make any inferences about the world outside of their own immediate direct experience?

<comment><USER4> There was a time before video, before photographs, before writing even.

So, not new at all. We've got thousands of years experience in dealing with truth under limited circumstances with false claims. Consensus reality was a passing fad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think this is actually a good thing. The more the average person is familiar with deepfake tech, the less likely they are to get misled.

<comment><USER6> I like the philosophy, but tricking people isn't very hard. Apparently, some shaking camera footage of a computer monitor was all it took to discredit a political dissident [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/23/world/asia/cambodia- faceb...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/23/world/asia/cambodia-facebook- disinformation.html)

<comment><USER7> It seems like as soon as it confirms their bias they are willing to ignore if something is real or not.

<comment><USER8> You say "they" like this isn't something that every single person in the world does constantly -- nobody is immune to it. Confirmation bias is just a derogatory term for people having priors.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, and it really is _everyone_. For example, remember when the White House Press Secretary tweeted a video that had apparently been doctored to make it look like a journalist had attacked one of their staffers? There was a really clear, convincing comparison that overlaid a semi-transparent version of that video on the original, showing that it leapt ahead in the part where his hand went near her because it had been sped up to make the interaction look more violent. Many people spread it, including YouTube debunker Captain Disillusion with this message: "Getting lots of requests on the topic, but there's nothing for me to examine. This person has examined it, very simply and clearly. And I concur." [https://twitter.com/cdisillusion/status/1060564297103917056](https://twitter.com/cdisillusion/status/1060564297103917056)

Now, having compared the two videos myself and not found anything like this, obviously I had a look at it - and worked out the trick almost immediately. The comparison had the overlay ahead of the original by the same number of frames the whole way through from frame 1, but it was so faint that during normal viewing the difference was only visible in fast-moving parts, creating the illusion it leapt ahead in those parts. Easiest trick imaginable, could probably have been done trivially with film a century ago, and fooled someone who'd built a career and reputation around debunking faked videos along with many others.

(As for the White House video, that's a long story but the short version is that it seemed to be pretty much exactly what it purported to be, and the only actual "doctoring" was probably the obvious, intentional stuff like repeating parts of the video zoomed in.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This doesn't look very convincing.

Also, I didn't know you could run python in google drive.

<comment><USER11> >There's a telltale wonkiness to the faces in the videos made with this algorithm, which makes its handiwork easy to recognize; that is part of the deepfakes' humor. These imperfections—and the surrealist quality

Part of most meme's style is purposeful bad photo editing, so the poor deepfake quality is part of the format.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Relevant shameless art project plug. Nlp+voice clone model of Joe Biden. Streaming on hold until interactive chat is tested and complete.

Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of either of the two parties. Trump version to come.

[https://twitch.tv/biden_unleashed](https://twitch.tv/biden_unleashed)</comment>


Helm adds a link to a YouTube video on all charts - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/helm/helm/blob/master/pkg/chartutil/save.go#L34 <comment><USER2> For people who don't instantly spot Base64 data (ie, normal humans), if you remove the `+` and decode the remainder with Base64 you get

        https://youtu.be/z9Uz1icjwrM

<comment><USER3> Is this a joke or something? Whats the significance of Elves Riding to Eisengard for 12 hours?</comment></comment>


Show HN: LazyAnalytic: Turn raw events from your app into a meaningful feed - <AUTHOR> http://www.lazyanalytic.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN, LazyAnalytic has been my side project for a couple months. It's a tool that takes raw events from apps and turn them into a beautiful and meaningful feed.

The goal is to make it easy to explore what is happening on your app. I.e. Spot trends, find out which features users really like (or never use). A huge emphasis was to make the app intuitive for non-technical users so that they can explore the data without being overwhelmed by hundreds of graphs or being forced to disturb developers to do DB queries.

How is it different then Google Analytic or Mixpanel? Both of these tools are very good to answer specific questions. But it's hard to explore the events without easily getting overwhelmed by all the data. Don't get me wrong, I love GA and Mixpanel and I still use them on all my projects. But I still prefer lazyanalytic for exploring and discovering users' behavior. I like how I can see the big picture but dig into what seems intriguing in one click.

So far, I've got a MVP built for my projects and my friends projects. I'm working on the general framework to make it easy to integrate for any apps or websites. Still, if you'd like to try it out on your startup/project, make sure your register and I'll contact you. (Maybe add +HN in your email address or name).

Thanks!</comment>


I met with 26 startups for my birthday, and here's what we learned - <AUTHOR> https://writehub.io/people/thauburger/pages/public/535d18e2bab6ec000100006e?t=4254

<comment><USER2> Thanks Tom, for giving WeSawIt one of those hours. Really appreciated the advice and feedback!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, Chris!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why is PostgreSQL so popular now? - <AUTHOR> In the past year or so it seems like everyone is recommending PostgreSQL and building products with it.
It's been around since 1996 according to wikipedia, so why is there a resurgence now?
Are there new features? advances in tooling? Sharding? <comment><USER2> Because it works, it's reliable, it has good ACID compliance, it can scale, and it's supported by the big cloud providers.</comment>


Trustless Bitcoin bounty for SHA1, SHA256, etc. collisions - <AUTHOR> http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/31397880/ <comment><AUTHOR> Many people aren't aware of it but the backend Bitcoin system has no concept of "addresses". Instead when you make a transaction it specifies small bits of forth-like program code ([https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script)) that provides rules that redeemer of the coins must satisfy to spend the coins.

The normal 1xxx addresses are just template for a ECDSA checking script. There are also 3xxx addresses where the address is a hash of an arbitrary script, and the redeemer provides the script and satisfies it.

This can enable powerful applications like "trustless escrows" with no mediator trusted to hold the coins, or bindings to external zero knoweldge proof systems ([https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/why_hash_locked](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/why_hash_locked)).

In the posting linked here the author has paid funds to be redeemed by someone who can provide collisions for a non-linear (SHA1, RIPEMD160, SHA256, RIPEMD160(SHA256()), SHA256(SHA256()), and ABS() are the respective bounties)

Anyone who has Bitcoin can add to these bounties by simply sending funds to the respective 3xxx address which is a hash of the rules that check for a collision for the given function. The Bitcoin system itself arbitrates the rules, so there is no other party that must be trusted to pay or whom could withdraw the bounty after you begin your effort.

The SHA1 bounty has address 37k7toV1Nv4DfmQbmZ8KuZDQCYK9x5KpzP ([https://blockchain.info/address/37k7toV1Nv4DfmQbmZ8KuZDQCYK9...](https://blockchain.info/address/37k7toV1Nv4DfmQbmZ8KuZDQCYK9x5KpzP))

A disassembly of its script is:

        OP_2DUP OP_EQUAL OP_NOT OP_VERIFY OP_SHA1 OP_SWAP OP_SHA1 OP_EQUAL

Or, in English: Duplicate the last two elements on the stack ([A] [B] -> [A] [B] [A] [B]), then compare if the top two elements are equal and push the result, if they're not equal remove the result and continue processing, then compute the SHA1 of the top element on the stack ([A] [B] -> [A] [sha1(B)]), then swap the top two elements ([sha1(B)] [A]), then compute the SHA1 of the top element ([sha1(B)] [sha1(A)]), and compare the result. If the final state is true the script passes and the spend is permitted.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the explanation, I am still trying to wrap my head around how bitcoin really works. This is so freaking incredible.

<comment><AUTHOR> No problem, a lot of the "block explorer sites" give a very highly cooked view and really obfuscates the underlying behavior (e.g. makes transactions look like they have a from address, translates scripts into addresses and don't let you see them directly, or doesn't show output indexes, etc).

