Ask HN: how do you learn Math? - <AUTHOR>

I'm going back to school this September to finally get my formal education in CS. Part of this process will involve me doing some really basic math again (exponents/log easy), stuff that I've forgotten over the years of doing basic CRUD apps and web-apps. Getting some tutoring from my engineering husband doesn't seem to help : he processes problems and learning quite differently than I. He likes "rules to follow" and knowing operations you can perform on a problem. I cannot learn that way, and asked if he ever found proofs useful, resulting in a look of absolute horror as we realize that we think completely differently, and any teaching efforts will go wasted and end in utter frustration on both parts.
How did you learn math? Any recommendation of sites to pick up this stuff easily again?
Seriously I'm having trouble doing some simple algebra...it's scaring the heck out of me. <comment><USER2> Knowledge passes from the paper, to the pencil, to the hand, up the body, and to the brain. My point: do lots of problems. _Schaum's_ has some good material. Mathematics is just like anything else. If you want to be good at it, you have to practice it. It doesn't matter what level you are at, whether it be arithmetic or writing complex proofs.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've never used Schaum's outline series before, but I shall look that up. Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hi Chocobean,

I can sympathize. Completely.

I had a horrible math education in high school (more detail is provided elsewhere on YC.) I hate the plug-and-chug rules approach, and I'm fairly math-phobic. I completely avoided math during my first college experience, even taking a class in C++ once just to avoid taking Calculus for an analytics requirement. I had no interest in programming at the time, and the C++ class was probably worse than any math I could have been subjected to. The instructor was just learning English, so we practiced (inflicted?) our developing skills on each other. Anyway, I taught myself math before going to college the second time. I have no idea how I did it, other than tons of practice problems and a tutor. Youthful ambition, I guess. All of the math related to econ and finance examples, so I think that made it easier for me. I needed to have a conceptual understanding of why you were doing something in order to understand the 'rules.'

Then I 'lost' what math I had learned on my own after a mini-stroke around age 30 (or maybe it was lost from the brain lesions, who knows.) I work mostly in software and finance now, so math is kind of important. Attempting to cram again, I found that the same learning techniques no longer worked for me. Nothing stuck. I bought about $15,000 worth of self-instruction materials, in part because I hate streaming video or reading lengthy books online, and also because there was less material available online at the time. Most of what I bought sucks and was wasted money. I stopped reading any books that lost me in the first few minutes, or that had many obvious errors. I procrastinated quite a bit. I eventually rebuilt my basic math foundation (up through basic Calc), but I've never advanced to the level I want to be. Someday.

If you're a visual learner and willing to spend some dough: Thinkwell, Chalkdust, and MathTutorDVD were pretty good and were better values than the rest of the 'courses' I bought. Thinkwell was easily the most entertaining, and their courses covered a good bit of material, but their interface is kind of a pain. MathTutorDVD was good, but it has less of a conceptual overview or explanation component. It's just a dude working out problems on a whiteboard. Chalkdust, like many multimedia math courses, is spendy - but the guy speaks clear English if that's important to you. [If you can, watch a sample of any training before you buy it. I spent $300 on a course from a professor in NY, and I wanted to stab my eardrums out from his voice and accent (mostly his specific voice, the accent just made it worse.) I had a similar problem with a course from an Indian professor... I couldn't understand about every other word. It was like the C++ class all over again.] Now, of course, there are tons of FREE online video courses at MIT OCW, UC-Berk, FreeVideoLectures.com, etc. etc. Try those first. If something doesn't click or you don't like the presenter, move on. I'd definitely try to find materials that balance concepts (why, how) with completed practice problems. Just keep trying...eventually something will stick. I'm pretty much hopeless, and some stuff eventually seeped into even my melon. I'm sure you'll do well...the fact that you're worried about it at all is a good sign. Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> " I needed to have a conceptual understanding of why you were doing something in order to understand the 'rules.' "

That's exactly it. I frequently got frustrated in high school Calc class because I couldn't understand _why_ we were doing certain things. THe problem is that so much material needed to be just groked at once, and then and only then can they explain and prove anything....this time around I'm a lot more proactive in spotting when I'm only "faking" understanding, and working it out.

Another poster commented that with Algebra for example it all boils down to applications of axioms. So for that I am doing tonnes of practice.

amazing story =) I too believe that there is life beyond Math, but for now, rumours has it that doing some math will make me a better hacker(at least for bureaucratic reasons). So I shall persist.

<comment><USER4> My oldest son has dyscalculia -- the numbers simply don't compute for him -- and he is a visual-spatial type, so needs the big picture (context) to understand anything. Here is a list of stuff we used while homeschooling him: <http://kidslikemine.com/mathlist.shtml>

HTH.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=733369> Riemann for Anti-dummies: Introduction and Critique

</comment><comment><USER6> I think there is less math in undergraduate computer science programs than you might think.

If they require you to take calculus or a discreet mathematics course then you might have to re-learn some things, but exponents and logs aren't that common in pure CS classes.

