Show HN: Mead – how I'm pushing back against Medium - <AUTHOR> https://www.meadapp.com/
TLDR; Mead is a special case static site generator that automates the process of compiling and uploading to your S3 account.
Mead is a desktop application that combines the flexibility of static site generators (Jekyll, Hugo, etc) with Medium's ease of publishing. I created Mead because I wanted to write more and the present options put up too many obstacles.
Like many others, I don't like the experience Medium offers to readers. Modals and banners distract the user from engaging with the content and in some cases, prevents them entirely.
Static site generators are great in terms of their flexibility. They're the only way we can fully control what trackers and advertisements readers are exposed to.  However, the writing process is a bit cumbersome. I often forget the commands I need to run, and I'd like to not have to run 3 git commands every time I notice a typo.
Mead, at its core, prioritizes simplicity. It was made so I could easily open up an app on my computer, write some text, add an image (automatically uploading to S3), paste in a code snippet, click a button, and have the whole thing public without any other effort.
Mead is also an experiment in creating a product that does not need advertisements or trackers to continue existing. My goal here is to fully respect the privacy of others. If I'm failing in some way, please gently point it out and I will make the necessary corrections.
If you have any comments, feedback, or feature requests, please feel free to reach out. My email is [my username] at gmail <comment><USER2> I don't understand pricing models that limit the amount of posts you can make. That literally stops the user from doing the thing that was the whole point of doing the thing.

(Yes, wrote that like that on purpose)

Cool that you launched and want to build a business 100% but reconsider your features vs cost design and the value you want to deliver. You'll have a lot better chance at building a solid platform to push back on the monetary building tactics Medium has been pushing the hard the past couple years.

Limit on things like custom domains, customization, or tack on features that aid in growth or marketing if you want to wrap cost up in gained features/value by paying.

<comment><AUTHOR> Admittedly, limiting the free plan by posts was the laziest way I could keep from giving everything away for free. As the app matures, I'll be adjusting plan features and pricing to match what the market desires.

Thanks for your honest feedback and letting me know which features you find value in.

<comment><USER3> You need 'oh damn I didn't know I needed that' features to be able price something, that people can get elsewhere, in a way that makes a viable business. The market desires everything for nothing and always will so waiting on the market to inform you pricing structure is super risky.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I agree with your sentiment and congrats on the launch. I have a few questions for feedback:

1\. Why S3 rather than an entirely free service like netlify, github pages, or surge?

2\. Isn't one of the main advantages of medium the discovery element? As a reader of medium, I get connected to articles from new authors based on my interests. As an author, readers are connected to me who may not have otherwise heard of me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! These are great questions

> Why S3 rather than an entirely free service like netlify, github pages, or > surge?

I wanted to start with something that was simple and scalable. At one point I tried using github for hosting, but managing commits got a bit complicated. There are also some limitations on repository size. Although it wouldn't become an issue for a long time if images were uploaded to S3 and the content to github, I would have had to integrate with multiple platforms.

I am open to adding additional hosting solutions, but I wanted to launch to get a pulse on what folks would like those options to be.

> Isn't one of the main advantages of medium the discovery element?

This is definitely one of the main values that Medium has to offer. It's also not the only reason people want to share their thoughts. I wanted to offer the flexibility to own your content and not be locked in to a platform (All HTML files for your site remain in your control). There are a lot of ways to promote your content, if Medium happens to work best for some folks, It could be a good idea to cross post on Medium.

As Mead evolves, I'm open to making promotion of your content on other services easier and in as many cases as possible, automated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was interested in trying it out as I already use Hugo + S3 for hosting with my own scripts but the added value is just not worth the cost and the free tier is not viable at all. By that I mean other online services that offer a free tier generally make it so it's a viable option with fewer features. Your free tier might as well be non-existent, none of your tech-focused audience is going to use a blogging service that allows them only 5 posts and no access to CSS.

I hope I don't sound too harsh, seems like a good idea overall.

<comment><USER6> I'd replace the word "Free" with "Try it out" because it looks more like a tier to make sure it's worth paying for rather than something you'd perpetually use. That way the plan can be kept tight.

That said, I'd consider opening up the free tier to be almost the same features as pro except you need to include the a "get Mead" banner on the site.</comment></comment>


DOD Just Beginning to Grapple with Scale of Weapon Systems Vulnerabilities - <AUTHOR> https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-19-128 <comment><USER3> The good stuff is in the PDF:

[https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694913.pdf](https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694913.pdf)

\- Running a port scan caused the weapons system to fail

\- One admin password for a system was guessed in nine seconds

\- "Nearly all major acquisition programs that were operationally tested between 2012 and 2017 had mission-critical cyber vulnerabilities that adversaries could compromise."

\- Taking over systems was pretty much playing on easy mode: "In one case, it took a two-person test team just one hour to gain initial access to a weapon system and one day to gain full control of the system they were testing."

<comment><USER4> My thoughts on this are always related to "skin in the game": does it matter personally to the people making and procuring the systems, especially at senior management level, whether it actually works?

Back in WW2 it definitely did, especially in the UK where bombing had no respect for the class system. Winning or losing the war would make a personal difference.

But since then? All the wars have been overseas with no real threat to the mainland US; there was a real technological race against the Soviet Union, but that ended in the 1990s. The post-911 wars were more of an excuse to settle scores and play the Great Game than a real effort against terrorism (no pursuit of the Saudis for example).

The consequence is that the main thing that matters is selling the technology to the Pentagon, or promoting a career inside it. Nobody really believes that if they procure a crappy IT system the enemy is going to fly a 747 into their office. Someone _might_ get killed, but nobody they know or who matters, and it's never going to come back to the project manager or procurement person who made terrible, expensive, uninformed choices about technology.

<comment><USER5> This is a very good question I've been pondering for years, and I generally came to the same conclusion wrt. military-industrial complex in general - <USER2> just software. It seems to me that no one expects any war that would hurt the US any time soon, so it's an open season for fleecing the military budget for all it's worth.

I also wonder sometimes if a similar thing isn't happening in enterprise software - that is, actual software doesn't have to work; it only has to serve as an object of trade between companies, and all the problems will disappear in general organizational noise & inertia.

<comment><USER6> > _It seems to me that no one expects any war that would hurt the US any time > soon, so it 's an open season for fleecing the military budget for all it's > worth._

If that was the whole story, the military budget would be plummeting as our representatives realized that they could _also_ , and far more legitimately, take money away from the military to put in their pet projects.

<comment><USER4> Military _is_ the pet project. It's the only form of public spending with broad support even from anti Federal government people.

<comment><USER7> > Military is the pet project. It's the only form of public spending with > broad support even from anti Federal government people.

Law enforcement has about equally broad support, including from anti-federal- government groups (though not always the same ones that back the military, as their are pro-law-and-order anti-interventionist groups that aren't keen on military spending, and pro-military groups that are federal law enforcement as jackbooted authoritarian thugs.)

<comment><USER8> Unfortunately federal law enforcement has lost some of its support among the law and order crowd because of the perception that they are in bed with the political opposition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was a dev contractor for the US Army for a few years. None of this surprises me.

They had some goofballs policies that made it seem like vulnerabilities were the goal. I could bitch at length. Their TSA style security theater practices were the order of the day. The IA training was an embarrassing joke and they made you do it often enough to make you a little crazy.

I just checked the certificate of networthiness page and they don't have a valid SSL certificate. I recall that being the case years ago too. I wonder if it's been that way for the last 7 years? That's a cute little terrarium of the whole biome I remember.

Off topic a bit, but that all aside... I am more proud of the work I did there than at any other place in my career. I got a lot of excitement and engaged feedback about the interactive learning materials I created.

I'll never know if it made any difference, but the mere fact that someone's son or daughter COULD have noticed an IED threat they wouldn't have otherwise because of my work gives me all sorts of proud fuzzies.

That work had way more meaning than all the other CRUD/ML/Advertainment schlock I'll get to do for the rest of my life :)

<comment><USER10> > I just checked the certificate of networthiness page and they don't have a > valid SSL certificate. I recall that being the case years ago too. I wonder > if it's been that way for the last 7 years? That's a cute little terrarium > of the whole biome I remember.

That's not quite true. Internal use sites don't have a valid cart _issued by a "default" external vendor_.

Public sites use existing CAs that are in use by the public. E.g., the Marines public facing site[0] is signed by DigiCert. If you go to a site that's public facing but for internal use like MoL[1], you'll see that the cert is issue by an internal DoD CA. This is intentional.

The DoD has an internal CA already set up. These internal use sites are a gateway to sensitive information, so the DoD doesn't want to rely on an external CA for HTTPS. What I never understood was why these internal CAs weren't marked as trusted on the internal machines. That would avoid the browser warnings when accessing one of these site from DoD hardware, and it would (in theory) force the user to double check when accessing the site from an external device.

[0]: [https://www.marines.com/](https://www.marines.com/) [1]: [https://mol.tfs.usmc.mil/mol](https://mol.tfs.usmc.mil/mol)

<comment><USER11> They are trusted by internal machines -- since a lot of internal authentication relies on these certificates. The DOD long ago moved away from password-based authentication mechanisms to certificate-based authentication (GSC-IS initially (CAC), now NIST SP 800-73 (PIV; CAC II)) and so the system will have the correct certificates or the user generally won't be able to login.