There really isn't a good low level viewer out there other than the Bitcoin-qt debug console or the bitcoind rpc.</comment></comment></comment>


A new app to manage customer feedback - <AUTHOR> https://cnflx.io <comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys, our new app is currently launched in closed beta. To give you an idea of what it does, we created a tool that helps you bring all your feedback in one place, where you can manage it easily in order to get the most out of customer insights. Ideas are managed through it as well and you can make them public for people to feedback (only visible by you) and vote on them. This way you can check the validity of ideas before you even start on implementing them.</comment>


I need testers from USA and UK for my new webapp - <AUTHOR>

I am seeking some folks who would help me testing a new phone verification system for my web app.
I plan to buy US and UK toll-free numbers and I need somebody to place calls from there and see if the app works correctly.
Your kindness will win you a mention in the hall of fame as "Country Pioneers"
Anybody helps?
Thank you! <comment><USER2> I'll help test in the US I'm located in CA... find my email in profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you cl8ton! sorry, your email is not public. Can you mail me? info (4t) veriring (dOt) com

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I am located in Colorado, USA. I'll help. Use firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment> why-el Sure, use my email in my profile. :)

</comment><comment><USER4> London, UK... Email in profile.</comment>


Ask HN: What is your phone/laptop mail client? - <AUTHOR> What is your phone/laptop mail client? What are main advantages over competitors?<p>Is there something you miss or dislike? <comment><USER2> As a user of mac mail I started to look out for other email clients because I had trouble connecting my Google accounts. Plus Apple support was of no help. I've been using Polymail from a couple of months now. Honestly, I'm pleased with it so far. It's a great tool for sales and marketing professionals. My thoughts:

Pros :

Clean & simple UI Available for both mac & IOS Provides host of productivity tools like email tracking, send later and read later Rich Contact information like Twitter bio, photo, current job, etc Email history of a customer in one place Let's you unsend emails as well. Life Saviour.

Cons:

Email sync is slow sometimes

</comment><comment><USER3> Note that I have 2 main requirement : 1\. Open source. 2\. GPG integration

Mutt on laptop, k9-mail on android.

mutt ++ : just do what you ask him to do. lighter than any other solution I've tried. you don't need your mouse to use it.

mutt -- : Not always packaged with a conf. a bit confusing at first

k9-mail ++: GPG integration (using another app). incredible tunning level. well integrated with android

K9-mail --: few UX issues</comment>


The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism - <AUTHOR> http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/eaao5580/tab-pdf <comment><AUTHOR> > Algorithms for predicting recidivism are commonly used to assess a criminal > defendant's likelihood of committing a crime. These predictions are used in > pretrial, parole, and sentencing decisions. Proponents of these systems > argue that big data and advanced machine learning make these analyses more > accurate and less biased than humans. We show, however, that the widely used > commercial risk assessment software COMPAS is no more accurate or fair than > predictions made by people with little or no criminal justice expertise. We > further show that a simple linear predictor provided with only two features > is nearly equivalent to COMPAS with its 137 features

<comment> wu-ikkyu >Proponents of these systems argue that big data and advanced machine learning make these analyses more accurate and less biased than humans.

This assumes the data sets of the criminal punishment system are not inherently biased, which is of course a false assumption.

All this does is make the runaway train of the US criminal punishment system a more efficient machine.

<comment><USER2> > This assumes the data sets of the criminal punishment system are not > inherently biased, which is of course a false assumption.

It doesn't even require that assumption to go awry.

Assume there exists a stereotype, say "people with freckles are more likely to be criminals". It doesn't actually matter if the stereotype has any basis in reality, just that it is widely believed.

People will, on the margin, be less likely to hire freckled people. This reduces the legitimate employment opportunities available to a freckled individual, which tends to make the illegitimate opportunities more attractive by comparison. So the stereotype becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: by assuming that freckled people are more likely to commit crimes, society actually causes freckled people to be more likely to commit crimes.

An expert system will notice this and begin using "has freckles" as a weighting factor in predicting recidivism. It's important to note that the expert system is not wrong. Freckles _are_ in fact, at this point, statistically correlated to recidivism. But the expert system can't know _why_ the correlation exists. All it can do is tighten the vicious feedback loop, noticing a statistical correlation that strengthens the existing stereotype, which exacerbates the real world impacts, which increases the statistical correlation, which strengthens the stereotype, and so on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Not the main point of the paper, but

>it is argued that the COMPAS score is not biased against blacks because the likelihood of recidivism among high-risk offenders is the same regardless of race (predictive parity), it can discriminate between recidivists and nonrecidivists equally well for white and black defendants as measured with the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic, AUC-ROC (accuracy equity), and the likelihood of recidivism for any given score is the same regardless of race (calibration)

Simpon's paradox [0], probably one of the most insidious problems of well intentioned statistics.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox)

<comment><USER4> How is this Simpson's Paradox?

<comment><USER3> There is a corralation across the entire population that does not exist in 'bucket' of the population.

More importantly, the bucketing involved is reasonable and has explanatory power. (If this were not the case, you might have picked the buckets specifically to get this result. Still an example of Simpsons Paradox, but not interesting.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is an interesting paper on a subject that has provoked debate on HN in the past. I would be interested to read criticism of the methods from those who have expressed support for these kinds of automated systems.

The most obvious criticism is that the uninspiring performance of the COMPAS model does not provide any evidence of the weakness of automated systems in general, which is surely correct. This kind of argument would not, however, address more general concerns about how and why these kinds of systems are adopted - why is this system being used when its performance is not obviously competitive? (The answer to that is presumably "corruption", in a generalised sense, but that is hardly an adequate response.)

Even more broadly, as the complexity of human society increases, it seems likely that the difficulty of making constructive interventions will also increase, and possibly more rapidly ("The Collapse of Complex Societies" by Joseph Tainter investigates this hypothesis). It does seem risky to just plough on, hoping that we can invent our way out of any problems that might arise as a result of what we are doing.

<comment><USER6> Well hold on. COMPAS performs as well as people but costs less than getting a jury together or paying a professional. So I wouldn't say that's uninspiring.

It also performs as well as their simpler model. But they only evaluated the simple model on data from a single county. There's not enough evidence to determine whether that model would perform as well on other data sets. I would presume, perhaps wrongly, that more work has been done to ensure the generalizability of COMPAS, the results of which work militated against the adoption of a simpler algorithm. Possibly because the algorithm has to avoid racial disparities that might creep up in counties with a different demographic mix. Even if the simpler model performs equally well across many jurisdictions, that merely suggests that a simpler non-proprietary algorithm would be better. But we're still choosing between algorithms, not discrediting the idea of algorithmic sentencing altogether.

<comment><USER5> As long as you are vaguely positivist then we are surely only "choosing between algorithms" \- the question is rather how those choices are made. When we consider computerised solutions we are nearly always forced to radically simplify our frame, dispensing with "judgment". This can be an advantage, because it reduces the scope for individual bias, but it can also be a disadvantage, because it reduces the scope for mitigating _systemic_ biases. It is much more difficult to design a perfect system than it is to apply corrections to a merely good one - capturing what those corrections are, however, is very difficult.

As an aside, do you have a source for the cost comparison, because I didn't see anything in the paper?

<comment><USER6> In the interests of disclosure and not as an assertion of authority: I must admit that I am a lawyer and my perspective is shaped by my dissatisfaction with the profession's lack of scientific rigor both in the academic and practical spheres.

And as an initial matter, I would point out that there is no judicial procedure which relies on algorithmic sentencing or bail decisions without a judge reviewing the decision. COMPAS is merely used to produce a recommendation for a bail amount which a judge then has to review and approve. Defendants are still afforded a hearing where they can object and raise any extenuating circumstances. So to the extent that judicial discretion can address systemic biases, it already does.

And I certainly recognize the value of judicial discretion. Mandatory minimums alone demonstrate how prioritizing the punitive and retributive goals of the judicial system over simple human mercy can amplify the negative effects of racial and other social biases.

However, my experience has been that the legal field has a strong systemic bias _against_ empirical or statistical techniques. Essentially anything that involves math. There's a running, tired joke at every law school that students pursue JDs because they couldn't get a good score on the math GREs (the LSATs in contrast involve no math).

And to clarify since I am at risk of confusing what we mean by the term bias: I am not denying that the legal profession is susceptible to the social biases you mention, but rather I would argue those biases are impossible to address until the deeper, methodological biases in how the legal profession pursues objective truth are addressed.

Algorithmic sentencing and bail setting software can assist there in two ways. First, it ensures the collection of extensive, objective, and standardized data that can be used to evaluate the potential systemic biases you are concerned about. A single, consolidated, structured database with enormous amounts of information about each individual defendant is a gold mine for researchers. Simply put, we cannot even begin to resolve our biases without first identifying them. Software like COMPAS can help (though I'm not sure if it does in this case because I don't think they provide public access to the data).

Second, the introduction of this software gives lawyers a chance to get used to machine learning algorithms and other advanced statistical tools. They're powerful techniques and need to become a larger part of the standard lawyer's tool kit.

I don't think COMPAS is the terminal destination for sentencing software. In fact, I really hope otherwise. But, as a profession, I think we need to start taking steps to modernize our practices, one little step at a time. Each individual step may be imperfect at first, but so long as we maintain judicial discretion and careful oversight, these tools will be a boon for American justice.

And in response to your last question, I don't have a citation on hand. I've read it somewhere before. Basically they replace a professional clerk or low level prosecutor in the DA's office who prepares a bunch of data and biographical information for the bail recommendation to the judge. It ends up being about one FTE a year and the software costs less than that to license.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for a comprehensive reply, and I apologise for not seeing it earlier. To frame what follows, my perspective is that of someone who spends a lot of time learning about and using these kinds of techniques.

You seem to appreciate the problems with potential biases, and your point about data collection is well taken, though I would note it doesn't require application of algorithmic sentencing. I would, however, urge you to continue to think about the difficulty of automating the sentencing decisions made by a human, from a mathematical perspective - the problem amounts to performing factor analysis by simply throwing away a large number of factors that are difficult to measure. It is not clear to me that that method will be able to capture those difficult parts of the distribution that people intuitively refer to as justice.

I also urge you to continue to think about the difficulty of optimising that automated sentencing procedure, which requires you to select parameters to optimise for. This problem faces similar difficulties - whereas a human might update their judgment on a wide range of observations (potentially including everything they experience), for an automated procedure we typically have to choose a handful of parameters based on some expert intuition about what is important. The choice of those parameters can be critical, and can expose feedbacks that would be naturally corrected by humans.

The previous two points are often dismissed as merely being difficult challenges, rather than fundamental problems with the techniques, and, whilst I am inclined to agree with that perspective, they are _difficult_ challenges, and the decisions that such systems end up making can (and often do, in my experience) have consequences that weren't expected.

This leads to my political reason for being cautious about these systems, which is motivated precisely by the fact that they can be cheaper, at least when one is only making a comparison based on decisions per dollar, or something along those lines. I am happy for these systems to be used by informed practitioners as a mechanical aid to their decision making, but cost savings are such an evergreen issue that I fear pressures to dispense with the human and "make do" with the automated system will become too strong to bear (for the politicians, not the lawyers).

Ultimately one can imagine a system that is constantly improved over time (an expensive prospect) could result in more objective sentencing - my concerns are that uncaring politicians will exploit the availability of the techniques to cut costs, and that once those costs are cut it will be difficult to justify the (relatively) increased expenditures necessary to fund improvements. I don't have your insider's perspective, but I suppose overall I struggle to accept that saving costs in this way is one of the most necessary reforms to the American justice system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> On a semi-related note, Theodore Dalrymple (ex-prison psychiatrist) argued that the practise of parole should be ended for similar reasons: [https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/parole-is-unfair-and- unw...](https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/parole-is-unfair-and-unworkable- lets-abolish-it/)</comment>


Why America abandoned nuclear power, and what we can learn from South Korea - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us-france-korea <comment><USER2> So, I've worked in the nuclear industry (just a scaffold builder), so take this with a grain of salt, but there are a few things I think get left out of the conversation.

One is how absolutely catastrophic coal fired plants are. People often talk about hypothetical scenarios with nuclear, but tens of thousands of people are dying every year as a direct result of coal power and that doesn't even take into account the long term effects of climate change. We need to be aggressively pursuing _any_ and _all_ alternatives to coal, in my opinion. This might sound a little crazy, but I almost feel the situation is urgent enough to justify the president declaring a national emergency and using the national guard to unilaterally shut down these facilities. I realize that's completely unrealistic, but I hope it conveys my sense of urgency.

Another thing I'd like to touch on is the handling of nuclear waste. It's absolutely problematic, but I'm curious about the marginal cost/risk of additional waste now that we already have to deal with it. We already have to devise a solution to the problem, so it seems like that offsets the cost of dealing with the additional waste of more reactors. Even if we didn't use nuclear power, we would be generating waste from research reactors, nuclear medicine, etc, that we would have to deal with. If you have to figure out how to safely store a ton of material for ten thousand years, does it really cost twice as much to store twice as much material?

<comment><USER3> Can't we just bury the radioactive waste in the desert?

<comment><USER4> It's not that simple. Check out the documentary "Into Eternity" on the impracticability and difficulty of "burying" nuclear waste which remains deadly for 250,000 years.

<comment><USER5> That's because you're burying usable fuel, breeder reactors eliminate the waste problem for all practical purposes, the reason they're not being built has been entirely political. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reductio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reduction)

<comment><USER6> Look at the Breeder reactor controversy section of the article you linked. The reasons aren't entirely political. But rather financial.

Capitalism is the culprit.

<comment><USER5> Most of the financial reasons are political. NIMBYism makes nuclear in general very expensive, even though coal blatantly kills more than even existing nuclear tech, not to mention potential next gen reactors.

In case of breeders, the 2nd argument that makes them expensive is that they're an "proliferation risk".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Everyone is so terrified of nuclear waste, because it lasts "hundreds of years", which seems like a really long time. Why is almost no one terrified of chemical waste, which lasts literally forever, or at least until after the Sun burns out?

Global production last year:

Arsenic (arsenic trioxide): 44,000 metric tons

Mercury: 1,900 metric tons

Selenium: ~3,000 metric tons

Beryllium: 400 metric tons

Lead: 4,000,000 metric tons

Cadmium: 23,000 metric tons

All of this stuff will last literally forever, and is more-or-less impossible to destroy. This doesn't include all the fun chemicals (eg. cyanide) which are possible to destroy, but get dumped into the environment before disposal and so are floating around anyway.

<comment><USER8> Having visited the Hanford site in Washington State, it's a pretty epic thing there trying to deal with the waste from WWII.

Actual nuclear waste is a 10,000+ year problem, not hundreds of years. But the 100s of years problem is more about where long-term storage should be (Yucca Mtn. etc.).

When you tour Hanford, what do you see (free tours for US citizens, BTW)? You see many ancient reactors - all disabled now except the preserved first reactor. You see -every single decommissioned nuclear submarine-'s reactor in long lines. And they remind you: based on ice ages, in 15,000 years or so, it won't matter... the entire plateau around Hanford will be under water. So it's going to need to be somewhere else.

Wild stuff.

<comment><USER9> Dumb question- why not launch it into the sun?

Do the (projected) costs of storing it for 10k+ years exceed the costs of leaving Earths orbit?

<comment><USER10> Not a dumb question, but as the sibling comment reflects - it has been pondered before, and it is indeed a "dumb solution", unfortunately.

In addition to cost of launching such huge mass, and the risks of catastrophic failure (blowing up mid-launch would probably end up being worse than the chernobyl-distaster -- think a really, really big dirty bomb with areal detonation) -- there's also the risk of missing the sun, and ending up with a man-made comet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If we ignore waste for a minute, this article highlights a key issue for why nuclear in the USA will _never_ be as cheap as France or South Korea. Those countries can impose a single builder, single supplier requirement and enforce it the whole way through. That'd never happen here, everyone would have to get involved. Blame cronyism and the US lobbyist political system, but _every_ nuclear company would freak out if they weren't the chosen provider, and then they'd sue.... and then it'd be as expensive as it is now.

<comment><USER12> Another difference is the legal regime. The U.S. makes much more extensive use of the courts as a tool for balancing interests, and an indirect way of regulating industries, which makes projects much slower, riskier, and more expensive.

In a country like France, you can't normally sue to stop a nuclear plant being built. Once the government decides to build it, they have sovereign immunity from suits in their own courts. So if you don't want it, you can agitate for the government to stop it, but you can't sue the project to stop it (or at least, there are many fewer ways to do so). The U.S. by contrast has waived its own sovereign immunity in a lot of cases, setting up a more decentralized decision-making process where the legislature passes general laws, agencies like the DOE and EPA are delegated rule-making authority, and courts then adjudicate disputes. The multiple levels of government (federal agencies, state agencies, federal courts, state courts) add another complication.

<comment><USER13> Little known fact: the legal regime in the US shields the utility from liability in case of accident. Recall the utility wasn't sued after Three Mile Island.

If utilities were made liable for harm for nuclear disasters, how long do you suppose it would be before every last one was decommissioned? I suspect all the cost savings TFA hopefully imagines vanish in comparison to the cost of liability.

I also note TFA makes no attempt to express the South Korean costs in USD terms. It wouldn't surprise me, given the state of South Korea's economic development in 1971, if what the graph depicts is not a miraculous decline in costs, but a predictable trend toward the global norm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I still think the waste is the elephant in the room. Exactly how is the (indefinite) cost of safely managing it factored into all those kilowatt-hour costs? Does it include tax-dollars going to projects like Hanford or Yucca Mountain?