What I find as the most common error is that users setup an alternate browser (such as Firefox) that does not use the system certificate store and then lack the system's local certificate authorities.

Additionally, DOD PKI is now cross-signed with Federal PKI (FPKI), so it's larger than the DOD now and other agencies also use the same smartcards (PIV).

<comment><USER10> This bit is curious. I was issued a CAC while I was in, and as you said, it eliminated the need for passwords. But the internal sites (no matter if it was a laptop from the comm section, a hardwired desktop in a unit's building, or a desktop in a base facility) always failed the check for the certificate store. I _always_ got the security warning (or insecure message) regardless of browser.

<comment><USER12> Slightly off-topic - but its semi-relevant here as this conversation involves the requirement of knowing (1) the state of the system security store (2) the state of an application's security store ... and maybe in some cases (3) understanding how an application modifies any trusted stores.

It seems we end up with a lot of possibilities for the states of these stores to diverge from our expectations ... I've been wondering how to verify a sane state for all these stores for even a use as simple as my own personally owned/controlled notebook ...

I'd really like a way to audit the system trust store in macOS and enforce that is in alignment with whatever the current 'blessed by apple' certificate trust relationships are and that any trust relationships I ever manually added by mistake/debugging have been removed...

I asked a question about this on stackoverflow but no one has responded ...

[https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52527886/revert-all- cert...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52527886/revert-all-certificate- trust-relationships-to-system-default-on-macos-10-mojave)

<comment><USER11> I don't know the answer to your StackOverflow question as I don't use macOS/Mac OS X.

What I ended up doing to help this process along is including the relevant certificates inside my DOD Smartcard PKCS#11 module as certificate objects (with, of course, no corresponding private key objects).

For applications that use PKCS#11 (such as Firefox, via NSS), this means that when the module is loaded the appropriate certificates are also made available automatically. This was also (I believe) supported by the "TokenD" driver used to support macOS/Mac OS X so that enabling this driver made those certificates available and provided by the token, so no modifications to the local macOS system trust store were needed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you are interested in helping the US Government fix this particular trashfire, consider joining the Defense Digital Service. We work on a variety of DoD projects as part of the US Digital Service "tech peace corps". [https://www.dds.mil/](https://www.dds.mil/)

If you're not ready for that level of commitment (though it's amazing work), and you're interested in being involved as a security researcher, reach out to me and we can talk about joining our bug bounty program.

<comment><USER14> If this intrigued anyone else, just a quick summary: 3-6 week interview process, no relocation assistance, no bonuses, no equity, citizenship requirement, oh and the kicker: drug testing.

<comment><USER13> Yup! We're all employees of the federal government, so we have to meet the requirements of all Federal positions.

Honestly, you don't do this job for the money. I took a pay cut when I joined, on top of losing bonuses and equity. You join because you want to make a real difference in people's lives, in a visceral, real way.

I can say without exaggeration that there are people who would have died except for the work that our team had done. Even when the stakes aren't life or death, the impact you can have working for USDS is massive compared to anywhere else. You can personally change the lives of hundreds of thousands or millions of people. That's the kind of hook that beats equity for me any day.

<comment><USER15> > You join because you want to make a real difference in people's lives, in a > visceral, real way.

What that difference may entail varies greatly though. For one, it might be not being blown up by that IED. For another, it might be being bombed to bits at your cousins wedding, along with the other 40 members of your family, by a drone operator in Nevada. Very visceral indeed.

If you think that working for the military is "doing good" and the US is oh so innocent I suggest you watch the excellent documentary The Untold History of the United States by Oliver Stone [0].

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Untold_History_of_the_Unit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Untold_History_of_the_United_States)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I was an operator on a weapon system within the last decade that did not use encryption. I was horrified, naturally, but the explanations were:

1\. Well, this is rapid deployment, we can't have everything.

2\. The enemy here is fairly low-tech. Shouldn't be a problem.

Needless to say, I'm not surprised by this report.

<comment><USER17> > The enemy here is fairly low-tech. Shouldn't be a problem.

Would be perfectly acceptable if your hardware was only used for 2-3 years against only low tech enemies that don't have access to electricity during that whole time.

<comment><USER18> I think this can be a downfall of the US military if they ever get into a conflict with a capable enemy. They are so used to use super complex and expensive weapons against enemies who can't really put up a resistance. I wonder what would happen to the B-2 bomber or aircraft carriers if they had to fight China. My guess is these weapons would be eliminated very quickly.

<comment><USER19> > They are so used to use super complex and expensive weapons against enemies > who can't really put up a resistance.

Tell that to Vietnam and Afghanistan. Historically the US does well against standing armies (Iraq for example), but absolutely terribly against low-tech enemies who don't engage in a way that allows these super high tech weapons to be used effectively.

Reminds me of this: [http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_arith.htm](http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_arith.htm)

      A scrimmage in a Border Station-
      A canter down some dark defile
      Two thousand pounds of education
      Drops to a ten-rupee jezail[1].
      The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride,
      Shot like a rabbit in a ride!

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

<comment><USER18> I meant it in a sense of an enemy that can take on the high tech weapons. Since the Korea war nobody challenged the high tech equipment in meaningful way.

<comment><USER20> I have to quibble with that a bit. The US regularly overflew the USSR and China through at least the mid 70s, meaning our best aircraft were in a very real sense fighting their best air defense systems 20 years+ after the Korean war ended.

There have almost certainly been satellite, submarine and other engagements too, they just aren't generally publicized by either side until 30-40+ years later.

<comment><USER18> True. However, I think in a real shooting war those aircraft could be attacked by a huge number of low tech weapons and get overwhelmed. From what I know about warfare often large numbers will eventually overwhelm every kind of defense. For example could an aircraft carrier handle 10000 incoming drones? I hope we'll never find out...

<comment><USER21> 10,000 drones? How big a drone are we talking? They would have to be big enough to carry a weapon big enough to penetrate at least 1/2" steel (at the thinnest, only accessible from the side). If out to sea, a small EMP could drop them all.

Battles won by numerical superiority are usually won by defenders. If it's an invader, it's almost certainly early in the game. Even at the end of WW2, Germany wasn't invaded so much as it lost in France and Russia. The Allied rush to Berlin was an early aftermath. By the time supply chains necessary to conduct a protracted war have been committed, the true cost starts making invaders progressively less interested.

A more interesting concern is the major powers using proxies to demonstrate their new tech. If Russia sold Syria 10,000 drones, that might get interesting.

<comment><USER22> > Even at the end of WW2, Germany wasn't invaded so much as it lost in France > and Russia

Sorry, no. Germany was very quickly overrun in 1945.

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1945-05-01GerWW2Batt...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1945-05-01GerWW2BattlefrontAtlas.jpg) [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1945-05-15GerWW2Batt...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1945-05-15GerWW2BattlefrontAtlas.jpg)

<comment><USER23> What they possibly meant was: the war was already lost when they got invaded at all.

<comment><USER18> That certainly was true. The war was already lost when they were still deeply into Russia. the last 2 years of WW2 were just trying to fight off the inevitable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Nearly all major acquisition programs that were operationally tested between > 2012 and 2017 had mission-critical cyber vulnerabilities that adversaries > could compromise.

It's not too surprising and a little reminiscent of the security nightmare that are IoT devices.

All those weapon systems come out of hardware/engineering companies with little background in software engineering and the accompanying security best practices.

<comment><USER25> They don't know how to hire a security advisor or external team?

What I'd be most concerned about is that the procurement process is favouring companies who clearly aren't up to designing in rudimentary security, in weapons systems, ... smh.

That seems like getting clothing made and not having anyone flag that it was glued together with PVA instead of being sewn; and the company you hiredb not having anyone who realises that's a fundamental problem.

<comment><USER26> Meanwhile, the software companies capable of fixing these issues face internal revolt at the idea of defense contracts. Apparently inaccurate targeting systems and vulnerable firmware in equipment that is going to deployed (regardless of protest) is better for pacifism?

<comment><USER8> It's a conundrum. Do you not work on it, and have innocent people accidentally killed? Or do you work on it, and have innocent people purposefully killed?

<comment><USER26> I think it is reasonable to assume that the number of innocent people that the military is intentionally trying to kill is less than the number of innocent people accidentally killed by imprecise munitions, miscommunication, lack of verification/impulsivity, and bad sensors/intel (areas where technology helps).

For perspective, not too long ago during WW2 and following wars the best measures we had were napalm firebombs and binoculars. Civilian deaths were much higher, and friendly fire incidents were commonplace. Technology, despite dystopic appearances, has helped reduce the brutality of war.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> When I was at Lockheed - we were building the RFID tracking systems they used to track various everythings all over - and they were trying to make it a part of the Port Security for every port... and even had Tom Ridge join the board...

well, I recall asking about the security of the systems (I was the IT lead and was to help design the global port tracking system which they hoped to track all shipping containers) -- there was no encryption/authentication on _any_ of the tags.

If you had a reader, you could read/write the tags.