Even if we're now experienced-enough to develop good socio-regulatory systems for _day-to-day generation_ safety and standards, is the same _really_ true for the waste? Our collective record is still a sad tale of fraying "temporary" solutions, leaks, NIMBY reactions, and playing an institutional game of radioactive-hot-potato.

<comment><USER15> The waste issue has already been solved. You turn it into glass then store it somewhere geologically stable, such as Yucca Mountain. See [http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html](http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html)

<comment><USER8> The glassification plant at Hanford is just starting to come online, but Yucca doesn't want it.

We have a political problem now, not a technical one... and yeah that's going to be a tough one. I wonder how long until someone figures out ways to let a 3rd world country be the deep bore storage place and allow export?

<comment><USER16> > I wonder how long until someone figures out ways to let a 3rd world country > be the deep bore storage place and allow export?

I very much doubt that'll happen. Political stability for a waste repository is going to be just as much a concern as geological stability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This article is really light on the problem of complexity. Even relatively simple reactors have huge amounts of pipes and wires and such many of which need to be able to handle unusual temperatures and acidity levels. This is one of the reasons that Thorium looks great on paper but is doomed in reality. The sheer complexity of even relatively simple implementations is overpowering and causes the costs and organizational challenges to make sustainable alternatives look cheap.

<comment><USER18> My impression for a while has been that nuclear power is one of those techs that looks good on paper but fails in practice due to what Elon Musk calls a high "PITA factor." (Pain in the A$$) I interpret PITA factor as referring to the existence of a long tail of thorny, hard, nasty, complicated problems that do not show up on a straightforward "paper" model of the tech. Some don't show up because they're complex edge case issues, and others (like "black swan event" risk) are just flat out hard to quantify. I also think wishful thinking plays into it, since if a tech looks sexy and cool on paper there's a desire to believe in it and it leads us to overlook less obvious or less straightforward to analyze issues.

Elon uses high PITA factor when talking about why SpaceX isn't pursuing hydrogen as a rocket fuel. It similarly looks awesome on paper but results in higher TCO and higher complexity in practice. It's cheaper (according to SpaceX) to use kerosene or methane and build a bigger rocket.

For nukes vs. renewables it's likely _overall_ cheaper to just over-build renewables and storage than to handle the long tail of pain from current-type nuclear. Spend a few billion dealing with nuclear waste, or spend a few billion on more generation and storage capacity. The former is sticky and complicated, while the latter is just straightforward commodity scaling of stuff everyone already knows how to build and handle. It's stupid and simple and scalable and if it's not enough just do more of it. In other words: just build a bigger rocket.

What I say applies to conventional and near-term fission. Fusion and other exotics might be a different ballgame. Fusion would likely be complex and high capital cost but it doesn't have the waste and "black swan failure" issues that pee in the pool for fission.

<comment><USER19> I think the perceived "black swan event risk" of nuclear is the result of over-hyping a few incidents rather than doing a rational across the board risk assessment. When a rational across the board risk assessment is done, nuclear does less harm per unit of power generated than any other energy technology. But the harm from other technologies is distributed in space and time (for example, coal dust in the air and radioactivity in coal ash), so it doesn't get the big media play.

<comment><USER18> I don't disagree per se, but I think if you also factor in a lot of other sticky nasty things about current-generation nuclear power it's one of the issues that weighs it down.

I also think PITA factor is kind of a death by a thousand cuts -- a "long tail" as I said.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> As with many article about proponents of power from nuclear fission it totally misses the cost rise due to future accidents. If past is any indication, those will inevitably happen increasing the operation cost for all plants. We literally export the cost of dealing with the mess into the future to get cheaper prices now.

<comment><USER21> > If past is any indication, those will inevitably happen increasing the > operation cost for all plants.

What we can learn from the past is that advanced technologies become much safer over time. I don't have the numbers here, but air travel is maybe 1000 times safer than when it started.

So I'd be very confident assuming the accident rate in the future to be vastly less than during the first few decades of nuclear energy.

<comment><USER20> The problem is that total potential harm from a nuclear accident is very big. It is limited, but if the limit is all fission materials from the reactor dispersed into the air or used to produce a real nuke by terrorists, then the cost can be loss of millions human lives. Compare that with aviation where the worst that can happen is a loss of airplane and few buildings.

Given this potential threat anything that will be discovered to increase its probability will increase operation cost of reactors in the future. This is just not the case with planes. There minimizing the risk beyond a certain threshold is sufficient especially since it is known that an error in estimation of that threshold is bounded.

<comment><USER21> > the cost can be loss of millions human lives

Can it really? That would be an order of magnitude worse than the Hiroshima bomb.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This video provided some downsides to nuclear that I was not previously aware of: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3nhhOitYmk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3nhhOitYmk)

You can make a lot of PV's in the 14 years it takes to make a fission plant. I'm all for Thorium research, but fission as it is now has a lot of downsides.

</comment><comment><USER23> The fear of waste has always struck me as illogical for a couple of reasons:

First, uranium is not some mythic dark magic demon that we conjure from a hellish fairy land in another dimension. It's a naturally-occurring rock that we intentionally dig up because it's useful. Another comment mentions lead, mercury, etc. as being even more terrifying, but again, these are natural elements that we mine for various uses. They're not new. They've always been here. Most of the fear is just superstition.

Secondly, fear seems to be predicated on the idea that we need to dump all the stuff, we need to find a single place to concentrate it all when we dump it, and we need to leave it there for thousands of years. Of course no one wants that next door. But why try to find a place to dump all this lead/mercury/uranium while we're still digging up and refining more? Why not find ways to use it?

We used to take just the kerosene and dump most of the rest of the oil because we just didn't know what to do with it. Turns out gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel did have uses after all. We also didn't know what to do with heavy oils, oil sands, etc., but we've found ways to process them into something useful.

If we do need to dump some (perhaps because we don't yet have the technology to filter out impurities), why not just put it back where we got it, or scatter it around the way that it is found naturally, or better still just tuck it away for a few decades until it becomes useful? Because it won't be a problem for a million years or 10,000 years or hundreds of years. It will soon be a valuable resource.

With nuclear waste it's especially odd. That is by definition mass that naturally produces energy, and we're most worried about how to get rid of the stuff that will produce energy for a long time...while we are simultaneously worried about how we're going to produce enough energy to meet the demands of the future. Yet people are suggesting that we launch it all into space! How different would our world be if we had launched all the gasoline and diesel into space before we knew what to do with it?

</comment><comment><USER24> Considering this crazy NK guy just issued a threat. We should be on your heels

</comment><comment><USER25> The implicit assumption seems to be that we need nuclear because solar and wind alone (with presumably cheaper batteries in the future) won't be able to supply the needed power.

It is hard to prove something like that, that future technology can't do something, but the author doesn't even try.

<comment><USER26> > There's a compelling argument that the world ought to be building many more > nuclear power plants.

The writer starts the article with the assumption stated explicitly. He punts on that question to discuss cost. Whether or not Nuclear is a requirement can be (and has been) discussed elsewhere. I think that's fine, because it was still an interesting article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Is Thoriam a real alternative?

<comment><USER28> Thorium, and not yet.

<comment><USER29> As far as I can tell the basic problem with Thorium reactors is they would be more complicated and expensive than conventional reactors. Given that, Thorium probably isn't going to happen at scale for a long time even though it's technically doable.

<comment><USER27> Both China and India are investing in it with China claiming it will have it working within 10 years...

It seems like the Molten Salt Refactor is much safer than a Liquid reactor will ever be. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor)

<comment><USER29> I just noticed UPower (YC S14) is also working on it

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195554](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195554)

Dunno how that will go.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> "Plus, there are thorny issues like how to dispose of radioactive waste and how to decommission old plants."

The fact is, we're creating tremendous amounts of potentially dangerous waste and we have no long-term plan, much less the technology to pull it off. We don't know what the political situation will be in a country 500 years from now. If we put 1/100th of the money that we put into dangerous technologies and subsidizing fossil fuels and put them into renewables, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Germany is on track to be 100% renewable by 2020. Including solar. And they are not exactly known for their excess of sun.

<comment><USER31> "Germany is on track to be 100% renewable by 2020"

Do you have a source for this? It seems completely unbelievable.

<comment><USER32> No he doesn't because what he said is complete bullshit.

[http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nuclear- powe...](http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nuclear-power- germany-renewable-energy)

<comment><USER33> [http://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/05/new- study-95-renewable-p...](http://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/05/new- study-95-renewable-power-mix-cheaper-than-nuclear-and-gas/)

"New Study: 95% Renewable Power-Mix Cheaper Than Nuclear And Gas"

Applies to both France and Germany.

<comment><USER32> Sounds like we still talking 35 years from now:

"With wind and PV growing to 80 % of total power production in 2050, the study gives a lot of attention to how – and at what cost – the different regions can fill the gap when neither the wind nor the sun can meet the demand."</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


India's Billion Digital Identities - <AUTHOR> http://thefinanser.com/2016/09/indias-billion-people-digital-identities.html/ <comment><USER2> The whole digitizing India is total and complete sham.

Old Govt. offices atleast used to work, and had forms in local languages. Now, you need to have,

\- A scanner, to have all your documents scanned

\- A printer, to get a "printout" of the receipts

\- A computer with internet

\- A shit ton of patience, since the sites barely work.

... and of course, all the forms are now only in English (courtesy of your "nationalistic" regime - you're welcome!).

Of course, you'll still need to go to the Govt. office (where files provide for rat fodder and pigeon litter) to give them the receipts and stuff. I imagine, this is how most conversations end up,

"No what do you mean you don't have a computer, or speak English ? Get out of here you pleb!"

Digital India my arse. My parents are sick of this moronic hyped up shit - there is no fallback now either, nor is there some accessibility help. I can't imagine how this helps the mute 90%, if its such a bloody pain even to the top 5%.

Now this UIDAI thing. Removing this massive big-brotherish database was on the election manifesto; instead Modi gave his blessing (he's after all a re- incarnation of Vishnu[2]) after coming under the spell of Nilekani. It's now being pushed heavily, ostensibly as some "magic wand" that can fix India's leaky bureaucracy - problems which in reality could've been fixed by simple bank a/c numbers.

The Supreme court of India, which in the middle of its supreme quest to civilize the "barbarians", directed the state to make sure this additional layer be made non-mandatory; obviously this directive is routinely ignored.

I'm extremely wary of this additional layer which was essentially pushed down our throats with barely any public consultation.

It's anybody's guess how this kleptocracy will use such information in the future. I expect to see a massive roll-out of online censorship/internet spying in the future - even "liberals" [1] in India are calling for ID regulated internet access. Perhaps, once the time-servers are kicked out in '19, Madame, her highness, the Queen of India, Sonia Gandhi, and his highness, his excellency Sir. Rahul Gandhi, Prince of India, can bless us with this marvelous policies, and bring about another glorious age of slavery.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0OwfGzcYmo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0OwfGzcYmo)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwgMvbEyV_s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwgMvbEyV_s)

<comment><USER3> Counterpoint : My parents in India love the "digitizing India initiative" and do not share your opinion. My mom, who has knee surgery and difficulty walking , can summon a three wheeler on Jugnoo (uber is expensive for retirees), get groceries delivered etc. My dad can pay the bills online for water and electricity and check his bank account. Residential ownership records are digitized -- the bureaucracy is less powerful . I had visited MCD offices in Delhi 20 years ago and now recently -- I would have to be blind to say that things have not improved dramatically. 20 years ago I had to wait for 3 months for a document which should have been given to me ; last mont I just had to wait in a queue for an hour --- I never paid a bribe in both cases.The Adhaar card has worked very well : I remember when I first wanted to get a cell phone in India -- proof of identity and residence was a nightmare as I was a renter.With the adhaar card, this is not an issue.

However, I am curious about your experience in India. I browsed through your comment history and I sense your loathing mixed with pessimism of all things Indian. Would you care to share your experience ? How did your experience shape you ? I am genuinely curious.

<comment><USER4> How is that got anythign to do with aadhar/uidia?

Yes, change has happened, and it got much faster after the 1991 reforms, but what has that to do with digital india?

Calling Jugnoo/uber/ola = companies serving customers.

Pay bills for water/elec/banking = same as above.

Residential ownership digitized - as are several other records, and this has been going on for a while.

To get a phone you need proof of ID, and aadhar isnt the only one.

BUT - in my life time I have seen it become compulsory to provide ID when you go to stay at a hotel (this is from before 2005), extensive ID to buy... well almost anything.

Want to know who got what medicines, then got onto a flight, and went to which hotel, along with other persons who went to the same place?

Well thats the system we are building.

And the aadhar team has by design (and I know that some of those guys probably come to HN) created a "market place" style system. Anyone can and is supposed to use their infra to validate ID data.

Thing is, I am old enough (and not even that old) to remember when you didn't need it. When there were not scanners in front of malls and in front of hotels (post 26/11 additions. I saw them come up).

The west built their success with systems which worked, not tech magic bullets, and thats always what counts in the end

<comment><USER5> I don't think anyone in GOI feels Digital India == aadhar. That's only part of it. Digital India is about creating the ecosystem which starts from providing Internet access, digitizing more govt services, creating awareness among rural population to sell their goods(my uncle sells cotton online through a govt portal now), access health care services etc. Farmers now get their alerts from Indian Agriculture dept, Irrigation dept etc.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Testing for Internet Explorer just got a little easier - <AUTHOR> http://www.modern.ie

<comment><USER2> Nice to finally see Windows 8/IE 10 support for Mac. Anyone know of a way to use the trackpad to emulate multitouch in IE 10?</comment>


Snipcart - Effortless Shopping Cart for new or existing websites - <AUTHOR> https://snipcart.com/

<comment><USER2> Great idea and nice execution!

But I think 2% over sales is too much for a shopping cart API!

And what Snipcart does to avoid fraud? Like the user changing the HTML attributes.

<comment><USER3> We crawl the page that you specify within the data-item-url attribute. We validate that no product informations has been altered. If so, we simply ignore the order and nothing is charged or processed.</comment></comment>


IBM to Acquire the Weather Company - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/technology/ibm-to-acquire-the-weather-company.html <comment><USER2> Hopefully IBM can fix the weather data industry. It seems ridiculously broken right now that if I want to get a "prediction" of how much it's going to rain next week there are a million free sources, but if I want to see how much it actually rained in the past week then I need to pay thousands of dollars or else figure out how to parse a bunch of obscure and undocumented formats.

<comment><USER3> Wunderground has lots of data available. They may have actually been part of this deal as they were owned by The Weather Channel.

[http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSFO/2015/10/28/...](http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSFO/2015/10/28/MonthlyCalendar.html?req_city=San%20Francisco&req_state=CA&reqdb.zip=94101&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999#calendar)

<comment><USER4> Wunderground is included in the deal.

[http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/47952.wss](http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/47952.wss)

<comment><USER5> Aww I love this app except their ads. I'm not sure what IBM's plans for this is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6>
      The company also has a popular mobile app, which Mr. Kenny said
      collected barometric pressure from its users' phone sensors.
      Millions of locations are turning in information 96 times a day.

Well, this is news to me.

<comment><USER7> Uninstalled.

<comment><USER8> Why? Do you find your barometric data to be particularly sensitive?

<comment><USER9> (I'm not the person you are asking, but): People often don't really know how sensitive the barometric pressure data could be, if used for tracking purposes. The barometer in your smartphone can help provide your physical location to within 1 meter, if used for location tracking instead of weather forecasting. If used for weather forecasting, the altitude data is treated as noise and will not be used to find your location.

However, it is now mandated by the FCC that all barometer-carrying smartphones will report your accurate altitude information to 911 emergency response if you make a 911 call from your smartphone. So the location tracking element of the barometer is a very real concern for a lot of people, as it can tell a tracking company what floor of a building you are on at any given moment.

However I think it's quite clear that weather apps, and The Weather Company, are much more interested in the local atmospheric trends than they are about your current floor.

Edit: FCC citation: [https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-new-wireless- indoor-...](https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-new-wireless- indoor-e911-location-accuracy-requirements-0)

<comment><USER10> > The barometer in your smartphone can help provide your physical location to > within 1 meter, if used for location tracking instead of weather > forecasting.

How can this possibly be true? Wouldn't the pressure around a couple of square meters simply equalize instantly? You're not saying "within a mile" you're saying "to within 1 meter", and I don't get it.

<comment><USER9> Well first, I'm in the weather industry, not the location-tracking industry, but I will share some of the insight for how this could be done. The barometer won't help with your latitude or longitude usually, because you are correct: the pressure will be approximately equal in those dimensions when you are looking at such a small area.

The barometer is sensitive to altitude changes much much smaller than a meter, probably something like 0.1 meters. So if you are a person, with a smartphone, and you are in a tall building, the barometer can assist with determining which floor you're on. Other sensors would need to be used for calibration (since the changes weather will affect the floor-level) and it doesn't help with the x,y coordinates, just the z. But other location systems are now very very good at x,y and they mostly lack the z.