They had not even thought about securing these systems - and they were trying to tout them as a security system for weapons shipments. They even had tags that had G-sensors that were to be able to tell you if a munition was dropped, if it had armed (some weapons will only arm themselves once a certain g-force is reached which indicates to the weapon they have been launched.)

</comment><comment><USER28> The graphic on page 26 of the report is kind of cute: [https://i.imgur.com/MWrM2i8.png](https://i.imgur.com/MWrM2i8.png)

The inclusion of this graphic makes me realize the report is not intended to explain the situation to engineers. It's to explain the problem to well- decorated higher ups that probably don't understand modern technology all that well, yet are calling all the budget shots.

</comment><comment><USER29> The US is going to lose a war this way.

<comment><USER30> Is there any reason to believe the state of Russian/Chinese/etc. security is any better in this regard?

<comment><USER31> Russia's aging military hardware is an asset in this case, as it's not as vulnerable to electronic intrusion as a result of having little to intrude.

<comment><USER32> Then there's a good argument the billions the DOD spends on its "modernization efforts" should be spent elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Now they can queue up some multi-billion dollar contracts to fix it. I'm in the wrong business.

<comment><USER34> Lol let's do a startup

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Telnet: the backbone of our Defense Industry

</comment><comment><USER36> "Another test team reported that they caused a pop-up message to appear on users' terminals instructing them to insert two quarters to continue operating."

</comment><comment><USER37> A ton of commercial systems have similar vulnerabilities. Teslas have gotten hacked remotely a multitude of times over several years. People who attack/hack systems are specialized in ways that those engineers that build systems are not. None of this should be all that surprising. New recommendations on proper system design should mean future programs should have budgets to hire people to mitigate these problems. However, it should always be assumed there are vulnerabilities that can be exploited by others; any claims to the contrary should be met with extreme skepticism.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's like, on a civilizational level, we're just begging for a scenario where we accidentally destroy ourselves.

</comment><comment><USER38> Most of the comments outline how awful and dire the situation is (or probably is).

I'm less interested in this than I am in what we could do to fix it. Is it just more money to hire competent security engineers? Is it a more responsive talent acquisitions process that gets the right people in at the right time?

<comment><USER39> There is no motivation on the defense contractor side to do anything more than satisfy the requirements of the contract. And any R&D spent should result in an interesting demonstration that brings in more business.

Standard operating procedure would need to change so the government entity has security as a requirement, details on how the requirement can be satisfied, and a bunch of money to pay for it.

So tack on $X million for each contract to have a 3rd party audit the code, documentation, and hardware for security vulnerabilities. And an added maintenance contract to fix any future vulnerabilities for the lifetime of the program (20+ years most likely).

From the higher up side, what do you get for all that money spent? No new functionality, no fancy demos. Going to be hard to convince them security is important when they can fund something they view as more critical or more interesting.

EDIT: To answer the question of what can be done, I think it'd require a culture change on the contracting side. The engineering side of the house is mandated to only do work that relates directly to the contract. The hours bid will likely be for the minimum necessary to satisfy those requirements. You can create a new interface, but you won't have the time to do any fuzz testing for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I guess my question then is why have a computer attached to these systems in the first place, or if you must, why not make it as dumb as possible? Why include more points of failure?

Also, I couldn't help it, the DOD plans to spend 1.66 Trillion on these systems! Perhaps if we instead stop making new fangled, more complicated devices that with have tenfold more vulnerabilities to catch, how about we just stick with the machines we have and make then hardened. I imagine that it would save us loads if we just do that.

</comment><comment><USER40> Non-mobile link: [https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-128](https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-128)

</comment><comment><USER41> Good luck closing the barn door after the horse has bolted: [https://www.wired.com/2011/11/counterfeit-missile- defense/](https://www.wired.com/2011/11/counterfeit-missile-defense/)

I am no military expert, but it seriously looks like China has us in a stranglehold.

</comment><comment><USER42> $1.7T is a lot of money just to protect your major investments in killing people efficiently. Modern society I guess.

</comment><comment><USER43> Are these remotely activated systems that are at risk (like drones)? if not, why is any weapon system that doesn't need remote activation actually plugged into a public network?

</comment><comment><USER44> If I were the Russians, Chinese, or North Koreans, I would heavily invest in offensive hacking capability. Oh wait, they're already doing that.

</comment><comment><USER45> Silver lining: when the DOD find good ways to harden their systems, we can all copy them.

Cloud: it's probably unplug the aerial / network cable

<comment><USER46> I'm afraid they need to catch up with the rest of the world before advancing the state of the art.

The best case scenario is a quick cultural shift, with awareness of computer security threats overflowing from the military to laws and society in general.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> _You 'll see things here that look odd, even antiquated to modern eyes. Phones with cords, awkward manual valves, computers that barely deserve the name. But all of it is intentional. It's all designed to operate in combat against an enemy who could infiltrate and disrupt all but the most basic computer systems.

Of course, those attitudes have changed through the years and Galactica is something of a relic. A reminder of a time when we were so frightened by the capabilities of our enemies that we literally looked backward for protection. Modern battlestars resemble Galactica only in the most superficial ways..._

<comment><USER48> No networked computers on my ship.

<comment><USER49> Reminds me of Battlestar Galactica, where the all the ships in the fleet get hacked by Cylons, have their shields taken down and promptly destroyed, but Galactica survives because it's computers aren't networked.

<comment><USER50> There's a reason it reminds you of it...

<comment><USER49> I know the quote is from the series.

<comment><USER50> That's even more confusing! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> GDC4S (now General Dynamics Mission Systems) and NICTA have been working on seL4, and it at least seems that USDOD has _something_ to build on, if they want to start providing assurances of some form on weapons systems.

They'll really have to set the passwords properly though.

<comment><USER52> What's eyebrow-raising is that it's been used as para/virtualization platform for Linux. (Ordinarily, SELinux MLS/MCS is pretty good though.)

If something like Minix 3 "NetBSD" in Rust ran on seL4, that would inspire more confidence.

<comment><USER51> > _If something like Minix 3 "NetBSD" in Rust ran on seL4, that would inspire > more confidence._

Yeah, I've been thinking about that for a while. There is Genode/seL4, but it's hard to say if it makes as much sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Not to play the Whataboutism card, (proceeds to play whataboutism card), but has anybody pen tested the Soviet's or Chinese' systems?

Just thinking this isn't a U.S. only problem.

<comment><USER54> "The Soviet Union... I thought you guys broke up?"

[https://youtu.be/yFNRlvEh7ok](https://youtu.be/yFNRlvEh7ok)</comment></comment>


How to stop Time Warner Cable sucking at Youtube - <AUTHOR> http://mitchribar.com/2013/02/time-warner-cable-sucks-for-youtube-twitchtv/ <comment><USER3> Hi, ex-youtube video eng here. (also posted this as a comment on the blog post)

A while ago YouTube put together a speed information page that you could use to check out your download speeds as well as compare to other isps in your area:

<http://www.youtube.com/my_speed>

I'm also on Time Warner, and my graph shows wild inconsistencies - <USER2> it spikes up to much faster than others, sometimes it's way below the average speed, and it also shows that Time Warner is the slowest provider out of all of the NYC area ISPs.

I wish it was easier to switch to another provider out here.

<comment><USER4> That my_speed page says:

 _"The test video will show you your streaming information in real time (look next to "Streaming HTTP")."_

Uh, where? I don't see that anywhere, and Ctrl-F "streaming" doesn't find it, either.

<comment><USER5> I think they broke it - right click the video & hit "show video info" and you'll see the debug information in the box in the top left. It now starts with "TagStreamPlayer."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have been screaming at YouTube for being crap, especially lately. Five seconds of a video would play, then I'd get like a thirty-second pause -- with NO pre-load. I thought this was Google being even cheaper than they have been (doing away with total pre-loads) but now I find out it's been TWC! My god! They should be fined into non-existence.

<comment><USER7> I suspect Google makes more money from showing you ads than they would save on servers/bandwidth/etc by being skimpy.

<comment><USER6> The odd thing is, on my primary desktop PC, I am rarely served ads. If I use a Win 7 notebook via WiFi, _every_ YouTube video starts with an ad -- even if it's a video I just watched on the desktop that had no ad. Go figure...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is there any evidence TW is throttling versus these CDN servers you're being routed to simply being slow or overloaded?

I've noticed a change in YouTube buffering on FiOS the past few weeks as well. Other commenters here see it on Comcast. That may point to YouTube leaning more heavily on a CDN that can't handle the traffic (or some hop along the network to that CDN) rather than throttling by any one ISP.

<comment><USER9> I have TW... and I just tried what the guy suggested.

One hell of a difference. I'm pretty shocked that they're doing this. I always thought it was Youtube that was being slow. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB8UADuVM5A> is an accurate depiction of what I just experienced right now.

<comment><USER8> That blocking the CDN improved your loading speed doesn't provide evidence of throttling. It's equally plausible that the CDN is slow for everyone, whether you're a Time Warner subscriber or not. The way to verify this would be to connect to that CDN from different ISPs with similar routes and see if there appears to be a hard cap in one connection but not the other.

<comment><USER10> I'm on TWC and this fix with iptables just made a massive difference. Whether it's throttling or not, I'm very impressed with the results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's funny, I actually spent a couple hours this evening troubleshooting this problem. I don't think those IPs are complete, but it's a start.

For those with tomato firmware: Administration -> Scripts -> Firewall

iptables -I FORWARD -s 192.168.1.0/24 -d 126.96.36.199/24 -j REJECT

iptables -I FORWARD -s 192.168.1.0/24 -d 18.104.22.168/16 -j REJECT

<comment><USER12> It can also be implemented using "Access Restriction" like this <http://imgur.com/0sdc0CI>

<comment><USER11> Can you SSH into your router and do an `iptables --list` ? I'm thinking that implementation uses the L7 chain. If that's the case then it may be a hair bit quicker using my implementation. Also, the REJECT rule is a bit cleaner than just dropping the packet, which I also suspect to be the case with "Access Restriction" implementation.

<comment><USER12> I can do iptables under the firewall settings, but ... it took me a while to find my way through this setting and I know it works, I tested by streaming YouTube content on AppleTV. I am going to leave it as it is.

If this workaround gets popular, I wonder if my provider (Comcast) and others will catch up and throttle youtube directly.

So far so good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Weird, I could have used this thread four days ago. I cancelled my newly purchased 18mb/s uverse account because youtube (and only youtube) was taking 20+ minutes to download 5 minute videos. I switched over the Brighthouse (division of time warner I believe) because I still had an account and everything was fine. When I contacted AT&T, all they did was tell me that youtube was to blame and that I could purchase a tech support contract. I declined :). There's a massive thread on the topic over here: [http://forums.att.com/t5/Features-and-How-To/Hey-At-amp-T- St...](http://forums.att.com/t5/Features-and-How-To/Hey-At-amp-T-Stop- throttling-Youtube-I-d-very-much-appreciate-it/td-p/3094295)

<comment><USER14> My YouTube experience with uverse has been very frustrating of late. I routinely get streaming freezing, even on lower resolution streams. I have been considering a switch to Time Warner, but perhaps that's not the best solution.

<comment><USER13> I checked the speed link given by the ex-youtube engineer and it showed that Brighthouse was actually faster. Those are the exact symptoms I was having (freezing -- basically zero download speed, not that the rendering stop taking place) Not surprisingly enough, I think that it is very location dependent on what ISP provides the best connectivity to a given service (e.g.: the internet is very, very complicated network and it is hard to sum of the performance of any point to point connection with one data point)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Can TWC get in trouble for this? Isn't this a classic case of anti-competitive practices? And I wonder if Comcast does the same thing for Netflix...

<comment><USER16> I've had a non-cable DSL connection for years through the same independent provider and noticed about 6-12mos ago that YT was doing the partial-buffer thing. I haven't looked into this too much aside from reading this article and comments, but I'm inclined to think that maybe the problem is with the CDNs rather than TWC or any ISP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Measuring YouTube Quality of Experience for Users in Residential ISPs* Deep Medhi email@example.com University of Missouri–Kansas City February 2013 *Joint work with Parikshit Juluri (UMKC), Louis Plissonneau (Orange Labs, France), and Yong Zeng (UMKC)

[https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog57/presentations/Tuesday...](https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog57/presentations/Tuesday/tues.general.Medhi.Youtube.18.pdf)

tool you can run to measure your own performance with jitter and dropouts and which caches your're being routed to:

<https://code.google.com/p/pytomo/>

For a bunch of internet enthusiasts y'all sure don't understand much about the world beyond your aws cluster.

</comment><comment><USER18> This actually helped a lot, as soon as videos started, the grey buffering meter (that sits behind the red play meter) would shoot over to the other side ... I was actually astonished.

Alas there was one horrible side effect. Videos took forever to start playing, and thumbnails for other videos on the screen (in the related videos section and other image assets) would not load until afte the video started playing.

so close :\

<comment><AUTHOR> Some people are having more success using a deny rule, rather than reject. This doesn't make sense to me, as there is a timeout wait element for deny rules, but give it a shot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Wow, I'm surprised at the level of assumptions being made in this thread.

Guys, some networking 101:

* The route your traffic takes to get from point a to point b depends on your network/ISP/etc

* The CDN you use when accessing YouTube, et. al. depends on the route you take. The first/nearest CDN to you is (usually, depending on the CDN owner's configuration) the one that will be used.

* The fact that a video loads quickly on one ISP and slowly on another means absolutely, completely, totally NOTHING in and of itself.

To find out if the ISP is to blame or not, you must attempt to access the same CDN server from two different ISPs and see if you get the same problem. The latency will be different, but unless there is a massive bandwidth or latency bottleneck between two hops along either route, the overall bandwidth (for a large enough file) should be sufficient to deduce whether or not the problem is with your ISP or _the CDN servers corresponding to the route your ISP is taking_ to contact Google's servers (the results need to be _statistically significant_ taking into account margin of error and network conditions).

If the CDN is the problem, unless the CDN is actually _owned_ by your ISP, your ISP _is not to blame_.

In fact, for traditional non-net-neutral throttling, _it does not matter_ which/how many CDN IPs you block. Your ISP should (if they're doing it right) detect your connection to YouTube's subnet and throttle your data rates _regardless of which CDN you use_. The CDNs in the original article belong to Google/YouTube, _not_ TW. As such, TW would throttle your connection on the way to Google's subnet, not _at_ Google's subnet. They have no control over Google's subnet. The hops _past_ TW's (or whatever ISP you use) servers are not under their control, cannot be bandwidth-throttled by them, and have nothing to do with net neutrality.

The real explanation is most likely poorly-balanced CDN servers. i.e. the traffic going to the CDNs is unfairly skewed towards one or more CDN servers, causing them to serve content _to all users of all networks_ more slowly. By explicitly avoiding said CDNs which are slow on _Google's_ end, you will use a different, less-pounded CDN that can serve your content faster.

Note that I am not even a TW user (Comcast here), but this lynch mob is getting out of control. I expect a higher understanding of basic network principles when I browse HN, and "I can't load YouTube quickly so this means my ISP is shaping my bandwidth, and I need not look for actual evidence to support this claim" does not qualify as such.

That said, yes, it is possible for a cunning ISP to shape your traffic by purposely mis-directing CDN selection, for example, making it so that all their users end up at the same exit (slow) node when contacting a YouTube IP as such effectively YouTube into serving all their content to all the ISP's users from the same CDN node(s), resulting in poor connection. The way to test this would be to map out the routes for packets sent all over, and search for statistically-significant routing anomalies when attempting to pass packets on to Google's network from within a certain ISP.

The CDN you use is often selected off a DNS response for many networks. An easy way to select a different CDN (that may adversely affect your browsing speed due to geo-origination!) would be to use a different DNS server (make sure to flush the DNS cache in your OS and in your browser). This is why it's not advised to use non-ISP DNS such as Google DNS, OpenDNS, etc) unless they're both a) anycast (basically CDN for DNS, your DNS query will go to the nearest geographic location to you) and b) have enough servers distributed around the country so that your anycast DNS request will be resolved near you, so that the CDN based off of DNS will also be physically near you. You can use namebench [0] by Google to query the fastest DNS servers, typically faster means closer as hops then physical distance are the biggest factors in DNS speed, though a shitty DNS server will obviously skew those results.

0: <https://code.google.com/p/namebench/>

<comment><USER20> > The CDN you use when accessing YouTube, et. al. depends on the route you > take. The first/nearest CDN to you is (usually, depending on the CDN owner's > configuration) the one that will be used.

Just load a few videos in youtube with the chrome network tab from dev tools open, you'll very commonly see a CDN request returning a redirect to another CDN, 4-5 redirects isn't uncommon before the video plays.

Assuming that CDN selection is purely geographical or route based is just as poor an assumption as your accusing others of.

<comment><USER19> > Assuming that CDN selection is purely geographical or route based is just as > poor an assumption as your accusing others of.

As you yourself quoted, I used the word "usually." That directly and explicitly implies "not purely."

The CDN you use depends on many factors. Nearness to your route/physical location is a big factor. The relative power/bandwidth of each CDN server is another factor (weighted distribution). Internal network factors also contribute to the decision, as does maintenance, BGP peering, random load distribution, and current network health/status.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the detailed comment above. As I said earlier, I'm no networking guy! However, before posting I did test on a friend's Verizon FiOS connection, my own Verizon Mobile Hotspot, and also the various message boards I read complaining about speed appeared to be overwhelmingly TWC. I do understand that's not ideal proof. This was just intended to be a share of a quick fix.

Any suggestion to make my blog post more technically sound, I'm all ears! I can't seem to find a conclusion in all the HN comments except that "it could be a bunch of stuff going wrong", and to be honest, I don't have the expertise to find said conclusion.

<comment><USER19> The criticism was not leveled at you in particular, thank you for your willingness to revisit your assumptions. You need to test the connection to the same CDN node from a different ISP. Get the final URL for the video and try it on the other PC, and time the download for comparison. Make sure the CDN does not force a redirect to a different node.

You can get that kind of info from Chrome's "Resources" tab in the dev console (or the equivalent in whatever browser you are using). You should run the test several times to avoid warm/cold cache along the way. Should the results significantly differ, you should also note the traceroute/tracert results to the final hop.