So by adding the high-accuracy relative altitude capabilities of the barometer to the existing x,y systems, you can get extremely precise locations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wunderground and weather.com were owned by the same company? For some reason I never would have guessed that just based on my experience on those sites.

Wunderground generally feels clean and on-topic.

Weather.com is often filled with "Doomsday scenario with newest hurricane season" and "Check out this massive shark jumping" news stories.

<comment><USER12> That, my friend, is known as effective market segmentation.

<comment><USER13> Yup, it is all about giving consumer a "choice".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I swear I have no idea what IBM does. Anyone know?

<comment><USER15> Good question :)

IBM used to make pretty good laptops but sold the laptop part off (Lenovo)

IBM used to have a pretty decent server line or lines, though they sold a good part of the Intel stuff off (now Lenovo for the server line, but had sold off many other parts earlier, such as storage, and started using more vendors)

There were things Software Group did like Websphere, which I imagine still does good money, but why you'd actively want to seek it out over free alternatives I have no idea. They also have DB2 in database land. Software Group used to be cooler and have better resources than hardware groups, or so we thought. I have no idea how well they are doing.

They also got rid of microelectronics and who knows what else. In general, innovative parts of IBM get sold off, and they keep the services parts? Feels that way.

Their margins on services and people are not good, so they also have the reputation of restructuring/laying-off like crazy and seemingly at random, with lots of pressure on stock price.

I was there in 2001-ish when they scrapped pensions, though the thought of pensions actually existing is a novel concept today. It used to be a place where people thought they could work forever, and that is decidely no longer the case anywhere, it shows how the views of what IBM was changed rapidly over time.

They also increasingly pushed for a contractor-heavy work force for more ability to make cuts and reduce benefits.

<comment><USER16> They still do lots of storage products like SAN Volume Controller, Storwize, FlashSystems and XIV.

However they are currently focusing on cloud, for that they have Softlayer and BlueMix.

In terms of other products MQ is still pretty big, so its CICS and as you said Websphere (which I believe has a free offering?). They still have the Power business and the Z server offering. They have SPSS, Tivoli, Lotus and Rational. Then they also have GBS (Business services) and GTS (Technical services).

Obviously they also have Watson. Some of the Watson services are available on BlueMix and they're pretty good. Currently I think Watson is branching out into all sorts of new areas. Health care is a big area of interest.

They also have ETS (Emerging Technology) which does client stuff, research and the like.

There is also a fairly big IOT department (But I don't know what happens there).

<comment><USER17> To add: they recently announced an investment of $3bn over 4 years in the IoT division, which will probably be focused mostly on analytics & will somehow tie in with Watson & Bluemix, which are the strongest pieces in their portfolio at the moment. [1]

They also broke out an additional "Education" unit within the IoT business unit, ostensibly to compete with PTC Thingworx, and Intel+Arduino, Raspberry Pi etc. in the student/teacher/maker market. [2]

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/how-ibms-3-billion- investment...](http://www.businessinsider.com/how-ibms-3-billion-investment- will-drive-iot-growth-2015-4)

[2] [https://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/47660.wss](https://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/47660.wss)

<comment><USER18> To add further, IBM's biggest revenue source is not technology and software, but its IT/business services & consulting wing which is no different than most IT outsourcing companies in the world. Of course their products do influence some of the work done by these.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This sets up IBM to compete directly with Monsanto's new Climate Corp in the ag-tech space. My hopes is that this drives the entry price of this tech down so it can actually benefit small farmers (who may have higher margins due to crop choice but lower profits due to size and economies of scale) and not just larger agribusiness operating on economies of size.

A question: how has the accuracy of weather prediction improved overall?

<comment><USER20> > A question: how has the accuracy of weather prediction improved overall?

Here is a recent New York Times article on that topic, with emphasis on hurricane prediction:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/upshot/hurricane- joaquin-f...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/upshot/hurricane-joaquin- forecast-european-model-leads-pack-again.html)

 _" Over the last few decades, faster computers, superior models and new data have allowed all weather forecasting to improve, by a lot. But the United States hasn't quite matched that effort. It didn't invest in computing power and models that kept up with the potential for better forecasts."_

<comment><USER19> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is a smart move and obvious application of the Watson engine if it can be applied reliably to the unpredictable 'global weirding' weather problems.

Does anyone know if organisations like Home Depot, for example, roll their own solutions or rely on 3rd parties to help move things like generators into stores ahead of storms?

<comment><USER4> I can't speak for Depot, but in the case of some of the larger retail organizations, major weather events will get coordination from HQ, but beyond those its typically left up to regional and store manager discretion.

<comment><USER22> That sounds like a problem that needs solving.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Having had the fun that is working for a company that gets bought by IBM I wish their workers the best of luck.

Hope they enjoy the Blue Washing(TM)

<comment><USER24> It's said that Sun turned down IBM's buyout bid and went with Oracle because they thought that there'd ultimately be fewer layoffs with Oracle. Of course, no one really knows how things would've played out if IBM had taken over Sun.

<comment><USER25> I was an analyst at the time and an IBM acquisition of Sun never made sense to me. The Oracle acquisition did--even if I didn't personally like it for a variety of reasons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Hell, if Watson needs some weather data -- I offer the most precise weather forecasts already: [http://mostpreciseweather.com/](http://mostpreciseweather.com/)

Just send me a check.

<comment><USER27> Just an FYI, that page is broken for me. JS error of: "Failed to load resource: Could not connect to the server."

<comment><USER26> Doh - thanks. Looks like the geoip library I was using has moved. Fixed now for all your critical precision weather needs ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm assuming The Weather Channel was left out of the deal to die a slow death on it's own. I wonder if they will launch a new website and set of apps just focused purely on the TV content. You can't have a TV channel without a web presence, right?

</comment><comment><USER29> I had a discussion with some weather forecasters about how we could enhance their datasets with IoT sensors (80k of them over ~200,000km^2. The answer was no enhancement whatsoever. Because they can infer an infinity of points from satellite data (all day every day), calibrated with about 1000 sensors.

</comment><comment><USER30> FYI, if you're interested in USING Weather Company data & building apps with Bluemix, Devpost just launched a new online hackathon all about that (and Spark!) with $30K in prizes.

[http://sparkathon.devpost.com/](http://sparkathon.devpost.com/)

</comment><comment><USER9> There has been significant consolidation in the weather industry over the last 10-20 years, and it's a very interesting space right now with smartphones coming online as weather sensors. IBM's acquisition of The Weather Company is the joining of two huge behemoths, I wonder how well they can work together.

> The company also has a popular mobile app, which Mr. Kenny said collected > barometric pressure from its users' phone sensors. Millions of locations are > turning in information 96 times a day.

Fascinating...The new-weather startups like Sunshine and PressureNet are going to be watching this closely.

[https://thesunshine.co](https://thesunshine.co)

[https://pressurenet.io](https://pressurenet.io)

</comment><comment><USER31> Hopefully they'll be able to harness all of this delicious weather data and squirt forecasts to our watches as depicted in BTTF II.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI7ctWyXl5s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI7ctWyXl5s)

</comment><comment><USER32> Weather is a chaotic system, due to it being chaotic and the lorenz attractor maximum three days of weather can be forecasted.

"While we can typically predict general weather patterns up to 3 days ahead, predictability for detailed local weather such as rainfall or fog formation is much less."

see more here [http://research.metoffice.gov.uk/research/nwp/ensemble/conce...](http://research.metoffice.gov.uk/research/nwp/ensemble/concept.html)

<comment><USER33> If you think IBM may be unaware of the nature and consequences of chaos theory, you might want to look into Benoit Mandelbrot's employment history.

<comment><USER29> The thing is, is IBM as a corporate entity unaware of it? I know people who work for IBM who are much smarter than me, and who will always have a high level job as innovators in the IT industry, but they have 0 say in what IBM does, says or wants.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm confused. WATSON is a specific NLP-based question answering system. [1] How can WATSON help predict the weather?

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(computer)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_\(computer\))

</comment><comment><USER35> Not sure about anyone else, but this would make me actually want to work for weather.com or wunderground.com.

</comment><comment><USER36> Is this the default weather app that comes on ios?

<comment><USER37> Nope - I think this is the one they're referring to: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/weather-channel- weather.com/...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/weather-channel- weather.com/id295646461?mt=8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Hope to see improvements in the weather industry.

</comment><comment><USER39> Hope they finally fix weather.com.