You can try these ready-made tests from Glasnost, but they do not cover all cases: <http://broadband.mpi-sws.org/transparency/bttest.php>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why are they doing it in the first place? It's a good reason to dump such ISP IMHO.

<comment><USER22> Being able to dump the ISP would require a marketplace of ISPs to choose from. However, in the US, regulatory capture has prevented such a marketplace from forming.

<comment><USER21> Is this regulatory capture still in force? And if not, what prevents them from forming now?

<comment><USER22> Yes, typically cable companies have been granted monopolies within a municipality. In municipalities where cable companies have refused to upgrade infrastructure, and municipalities have attempted to build out fiber infrastructure to homes, cable companies have used the courts to delay movement by the municipality. Cable companies have also been pushing through laws on the state level to prevent municipalities from ever building out their own data infrastructure.

<comment><USER22> Turns out that I'm wrong on the municipal monopoly, that was changed in 1992 [1], and I was mistakenly perpetuating a common misconception.

[1] [http://www.muninetworks.org/content/cable-monopoly-result- pr...](http://www.muninetworks.org/content/cable-monopoly-result-private- sector-not-public)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Brooklyn here.

..let's just say that if the author ever comes to Brooklyn, he will not leave sober. This is incredible.

</comment><comment><USER24> This could actually be due to DNS, rather than anything particular to that edge-cache/CDN. Resolvers that aren't actually close to you (network-wise) could cause problems like this, or TWC partitioning their network in a way that causes geographically diverse locations to get lumped together, etc. In essence you'd be talking to edge-caches on the _wrong edge_ , so to speak.

To test: try a different DNS resolver, and see if you start getting faster video loads. If you're using TWC's local resolver, try 22.214.171.124 (run by Google); if you're using Google's already try the local resolver and/or OpenDNS (184.108.40.206).

If that does work as well, I'd recommend it over the heavy-handed approach of blocking arbitrary netblocks. Especially since that second netblock listed isn't owned by Google, and so you could be collaterally blocking other content that you still want.

(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but in Ads, not anything network or YouTube related).

<comment><USER25> I'm a TWC customer, and I used to have consistently horrible YouTube speeds. I eventually got sick of it and read somewhere to try different DNS, as you suggested. I switched from TWC's DNS to OpenDNS probably around a year ago, and YouTube did become faster. It's less consistent now, sometimes loading nicely and sometimes slowly. youtube.com/my_speed claims I'm averaging 7.6 Mbps vs. the average 5.2 for my ISP and 6.4 for the region. I see occasional traffic from 22.214.171.124/16, but it seems to be coming largely from 126.96.36.199/16 and 126.96.36.199/16.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Based on the discussion here at HN, I've updated the title in my blog post to call out "ISPs" generically and not TWC specifically. I felt I did my due diligence sufficiently before crafting my title, but as we know, a sample of one is not statistically significant!

</comment><comment><USER26> Fios user here. I'm travelling right now so I can't test. But youtube has been consistently poor for months now. Even 240p is unusable in many cases.

Interestingly, I get consistently the best performance from 360p and 1080 with the rest giving absurdly unusable streaming speeds. Not great, but servicable if i go get some coffee while buffers. I wonder if the different resolutions are being served up from different CDNs?

Anybody try this on fios and find improvements?

(btw my wife gets better streaming performance than i do on youtube from various video streaming sites in asia and i'd bet a dollar i live within 10 miles of a google data center. The google forums are on fire with complaints)

</comment><comment><USER27> I haven't tried this out.

I have noticed some serious throttling on from Comcast for Youtube as of late.

I can tell because directly viewing youtube gets throttled about 2min in (so they pick up on it about 2min in, regardless of where I start watching the video). If I VPN to work I can watch the same video no throttle, and still have bandwidth to spare.

It's the same bottle neck, Comcast, and work is down the road from me on their own dedicated fiber, it's adding 4 hops and it actually runs faster. (and I checked the IPs, I'm connecting to the same youtube servers as far as I can tell)

</comment><comment><USER28> I have this same problem with Comcast. I'm going to try this.

<comment><USER29> I can't tell if this is placebo or not, but my YouTube was loading extremely slowly pre-fix (on Comcast) and now is zipping along quickly.

<comment><USER30> Another anecdotal "yes" seems to be working much faster for me. Versus skipping, slow load times, random freezes, and, impossible to play any youtubes in HD quality at all. Now, I can stream them. I've had many friends around me complaining about YouTube quality as of late, so interesting thread/discussion and quick-fixes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Related: I have a Samsung Smart TV, which has a number of video apps including (Australian) ABC iView

The performance I was getting was terrible - much much worse than any other device on my home network.

Turned out it was because I was using the Google DNS servers for the TV, and that was screwing it up.

The ABC iView app uses Akamai, which doesn't use the new DNS extensions to pass through the location of the client computer.

Changed DNS server and everything was good again.

<comment><USER32> interesting that using google's dns server isn't going to make things faster. I also noticed youtube was slower for me recently, and I do use google's dns. Let me switch back to my isp's dns and see if it makes any difference.

</comment></comment><comment> Aco- TWC customer from NYC here.

I tried adding the ip ranges in article and it rendered youtube inoperable for me. No matter what quality setting I used nothing would stream. Removed the rules and youtube streamed again, albeit slow as ever (still cant stream 720 & 1080)

I can't stand this ISP and I have no alternative available to me here. Talk about living in misery.

<comment><USER18> I had a similar problem, it looked like it wouldn't stream, but it actually just took a long time to start, once it did, it buffered very very quickly. but that delay was a killer. had to delete the rules after a couple of videos

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> On Comcast (Boston area) most videos are coming from 18.104.22.168/16 (ish) although some coming from the mentioned blocks.

Interestingly for me the domain the videos are coming from are all of the same general form:

> r1.sn-jvhj5nu-p5qd.c.youtube.com (where the bit before c.youtube.com varies)

Where as the reddit discussion has domains of the form:

> o-o---preferred---sn-mv-p5qe---v17---lscache1.c.youtube.com

The inclusion of the 'preferred' and 'cache' bit are somewhat interesting.

I did find that if I block 220.127.116.11/16 as well as the other two mentions blocks (126.96.36.199/24, 188.8.131.52/16) then no youtube videos will load at all.

I would venture a guess that blocking the mentioned ranges is just forcing you to the 22.214.171.124/16 CDN.

</comment><comment><USER33> Can anyone explain what these IPs refer to? YouTube CDNs? Some commercial service?

<comment><USER34> If you want to know about a particular IP allocation, whois will help you out

$ whois 126.96.36.199

I won't include the whole output, but here is the link of the allocation: <http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-173-194-0-0-1>

Basically, this listed IP block is part of a much larger allocation for Google. I don't know exactly what type of google service is hosted from it, but it isn't a commercial CDN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Given how big an ISP Time Warner is, wouldn't the CDN and/or Google eventually notice the slow responses from their end and start playing a game of cat-and- mouse rotating IP addresses in and out of service as proxies?

</comment><comment><USER36> Verizon FIOS has the same sort of behavior.

<comment><USER37> My FiOS service has this problem as well. If the problem isn't isolated to TWC, what's really causing it?

<comment><USER38> Inefficient or misconfigured routing/peering between the ISP and the CDN.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Isn't it more likely that those CDN hosts are just overloaded or there are natural throughput limits somewhere between those networks? If TWC wanted to QoS YouTube, why not cover all the ranges?

</comment><comment><USER40> Its too bad this breaks youtube-dl. I found a series of videos on youtube that revolutionized the way I do drywall and I can remember waiting forever for youtube-dl to grab the entire playlist.

<comment><USER41> Can you share the titles?

<comment><USER40> DryWallGall: <https://www.youtube.com/user/drywallgall/videos>

The gentleman in the video is Laurier. I sent him a message on FB thanking him for the videos, he is extremely friendly. There is actually a neat story behind the videos. The current playlist is slightly different than the original set. A while back someone paid him to take the original series offline for six months (under the theory that they were too helpful). Laurier took him up on his offer and when he put them back online the playlist was slightly different but still remarkably helpful. _I am an order of magnitude faster now when I rock a room._ The biggest change for me was using the concrete trowel instead of the normal 4/6/12 inch mud knife. That being said I did pick up a number of tips from all of the videos. The only thing I cannot do is freehand cuts with a tape measure and a blade, I still use the T.

I would suggest watching the entire playlist once before your next project starts and then watch the relevant video before each step as a refresher. I used to dread any project that involved drywall. When I do "habitat for humantiy"-esque projects now I try my hardest to be on the rocking team.

EDIT:

If you are skeptical about watching all the videos my big ah-ha moment came when I understood "mud control." This is a nice example:

<http://youtu.be/kPIIWGqzmRw?t=3m6s>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I'm on FiOS and have also been suffering through terribly slow speeds with YouTube and Twitch.tv. I found that discussion on Reddit about a week ago, and it did temporarily fix my problem. However, after a day or so I noticed my speeds went back down to a crawl.

I also experienced this temporary speed increase (from barely streaming 240p to getting smooth 1080p) if I switched locales (adding "&gl=CA" to the end of the URL) or switched to HTTPS.

</comment><comment><USER43> My "IPvFoo" Chrome extension will show you which IP the video is streaming from:

<http://ipvfoo.googlecode.com/>

</comment><comment><USER44> I can confirm that this works well for Verizon FIOS as well. Youtube has been terrible on FIOS the past few months and getting worse.

<comment><USER45> Could you or someone else provide a detailed process of how to go ahead in implementing these protocols on a standard fios router?

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I've found using youtube over HTTPS is the best defense against an ISP's poor caching and traffic shaping.

<comment><USER47> Could have worked but sadly Youtube only streams videos under http. :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> How do I get Time Warner to start working in the first place? I bought a FreedomPop device just to get 4G wifi for the last month waiting for Time Warner to just fix our Internet (already had 3 separate appointments..). But glad to hear I'm going to have YouTube issues regardless..

</comment><comment><USER17> netflix is ~25% of primetime volume youtube is ~12% of primetime volume

netflix has an ARPU of $8/mo youtube is probably lucky to have an ARPU of $0.25

netflix pays for transit from multiple t1's with dozens of pops

google traffic is 99% settlement free

it's almost seems like good video delivery must cost money or something.

when you peer with google you have to agree to offer all your routes at all peering points, they make an effort to do local delivery but its always best effort.

strangely, i never have a single glitch with netflix even though it always runs 6mbit, but i drop out on 240p often on youtube - this is verizon fios.

this whole experience is almost guaranteed to be google saving money or oversubscribing their regional cache boxes.

when you block certain class c's or b's you're just steering away from their cdn and hitting their primaries.

</comment><comment><USER49> Noticed this from TWC somewhat recently as well when I realized that I was taking out my phone to watch YouTube videos more frequently (on 3G/4G). Now, I just keep my computers on a VPN as much as possible and there's a number of sites that just feel faster.

</comment><comment><USER50> <http://npaste.de/p/Cb/> Snippet for the pf firewall. You might have to place the 'block' rule after all 'pass' rules if you use inclusive firewalling…

</comment><comment><USER51> If I should decide I wanted to undo this, what's the syntax later on?

<comment><USER52> You can run

ipfw delete ____

where ____ is the id of the firewall entry.

<comment><USER53> To clarify, `ifpw list` prints a table of rules where the first column contains rule ID numbers. Use `ipfw del $id`.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> the videos/screenshots loads a lot slower after applying the fw rules. especially the thumbnails on the video page on the right side, takes forever to load. anyone else see the same?

<comment><USER55> This is going to be dependent on your location within the network. I'd never assume advice like this will work just anywhere on the planet, let alone within a large country. It certainly does provide a data point for the problem and a localized solution that can be generalized by those with more expertise. This author admits limited expertise with "Other people can dive into the complexity much better than I ever could, but that's the overall theme."

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I followed the steps in the article and it has messed up my YouTube to where it is delayed by about 15 seconds in loading videos.

</comment><comment><USER57> Any help how to do this for a Linksys E4200 router with regular firmware?

</comment><comment><USER7> Net neutrality is a myth :(

</comment><comment><USER58> I wonder if this affects Hulu as well.

</comment><comment><USER59> This is abhorrent. We need more ISP competition. Bring it Google. Or municipalities. Or anyone, please.

</comment><comment><USER60> I'm with TWC, and holy crap, now 1080p quality works just fine, whereas most of the time 720p would take forever to buffer. I'm on a 20/2 mbit plan, and it was ridiculous before this fix.

</comment><comment><USER61> Technically, doing this is a DMCA violation, right?

<comment><USER8> The DMCA modernized copyright law for the digital age, creating protections for network providers against infringement by their users, and making illegal circumvention of new digital copyright enforcement schemes. What part of this act do you think applies to throttling network connections, if that's what's happening here?

<comment><USER61> How then is unlocking a cellphone a violation of a copyright enforcement scheme?

<comment><USER8> That's a separate discussion and a complex topic. A starting point if you're interested: <https://www.eff.org/my/node/55941></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Kate Middleton's 'luxury' birth cost less than the average U.S. birth - <AUTHOR> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/kate-middletons-luxury-birth-cost-less-than-the-average-us-birth-2018-04-24 <comment><USER2> The chart is really misleading. It's labeled: "Here are the average 2015 prices for a vaginal birth, not including costs for care before and after giving birth" but for the UK it lists the price of the royal baby's fancy birth. A normal birth in the UK is free!

My daughter was born by C-section in the UK. Mum and baby stayed in the hospital for a few days to recover from the C-section. This would have been completely free but they would have had to share a room with 3 other mums and newborns. That's not so nice so we opted to pay for a private room.

The cost for a private room in a hospital in the UK was the equivalent of $100 per night! In a HOSPITAL! Coming from the US that blew my mind.

<comment><USER3> Cost out of pocket and actual costs aren't the same thing.

The overall health care is likely cheaper but you do pay for it your entire adult life.

So while they charged you $100 during birth (btw that's extremely cheap a private room in a central London hospital without insurance copay is a few £100's a night) you pay for that room from your first paycheck to the last.

<comment><USER4> Yes we do, and that's fantastic, because that's also paying for my sister's cancer treatment, my Mum's thyroid medication, the drugs Dad had to clear up a fungal infection in his toenails, the surgery my friend had to reassemble his ankle after he smashed it up slipping down a grassy slope...

<comment><USER3> Don't know without my ~£3000 a year insurance I'll have better luck with pubmed than with the NHS unless I'm bleeding out of 2 or more holes with one of them not being native to my body.

The only problem I have with it is that unlike say Germany I have no option to go completely private. I

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The point I rarely see discussed in these ongoing debates about the best way to pay for healthcare is the benefit of knowing what you have to pay. As I understand it in the US even with health insurance there is likely to be an additional payment required by the patient for treatment, and the cost of that payment is generally unknown upfront.

With the NHS is the UK I can be pretty confident that no matter what medication my doctor prescribes that when I collect it from the pharmacy it will cost me exactly £8.60

I can also be confident that when I go for an appointment to see my GP that it will cost me nothing. This doesn't mean that is is free, as my National Insurance contributions are substantial, but that I know that I don't bear any financial risk from going to see a doctor.

I can't imagine what it would be like to have to worry about whether going to see a doctor about this mole that's changed a bit might land me with an unknown bill. Or to worry that my daughters peanut allergy could see me paying hundreds of dollars when her adrenaline pens expires.

<comment><USER6> > This doesn't mean that is is free, as my National Insurance contributions > are substantial, but that I know that I don't bear any financial risk from > going to see a doctor.

In fact, it's more important than that. Because you pay NI upfront, it relieves the feeling of burden that you might otherwise feel towards the NHS, which actually makes you _more_ willing to go to the doctor. This means you're more likely to catch minor things before they become major problems (further reducing NHS costs).

<comment><USER5> Exactly. It's bad enough to be worried that you might have skin cancer, then to worry so much about the cost that you don't go see the doctor can only compound the issue.

I would guess (and don't know) that if you had super amazing insurance then maybe it covers all these unexpected extras. But for those that do not have that level of cover the decision must go something like:

I'm worried that this mole looks bad,

if I go and see a doctor then I might get a nasty bill,

but if I don't go and see a doctor then it might get worse and when it does I'll have no choice but to go,

oh and the cost of the treatment could bankrupt my family

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> We paid NZ$75.

This was for the hospital car parking for 3 days to visit my wife while she recovered in maternity ward in a private room.

Everything else was free, from the first scan, through to delivery, and the standard of care was good.

Didn't need specialists, but if we did that would have been free too.

We have private health insurance as well (NZ$300/month to cover the family), but in public health care is good enough, private is for when you want to get treated faster for less critical things.

<comment><USER8> And that car park is a disaster. I'm guessing you refer to Auckland Hospital. If you are, wait until midnight and the gates open and it becomes free. You can tell when it's going to be free soon as half the cars have people sitting in them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Also worth pointing out that in the UK, we were offered three choices of births. Home, water or hospital. We started off in the birthing pools until mum decided she wanted the epidural after all. I thought all three of options were quite luxurious and service by the midwives was second to none!

If I think about our decision making process for a car-seat (oh god, let's go for the best - just in case), I am glad that no-one has put a monetary value on giving birth.

<comment><USER10> I'd never thought of it like that, but we did exactly the same thing with the child seat. I daren't imagine what would happen to the state of neonatal care if it were privatised here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here's the price list for the private hospital they used.

Note things like "If your baby requires transitional or specialist care, this is free if they are entitled to NHS care and is chargeable if they are not." \-- British (and EU etc) patients can pay for the luxury private room and so on, but if they unfortunately need significant extra care, public healthcare will cover that.

[https://2ic5hf2u26uo1u64w43h7rt0-wpengine.netdna- ssl.com/wp-...](https://2ic5hf2u26uo1u64w43h7rt0-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/01/The-Lindo-Wing-maternity-prices-2018-1.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER12> What do folks in the US with health insurance have to pay? Insurance companies get huge discounts on the artificially inflated listed prices.

<comment><USER13> In "normal" cases, roughly, 500 USD or less if you have insurance.