</comment><comment><USER40> Funny tweet on this by @Cryo ([https://twitter.com/Cryo/status/659369885991088129](https://twitter.com/Cryo/status/659369885991088129)):

IBM Board meetings notes: "We should buy the Cloud" "What?" "You know, the Cloud" "Why?" "We want to be the biggest"

 _buys weather channel_

<comment><USER41> Except that according to the article, the bought the Weather Company and _not_ the Weather Channel...

<comment><USER22> The Weather Company owns the Weather Channel.

<comment><USER28> They bought the Weather Company minus the TV channel side of the business. So I would assume The Weather Channel will remain an independent company just without the digital assets.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


GraphQL editor – Visual node editor for GraphQL - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/graphql-editor/graphql-editor <comment><AUTHOR> Many things changed from the latest release:

\- visual schema explorer tool for searching exact types

\- added auto generation from left ot right side without clicking the button

\- corrected autocomplete libs

\- added free tier to GraphQL Editor cloud version so you can create namespace and 2 projects</comment>


Google's Plans for Chrome Extensions Won't Help Security - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/googles-plans-chrome-extensions-wont-really-help-security <comment><USER2> I'm not convinced that Google can actually solve this problem by just reviewing apps more closely. It sounds like it took a lot of work for Jadali to identify a smoking gun, a lot more than Google could reasonably do preemptively or even as a response to every abuse report. And if Google had shut down three very popular accessibility apps with anything less than a smoking gun, I expect that would have been just as controversial as Manifest V3.

<comment><USER3> I suggest that the gulf between perfect foolproof detection and what Google actually does now is vast. They can start by banning remote code, and follow up by setting up automated flagging with manual review for popular extensions to start with. Just getting clarification from developers regarding anything suspicious would be great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Dear EFF,

I love you. I love you lots. Which is why this post rather bothers me for its dishonest arguments. This bit stood out:

> That's because a central part of Manifest V3 is the removal of a set of > powerful capabilities that uMatrix, NoScript, and other extensions rely on > to protect users (for developers, we're talking about request modification > using chrome.webRequest).

Whatever tools are available to a friendly extension are also available to an unfriendly one. With this in mind, it should be relatively easy to figure out that this sort of modification might, just might, be subject to some amount of possible abuse.

Please, EFF. I do love so much of the work you do. Is it too much to ask for some intellectual honesty?

<comment><USER3> Hi, coauthor here. Our argument is not that extensions can't abuse chrome.webRequest. What exactly is dishonest here?

<comment><USER4> Request modification using chrome.webRequest is pretty clearly something potentially abusable. Yet it's _never mentioned_ in the rather long section about changes that may affect security concerns. It's only mentioned as something ad blockers find useful.

This is, at the very least, a significant editorial oversight.

<comment><USER3> Just because something is abusable doesn't mean it should be removed. The argument we _are_ making is that the trafeoff proposed by Manifest V3 is bad. There are clear actions Google could have taken a long time ago to protect Chrome users. Banning remote code is one of them. Responding to abuse reports is another. These would directly mitigate abuse in Chrome Web Store. Banning chrome.webRequest is not one of these clear actions.

<comment><USER4> I do not disagree on any of your points in any way, shape, or form.

If something is abusable but on balance worth keeping, then it should be publicly positioned as such and the balancing factors dicussed. Ignoring the abusability of something and focusing solely on the upsides is one of the classic moves from Ye Olde Bag Of Dirty PR Tricks.

<comment><USER5> I don't necessarily disagree with you on principle, but in this specific case it's important to note that the security benefits of blocking extension modification via a dedicated API are _very_ minor -- especially since extensions will still be able to inject JS into the page and read client information. Is it really important for me as an attacker to be able to modify your request when I can just edit the page directly, insert custom data, or steal your login credentials instead?

With respect, I would suggest that the cost-benefit analysis here is more one- sided than you think it is -- one-sided enough that an exploration of the security benefits would need to come with a lot of caveats, and would be a net decrease in the readability of the article.

It's not clear to me that deprecating a dedicated request modification API improves security in any meaningful, practical way for most users, and I think there's some benefit to occasionally skipping details that are irrelevant to the main story, so that ordinary people will find it easier to wade through.

I would compare this to the way that Google bundles wifi access and location access on Android. People complain about it, but it's a sensible decision -- there's no point in restricting just one of them. Similarly, I don't see any point to restricting request modification without also restricting access to request content/headers/cookies and removing the ability to inject arbitrary JS into the page. I think Google is engaging in security theater here.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hurrian songs - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurrian_songs

<comment><USER2> Tolkien's "Black Speech" may have been inspired by Hurrian. I prefer the original in this case, I think: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZatnTPhYWc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZatnTPhYWc)

</comment><comment><USER3> Fascinating. I speak a language from the area that still uses some Hurrian vocabulary, I always imagined these guys are my distant ancestors. Would be cool to actually hear the songs...

<comment><USER4> There's a link on the bottom of the Wikipedia article - A Hurrian Cult Song from Ancient Ugarit: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZatnTPhYWc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZatnTPhYWc)

<comment><USER3> That is beyond cool :) Thanks

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > The tablet is in the collection of the National Museum of Damascus.

Shit, I hope IS doesn't blow the museum up or something . . .

</comment><comment><USER6> "Astonishingly, there are no known terms corresponding to a single note"

While perhaps counter-intuitive, that actually makes a lot of sense, tell the person the interval to play not the note itself. I think people new to music would pick up music much more quickly if we switched to a system like this. In my limited experience, one of the biggest early hurdles in learning music is making terms with intervals > notes.

</comment><comment><USER7> Does anybody know what instruments they used back then to accompany these songs, or was it just singing? Perhaps a type of flute?

<comment><USER8> Apparently a harp like instrument:

> The tablet h.6 contains the lyrics for a hymn to Nikkal, a Semitic goddess > of orchards, and instructions for a singer accompanied by a nine-stringed > sammûm, a type of harp or, much more likely, a lyre. One or more of the > tablets also contains instructions for tuning the harp.</comment></comment>


Apple's Big Subscription Bet: Brilliant, Brazen, Or Batsh*t Crazy? - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/15/apple-in-app-subscriptions/

<comment><USER2> Imagine if the PC revolution had unfolded this way. It's pretty crazy to think about.

Essentially, Apple is acting as the big box retailer, but without any other big box retailers, they set their margins and the software vendor just has to live with them. No real competition.

Not sure how I actually feel about this. On one hand, Apple is creating an ecosystem, and all they're asking for is $99 to distribute apps. Much better terms than $x / seat for MS Studio and the like. But, they're going to insert themselves at every aspect of the chain when they don't necessarily have to. It gives me an uneasy feeling, but I think the company is optimizing for business instead of goodwill.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know if they will be successful in their endeavors but if Apple follows through, there will be a backlash.

Take Netflix, for example. Does it make sense to provide in-app subscriptions for 30% discounted distributor rate ($8 * 70% = $5.60) when that same account can be used for Roku, etc?

No. What will happen is that all these service providers will make an Apple subscription (which has separate features) that won't work with other devices.

Balkanization of content channels... this is not consumer friendly.

<comment><USER4> The problem with your analysis is most people already have a Netflix account, so Apple will get 0% of those subscriptions. Same thing if a new customer signs up on netflix.com, then starts viewing on their iOS device.

If Apple attracts a new customer via the AppStore, similar to how affiliate marketers bring new business to a vendor, they get a 30% cut.

I do however agree it is not consumer friendly. With the "most favored nation" clause in the agreement, vendors will have little choice but to raise prices to meet the commission on the fraction of sales Apple takes their cut.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure this will turn out to be the case. Amazon has always had a most favored nation clause with regards to ebooks, and that policy didn't cause ebook prices to climb, even though Amazon is the largest seller.

It's also worth mentioning that Newspapers and Magazines make the majority of their revenue through advertisers. This is why they choose to heavily discount subscriptions in the first place. If it turns out being on iOS gets them noticeably more subscriptions, then yes they may lose money on those subscriptions, but it may be a net gain if it enables them to raise their advertising rates accordingly.

Time will tell.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There is an elephant in the room here, and it's why so many content providers seem just so annoyed.

Regardless of whether this is 'fair' for Apple to do or not, many content providers simply /can't/ give Apple (or any third party) 30% of their revenue - even just for for subscriptions sold through iOS apps - and still make a profit. There's just not enough margin in what they're selling. Since Apple is demanding that the prices in-app be the same as outside the app, these providers have two choices: raise prices for everyone to subsidise the iOS- purchased subscriptions, or don't offer an iOS app at all.

This is a big change to the status quo.

<comment><USER7> That makes no sense. The cost to the publisher of an additional electronic subscription is tiny. Really tiny. It's comparable to the cost of sending one more eMail when you're already sending out thousands. If they had to give 30% of all their existing revenue, they'd be down, but if these Apple subscribers are new subscribers, then they've made some more profit.

<comment><USER6> It makes sense if they're paying royalties on the content on a per-copy or retail-sale-percentage basis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> With $60 billion in cash, changing the terms of service for developers is the most market disruptive idea they had for the iOS ecosystem? In the year of uninspired Apple announcements since the iPad, this may be the most uninspired of all.

</comment><comment><USER9> And Jobs has just stepped over the line of brilliance to madness. It is this same God-complex that ultimately led to his original ouster from Apple. Jobs really thinks that 30% of the revenue in the mobile world belongs to Apple??? I see a HUGE opportunity for Android here (and I'm an Apple fan)!

</comment><comment><USER10> This is a huge game of chicken with Amazon.

I could see a scenario where Amazon decides to let the kindle app be pulled, and throws their weight around with the publishers in order to damage iBooks.

</comment><comment><USER7> The question here for the publishers is whether or not this will increase their sales, or just move them about.

If they have all the subscribers they were going to get anyway, AND some new ones thank to Apple, they've made more money and they fact that Apple is taking a cut won't bother them; 70% of more money is a lot better than no more money. It costs them effectively nothing to have more subscribers, so as long as their Apple-based subscribers aren't cannibalising their existing subscriber base, their profits go up.

</comment><comment><USER11> I've asked this before, but what is there to keep Netflix from creating an iPhone version of their site and directing users there? This would let them cut Apple out of the equation completely, and still provide the same functionality, unless there's issues with playing videos on the iPhone that I am not aware of.

<comment><USER12> Netflix uses drm on their players (through silverlight in a browser). HTML5 video doesn't have hooks for drm at the moment.

You can restrict access to content (by using a TTL or encrypting the video with Apple HTTP Streaming) but someone could still capture the stream. Their stream using silverlight is encrypted and offers the kind of security that makes content owners happy.

<comment><USER13> You can however use http live streaming with AES tokens to get the same kind of result with html5 (audio and video). It just remains to be seen if that is acceptable to nflix and the content providers they're beholden to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I was wondering when there were going to roll this out ...

</comment><comment><USER15> don't even post articles from MG here. Too bias and too useless.

<comment><USER16> Actually, this one is a fairly coherent review. Take this for example:

"But a lot of third-party developers both large and small are going to be very, very pissed off by this move. Why? Because it totally changes the game. Companies with subscription elements of their content had been accustomed to leveraging Apple's platform for free. Now there will be a fee. And it will be a significant fee."

And, here is some useful commentary:

"And, here is an answer to one of the questions that I've been wondering about: "The Amazon question (which originally sparked a debate a couple weeks ago) seems more complicated. Because Amazon content isn't sold by subscription, it's not clear how this affects apps like their Kindle app. It may not affect it at all, but then why did Apple reject the Sony reader app? Was there a subscription layer in it? Apple clearly wants to move towards a full in-app purchase environment, but today they're only talking subscriptions. One-time payments may be the next shoe to drop."

Update: A couple more things. Apparently, Apple has just updated the App Store Guidelines alongside the announcement today. And yes, it seems that one-time in-app purchases like those made through Amazon for the Kindle will fall under the same rules. That brings up another question: could Amazon just make a Kindle reader app that didn't allow you to buy anywhere in the app, but only use previously bought content? The guideline wording seems like it would still be a no-no but it's not entire clear that such an app would be rejected. "

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why the critical backlash? The App Store is the exclusive way to sell apps for iOS, and Apple takes a 30% cut. Now the subscription model is similar, except you can sign up outside the app as well, not paying anything.

I guess people don't like that Apple has full control of their platform, and they sometimes do things which benefit them. If you don't like it, don't buy an Apple product! Get something open or whatever.

<comment><USER18> It's not about customers, who don't necessarily care to whom they pay $9/month, NetFlix or Apple.

It's about platform vendors who are being strong-armed into providing a huge chunk of their revenue to a company who is doing relatively little to earn it, proportional to the amounts involved.

Apple is no better or worse than any other corporation for pursuing this policy. They have the installed userbase to call the shots, and they know it, and they'd be foolish to not take advantage of it.

But they're also putting publishers in a tough spot, especially when they're already struggling with a new business model and a market of unknown size. Apple does run the risk of killing the golden goose, or alienating publishers to the point where they pull their wares from iOS entirely, which is bad for both users and the platform.

In short: of course Apple _can_ do this. It doesn't mean they should.

<comment><USER16> One of the best comments so far on this whole strategy of Apple, bears repeating:

"Apple does run the risk of killing the golden goose, or alienating publishers to the point where they pull their wares from iOS entirely, which is bad for both users and the platform."

<comment><USER17> I'm sure I'll get downvoted for this again but - Apple are the only player who have bothered to implement a subscription model. No competition! Once Android do it (and the others) and they become popular enough to compete, Apple may feel the pressure and drop the 30% rate.

30% sounds like a lot but if I would take it if I were a publisher - there's still room to make much more profit than a print operation - no need for presses, ink, paper etc. I mean the 70% you get is pure profit basically.

<comment><USER19> Except they aren't the only player. Netflix, Amazon, NYT, the list goes on and on. Any major subscription service has a way to get users to subscribe via the web today. And Apple didn't just introduce a subscription model today, they introduced a subscription model that directly attacks any other model if they want to be on iOS.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN? Dumb question about the Linux kernel - <AUTHOR> Hello, I am trying learn about the Linux kernel,
but could not find any documentation on gnu.org or linux.org
Could someone help me demystify the kernel?
Just a brief explanation of it's core ideas would be sufficient.
I am only interested in that kernel
and not its comparative analysis relative to mach or some of the other later kernels.
This is likely a tough question to answer
since most of the guys on this newsgroup are probably not very familiar with such dated concepts.
Thanks. <comment><USER2> "Starting kernel development" points to two results with links to communities/mailinglists/IRC and documentation

[https://github.com/petersenna/Kernel/wiki/How-to-start- Linux...](https://github.com/petersenna/Kernel/wiki/How-to-start-Linux-Kernel- development)

[https://kernelnewbies.org/](https://kernelnewbies.org/)

> since most of the guys on this newsgroup are probably not very familiar with > such dated concepts.

Or girls (we're modern).

<comment><USER3> Side note, and I'm a feminist, "guys" is attempting to become a gender-neutral pronoun in english similar to "y'all".

People from New York use it to refer to a group of people. I've even hear groups of only women address each other this way. "Do you guys wanna get some pizza together?"

"Girls" would imply that the gender is known to be all female, and "gals" is once again, very hokey and southern like "y'all" is to non-southerners.

It's imperfect but we could always just invent a new word to fix it. I don't say "do you people wanna get some pizza", I say, "does everyone want to get some pizza".

In this case, I would say "since most of the users on this newsgroup", which is a context specific example.

<comment><AUTHOR> Personally,

Salt, pepper, and tomato ketchup,

three necessary add-ons to finish a "fresh of the griddle" omelette,

describe gender inter-relationships better.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's your email strategy when you register for a new web thing? - <AUTHOR> Hello. When I'm registering for a new service or some website with my email, sometimes I append thing like "+uk" so "firstname.lastname@example.com". This is fine, but not perfect.
I want to start using my own domain email, and I am wondering how to go about doing this. I could just use the one email one my domain, or keep doing the "+" thing.
Another thought I had was make aliases like "email@example.com" that point to my one email. The last idea I had was to make my one email the catch-all, and just do as above, using "firstname.lastname@example.com" without the need for an alias creation every time.
What is your strategy? How do you do this, what do you suggest, and why? <comment><USER2> I personally do the last one (email@example.com with catchall). It works really well. I used to use gmail as my main address and all the emails from my own domain used to go through Mailgun with a catchall route for incoming mail (I also used it to send automated messages for my various projects from the same domain).

I now use Protonmail and on the 2nd paid tier you can have a catchall address.

The only downside of this approach is that if you ever want to reply or send mail from one of those alias addresses, it's a bit tricky. So if that's important for you, maybe try a different option, perhaps with the + method.

<comment><AUTHOR> Mostly it's for incoming mail. I will try that and if I need to reply then I might add an alias..</comment></comment>