But it's really awfully complicated -- often the baby gets a separate bill too to muddle the waters. The ACA ("Obamacare") set a cap on in-network yearly out of pocket payments on family plans which, if memory serves, was around 11k in 2017. A complicated birth can hit this! Consider the costs of NICU, for example. (Oh and if an NICU nurse reads this: thank you, thank you, thank you for the life of my niece.)

As to what the insurers pays, I do not know.

<comment><USER14> The _baby_ gets a bill?

<comment><USER15> For services provided to the baby, yes.

The expectation is that the baby will be added to the insurance plan effective as of birth, so it's correct to bill services provided to the baby as... services provided to the baby.

<comment><USER14> Oh I understand how the situation arises ... but billing a baby for being born is never going sound normal to me.

<comment><USER16> I think it's not the birth itself, it's the post-birth services.

<comment><USER11> To most Europeans, _billing a child_ is never going to seem normal.

And that includes dental and optical treatments. Braces and glasses are free, at least the basic type.

(I've generalized all of Europe; there may be exceptions in some countries.)

<comment><USER17> Am European, can confirm. The idea that the first thing a kid gets in this world is a bill for healthcare services is amusing in a chilly sort of way. I mean, it's not like the poor kid had a choice in the matter of whether he's born or not.

What happens if the parents can't afford it? Does he, like, get to go back in until the parents pay? If he had an ailment, and it got cured, do they give it back to him? Do they put him in suspended animation :-)?

<comment><USER16> It's the same in Europe though. The hospital will send a bill to the insurance company (usually there is one default and you can switch your children to another any time) in the name of the child.

<comment><USER11> There is no "insurance company" in Britain or Denmark, the two countries I've been/am eligible for state healthcare as a resident.

I've never seen any paperwork in either country regarding billing or other costs, and that's as an adult.

<comment><USER16> Yes, the paperwork is hidden from you, but its present, the hospital still needs a way to obtain funds from NHS, see: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_England](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_England) \- "The National Health Service (NHS) is free at the point of use for the patient though there are charges associated with eye tests, dental care, prescriptions, and many aspects of personal care."

Please note that you basically listed two exceptions (plus other Nordic companies), most of EU countries have a system that combines private insurance companies with a combination of public, semi-public and completely private health providers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Usa here, with decent health insurance at the time.

C-section birth, plus 4 day stay at the hospital (Max included allowed by insurance). Total billed by the hospital was something crazy around 11-16k? I forget actual number. It was a decent stay/food but nothing crazy over the top about it.

After all said and done we paid $1100 for our hospital stay. I was happy it was this "cheap".

P.s. oh yes, also hospital car parking -I think I was there total for 5 days so $12x5=$60.

</comment><comment><USER19> My American ex-wife was afraid about this, then she found out that in Italy you pay 0.

We are really lucky.

</comment><comment><USER20> I remember a similar article [1] discussed a few months back here in HN. And I have found the dialogue of the community [2] to be very informative.

[1]: [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/16/why-does- it-...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/16/why-does-it- cost-32093-just-to-give-birth-in-america)

[2]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16189976](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16189976)

</comment><comment><USER12> Sales tax in the UK is 20%. A gallon of gas is >$7. Salaries are miniscule compared to the US. SF/NYC real estate is a bargain compared to London. And the NHS, well hmm...

<comment><USER21> How is the UK's 29k USD median income a year "minuscule" compared to the 31k from the US?

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> In Russia giving birth is free, as is whatever-long stay is hospital (in shared room). Of course, you can have private room, where father, mother and child can stay for as little as 100$ a night. Actually, state pays mother about 7000$ for second child in addition to all normal allowances and benefits.

</comment><comment><USER23> The Duchess of Cambridge: she no longer has her maiden name.

</comment><comment><USER24> Nah, just millions of people paid as well. It's like saying education is "free".

<comment><USER25> In this case it's a UK private hospital not funded by the NHS so the comparison is valid. The article compares one of the most expensive private hospital of the UK to the cost of an average US hospital. Also the US spends more in public taxes for healthcare than the UK so I don't see your point.

<comment><USER26> It's actually a UK NHS hospital which operates a private maternity wing on the side. The email address in the brochure is even @nhs.net. They're probably relying on staff and resources from the NHS side to handle more difficult births too.

<comment><USER27> Private companies who provide services to the NHS also get @nhs.net email addresses. It's a secure email system so that patient and other confidential data can be exchanged between providers without it going out onto random internet mail servers.

An @nhs.net email doesn't mean "this person/organisation is a part of the NHS", it means they provide services to the NHS and need to deal with patient data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> A midwife delivered my kid in the bedroom for two orders of magnitude less money.

Not to mention, thousands of years of doing it without even a midwife was somehow good enough to keep the species alive long enough for hospitals to be invented so people could think having a baby requires one.

EDIT: Sorry to distract you with that last bit. A midwife, you're paying for a license and a sterile pair of scissors. It works fine. The idea that you need a huge medical apparatus and to pay $10 grand for it, to do something humans evolved to do, is pretty FUDdish.

<comment><USER29> Which shows that a high infant mortality rate is insufficient to extinct a species, not that home birth is safe.

<comment><USER30> Home birth doesn't have to be unsafe as long as you have well-trained mid- people and easy access to a hospital in case of complications. An uncomplicated birth doesn't need a hospital, and most births in Netherland still happen at home. It works fine if your system is designed to allow it.

<comment><USER29> Home birth is not safe. In the Netherlands, as elsewhere, it causes deaths: [http://www.skepticalob.com/2010/07/netherlands-homebirth- and...](http://www.skepticalob.com/2010/07/netherlands-homebirth-and- high.html)

And the majority of Dutch births are not home births. Due to the safety issues, the rate has fallen to only 13%: [http://www.skepticalob.com/2017/02/dutch-homebirth-rate- cont...](http://www.skepticalob.com/2017/02/dutch-homebirth-rate-continues-to- plummet-now-only-13.html)

<comment><USER30> I stand corrected.

Although if birth-related mortality is rising while home births are dropping, doesn't that suggest there's something else going on? The relatively high age of Dutch mothers may also be a factor (I believe the average age at which women have their first child is around 30).

Having read a bit more about the issue, it appears the jury is still out.

<comment><USER29> >Although if birth-related mortality is rising while home births are dropping, doesn't that suggest there's something else going on?

Huh, where do you see mortality rising? The link refers to a decrease: "Historical data show that 7-day (28-day) mortality declined from 4.25 (5.35) deaths per 1,000 births in 1980–1985 to 2.42 (3.18) deaths in 2005-2009"

>Having read a bit more about the issue, it appears the jury is still out.

I don't know how you can think that. Every statistical comparison shows home births kill babies. Unfortunately, there are still people who claim otherwise, but none of them have data to support their claims.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Nommu Linux - <AUTHOR> http://nommu.org/ <comment><USER2> I'm a little bit confused as to what this site actually is.

Is nommu a fork of the linux kernel like uclinux? If so, where is the source? Or is it just a guide for programming on MMU-less systems (e.g. uclinux).

I'm planning a MC68020 SBC project. My current goal is to get uclinux running, but I'd be interested to see what else I can run on it.

<comment><USER3> nommu has been part of the mainline kernel for many years now, no fork needed.

<comment><USER2> Ah, so it is. I feel like they should have stated that in the introductory paragraph.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I dont see "why"? Any ideas?

<comment><USER5> Practically... no one would really use this.

Anyone wanting a scheduler on a microcontroller based system would not want the baggage of a linux-level general purpose OS. You use a simple scheduler such as FreeRTOS/RTX/etc.

These days the only systems without full MMUs are microcontroller-based ones for which this is not appropriate. No embedded system is going to be dynamically-loading applications like this, its all bare-metal, all built into the one image.

No-MMU linux did have a use back when say the 68000 based lines were still in wide use, but these days all I can think of is for user-space linux where everything is simulated in a single process under a full general-purpose OS.

<comment><USER6> There are still CPUs without MMU where one would like to run Linux (e.g. J-core or other FPGA soft cores).

One good reason for using Linux instead of any of the RTOS is better networking support. I've used VxWorks, RTEMS, Nucleus, FreeRTOS, eCos, etc and their networking stacks are all pretty slow and crappy.

<comment><USER7> There's also way better input and output support.

I recently did a project with ucLinux on an LPC1788 (Cortex-M3). Getting the USB host stack is always a pain in the ass, but it was dirt simple on the Linux port.

Same for LCD framebuffer, GPIO, touchscreen (unique animals every time), I2C, SPI, etc etc etc. And I can pull anything I want off the kernel tree and not have to spend a week getting it working on another OS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I had a IP camera running uclinux [1] on ARM7 years ago. The camera was connected to the CPU with USB interface internally. I guess the benefit with using Linux was free ip, USB, and uvc stack.

1\. [http://www.uclinux.org](http://www.uclinux.org)

</comment><comment><USER9> TempleOS already does this. ("This" being "no virtual addresses".)

</comment><comment><USER10> So basically like programming for AmigaOS 3.x?

<comment><USER11> Kinda. Best i can find is that AmigaOS didn't have memory protection because the 68k initially didn't have it, but later variants got it (68030 onwards?).

I think there was similar issues with (classic) Mac OS and Windows 9x.

<comment><USER12> Classic MacOS dealt with the memory fragmentation in a pretty neat way tho. All code was relocatable to start with, and pretty much _every_ memory block you'd allocate was also relocatable by using one further level of indirection called a Handle. A Handle was basically a pointer to a pointer. A Handle defaulted to 'unlocked' so the actual memory block could move at any time; unless you Locked it, and Unlocked it afterward.

This allowed the OS to compact the memory heap, move all the relocatable blocks in one corner and allow further contiguous blocks to be allocated.

Of course, this is a primitive concept these days, but it allowed amazing pieces of software to exist on very, very small memory systems.

<comment><USER13> I fondly remember playing with Photoshop 2.5 on my Color Classic with its 16MHz CPU with 10MB RAM... It was amazing what you could do on such a "primitive" machine.

<comment><USER12> Photoshop was a little bit of a masterpiece back then (it arguably still is, deep down) -- it had it's own 'swap' system for large pixmaps that allowed you to work on images that were massively bigger than the onboard memory; and it wasn't even that slow (unless you were applying filters on the whole image).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why: Even 10 years ago some routers/set-top boxes ran on mmuless SoCs(Coldfire, lexra LX4180), and stayed on uclinux even after switching to new processors with mmu.

[http://paparisa.unpatti.ac.id/linux_journal_archive_1994_200...](http://paparisa.unpatti.ac.id/linux_journal_archive_1994_2007/LJ/160/9691.html)

</comment><comment><USER15> What is difference between nommu linux and uclinux?

<comment><USER16> That uClinux got merged into the mainline kernel and is basically the nommu support today, at least as far as I understand it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It reminds me of the ELKS project to run Linux on i8086-i286. What would be the advantages or disadvantages of this compared to uClinux? For example perhaps it's raison d'etre is that you can run it on Cortex-M0 for ultra low power

<comment><USER5> No one using a microcontroller-based system would be wanting dynamic loading, etc.

This is purely a curiosity-satisfying project it seems.

<comment><USER3> > This is purely a curiosity-satisfying project it seems.

[http://www.emcraft.com/](http://www.emcraft.com/) suggests otherwise

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> So who actually checks return values of malloc, and why? (or why not?)

<comment><USER2> IMHO checking the return value is only useful if you can actually do something about it.

For example, you might want to gracefully write a database to disk before terminating the program.

It's definitely bad practice, but if you run out of memory during the initialisation of a program, quitting with a segfault is a fairly reasonable error. Of course, catching the error and printing something meaningful would be much better, but if you're in a rush to get something to work for a personal project it's not much of an issue.

<comment><USER18> The article states that malloc only fails when you run out of virtual address space, which is basically never going to happen if you're on a 64 bit architecture. So you can go for good practice and check all your mallocs for failure, but if the failure never happens why bother?

<comment><USER19> As far as I know, only Linux behaves like this, and even there it is configurable. (keyword is "memory overcommit", there are sysctl settings for it)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Neat, but why?

<comment><USER21> Answered above. Some micro-controllers or fpga's ship without MMU's, this is needed if you want to run Linux.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> There is no obvious practical application for such system. So "why?" is irrelevant here.

Never the less taking such common abstraction as MMU and disabling it is awesome illustration of OS architecture.

<comment><USER23> It's for running on systems that don't have an MMU, not disabling it.</comment></comment>


Living Inside Your Own Black Box - <AUTHOR> http://prog21.dadgum.com/66.html

<comment><USER2> Treating your program as a black box with set of inputs and outputs to avoid library reliance is useful. As mentioned, it increases portability, eases maintenance and future revision. One downside however might be not taking full advantage of library implementation details for performance concerns. Anyway, this sounds like a case for building for interfaces or abstractions, and the same arguments apply. I would agree though that this is a good approach to take in general.

</comment><comment><USER3> I tried doing this when learning Haskell, to minimize any connection to monads. For whatever reason, 'twasn't easy.

Then I tried it with Clojure, even though I don't have to, and it seemed a lot simpler. Just pass a map around with all the data in it, or whatever.</comment>


Norfolk museum acquires Bronze Age dirk used as doorstop - <AUTHOR> http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/33542

<comment><AUTHOR> This detail is particularly striking (in regards to the fact that only five dirks like this have ever been found, and four of these were in France or the Netherlands rather than the British Isles):

"Their dimensions and details are so similar that all dirks likely came from the same workshop, perhaps even the same hand. They are virtually identical in form, decoration and cross-section."

<comment><USER2> These artifacts were found by random chance, often while plowing a field. Which means that the vast majority of such artifacts has never been found. So if we found a few already, it is quite likely that there are many more such identical dirks out there --it is possible they were mass produced to an extent, or at least that a same model was being produced for relatively long periods.

<comment><USER3> Almost all of the old 'trades' were to produce certain well proven designs over and over. So it's no surprise they're close to identical.

See here for a nice example of such skill:

[http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/07/30/gunsmithing- in...](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/07/30/gunsmithing-in-pakistan/)

Being able to copy a 'known-good' design was an essential skill for a smith back in the days. If it works don't change/fix it, and this kind of copying would go all the way down to the decorations. (Those Pakistani gunsmiths would even copy the serial numbers.)

True innovation was slow, and required taking risks (just like today...).

For ceremonial things like this dirk there was even less freedom for change.

<comment><USER4> This makes some serious assumptions regarding what exactly "close to identical" means.

"Similar in design" or even "identical in design" definitely do not equate to "close to identical" in execution in all cases, despite the provided anecdote. If we're talking about something that qualifies as the same type of tool or weapon, OK. If we're talking about something with extremely similar metallurgical qualities, size, design, age, etc., then it's likely a little more than just "well, it's an x made of y found at z, they're all the same."

<comment><USER3> > This makes some serious assumptions regarding what exactly "close to > identical" means.

Let me spell that out for you: so close to each other that if you exchanged two of those items and you wouldn't be intimately familiar with it (scratches, dents) that you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

> "Similar in design" or even "identical in design" definitely do not equate > to "close to identical" in execution in all cases, despite the provided > anecdote.

Not in all cases, but in quite a few of them. Examples:

\- wheels bands and hubs (the rest was usually wood)

\- weapons

\- utensils

\- tools

\- hardware (like nails, which were insanely valuable)

Almost all of those would be copied very accurately from template designs over a wide region. Decorations (handles and such) would be the first to vary, then dimensions, then materials then the actual design of the business bit and finally the process.

> If we're talking about something that qualifies as the same type of tool or > weapon, OK.

Exactly.

> If we're talking about something with extremely similar metallurgical > qualities, size, design, age, etc., then it's likely a little more than just > "well, it's an x made of y found at z, they're all the same."

No, that's what you'd expect. If they would be made in the same region and time then that's more or less the default since that puts serious constraints on the metallurgical knowledge of the time and on the designs that were permitted and/or in fashion.

We still have this even today, walk into any toolstore and pick tools from roughly the same quality level and you'll find that at that level they're pretty much identical.

Rare exceptions like Estwing hammers do happen but for handtools they're not the norm.

When 'mass production' wasn't possible yet there was greater variability than there is today but that was not because variability was a goal, it was rather an unfortunate side effect of making things by hand. The whole idea of being a good tradesman was to deliver constant quality and to get that variability under control as much as possible.

Having your sword break in battle because it has a nice new pattern on it isn't going to give you many happy customers so better stick to knowing what works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The bending is interesting. Are there other examples of this out there? Part of me can't help but think that it probably just got hit with a plow enough times.

<comment><USER6> From the article: "This piece was designed for a ritual purpose, which is why it was found folded. Bending a metal object as a symbolic act of destruction before burial was a common practice in the Bronze Age and later."

<comment><USER5> Yep. I read the article too.

I would just like to see _other_ examples, and find out more about the practice. Googling just turns up more references to this particular item.

<comment><USER7> Google for 'burial weapons bent', turns up pictures from Celtic burials, iron age, and more.

<comment><USER5> Thanks—looks like this dagger is a particularly well-preserved example.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: EmailTest.com – free spammyness testing and email rendering - <AUTHOR> https://www.producthunt.com/posts/emailtest-com <comment><USER2> Why do you want to send me notifications?</comment>


How to Make a Documentary About Sampling- Legally - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/03/how-to-make-a-documentary-about-sampling-legally/38189/

<comment><USER2> How atrocious is this: George Clinton got sued for sampling his own music. If that's not a sign that the licensing system needs to be changed, I don't know what is.</comment>


First Tesla victory over Car Dealers - <AUTHOR> http://www.tirebusiness.com/article/20121121/NEWS/121129978/mass-car-dealers-denied-injunction-against-tesla-store

<comment><USER2> A quote from the article: "Tesla may not yet recognize the value of the independent, franchised dealer system, but as its sales increase, NADA is confident it will re-examine its business model," Montana dealer and NADA Chairman Bill Underriner said in the statement. "Other companies such as Daewoo did. All companies should be complying with existing laws in the same way dealers are required to."

I hate to rain on your parade, but if "the value of the independent, franchised dealer system" is so self-evident, there would be no need for a law forcing people to use it and punishing non-compliance.</comment>