I know this doesn't really answer your question, but good advice might just be: don't freak out.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks. =)

my particular university has first and second year calc and then other maths and stats all the way up to 4th year level, unfortunately. I was always an A/B student back in highschool, but that was when I did this stuff day in day out. Plus I don't have the teenage angst to fuel me anymore. The comsci courses are making me so happy though, that I think I should manage to pull through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I go the rules route. I don't know that you can learn algebra any other way, can you? I mean, if you don't know the rules, how are you going to do the problem? I hated proofs, though that is more applicable to geometry.

<comment><USER8> I don't know that I agree with this. If you don't like just following rules, then you want to try to understand why the rules work and make sense. E.g. why are you allowed to add "x" both sides of the equation or divide both sides by 2?

The rest of it is like what BrentRitterbeck says. You just need to do enough problems to be able to look at a problem and say to yourself "I think this technique will work."

Proofs in algebra aren't usually very enlightening with respect to the theorem they are trying to prove, but they can teach you a new technique (e.g. proving the quadratic equation can teach you how to "complete the square").</comment></comment>


How American Jews Toppled Paris Couture and Redesigned the Fashion Industry - <AUTHOR> http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2009/2009-08/200908-Ghetto-to-Glamour.html <comment><USER2> Again, this is article has a title which is extremely misleading. Ethnicity is improperly cited as cause, instead of traits that are commonly attributed to immigrants. Paris Couture was never "toppled" nor "redesigned" and this group did not exclusively create American ready-to-wear (to which the title infers).

If you look at the large trends of the last hundred years of fashion, the success is largely cultural (non-ethnicity-based) opposed to any other factor (this includes innovation through new fabrics or new sewing techniques which has been cited in the article as the determining factor). Fashion reflects the cultural and emotional sentiment of its target market, and does not impose any cultural designs, as the article stated at the end (basic law of demand). Furthermore, the Jewish-American "advantage" (tailoring trade skills, work ethic, innovation, optimism) can all be attributed to immigrants in general.</comment>


Ask HN: Would a startup sponsor my visa? - <AUTHOR> Are U.S. start-ups able/willing to help foreign (European) developers get an employment visa, or is this too much hassle for a smaller company? Have you done it in the past?<p>EDIT: I rephrased the question, as it was meant to be general. I myself am not going anywhere for at least 1 year. I am merely planning my career on a long-term basis during this weekend. <comment><USER2> I was lucky enough to get a startup to sponsor my H1B. It was a big investment for them since I'd cost them a large chunk of money and time before I'd written a single line of code. You spend most of the process feeling guilty for taking time from extremely busy people's days to go through huge email discussions with lawyers and filling out forms. When you actually land at the company people will wonder why so much time and effort was taken to ship someone in from abroad rather than hiring locally.

From the employee side there's also risk, while you can switch jobs on an H1B it's not trivial and startups have a tendency to go under (luckily my current employer is kicking ass so my chances of an unemployment related deportation are very close to 0 but it still worries me at times). Having your company go under is never fun, that coupled with facing a deadline to find another job with visa related friction slowing the process down is not something I'd like to try.

On the upside working for a US startup is an amazing experience. Ireland has some hardy souls trying startups but it's like another planet over here. A lot more energy and enthusiasm around starting something new and people don't treat startups like a last ditch attempt at employment which is nice.

</comment><comment><USER3> We'll, let's look at the figures.

A H1B costs $8k max. A startup salary starts at $80K per year. Would you pay 10% of salary to get a good candidate? In this job market, in a heartbeat.

</comment><comment><USER4> We're currently in the process of sponsoring two foreigners for H1B visa, and we're a small bootstrapped startup, so yeah it's definitely possible.

The legal costs are fairly high, but we have been working with the 2 applicants for several months already, so I'm comfortable sponsoring them. I would not have done it based on a resume and job interviews alone.

I'd be happy to answer any questions if you need more details.

oh, and to address some of the other comments here, my understanding is that it's illegal for the applicant to pay for the legal costs.

Also, as employer we cannot underpay the applicant. Part of the application process requires us to disclose the salary offered and document prevailing wages for the same position in the same area. Should the salary offered be too low, the visa would be denied. (many requirements in the application process are designed to protect American jobs)

<comment><USER5> Yes. Thanks for pointing that out. H1B visa holders make a very minute percentage of the total number of foreign workers. The visa laws are meant to protect American jobs but there are some loopholes that are being utilized to misuse the visa (around 20% misuse is reported).

I have been trying to find a startup in NYC to work with but haven't found the right one yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > I am merely planning my career on a long-term basis

I would suggest that if you're planning for the _long-term_ and want more job security, stay away from startups. Too much can wrong and you'll have too much too lose if they go belly-up and/or don't have people that can competently handle your immigration paperwork.

I moved from the UK to the USA in 2001. I came here on a J-1 visa (18 months), then got an H1-B (6 years) and finally got a green card through marriage. I worked for a federal government agencies - they were throwing H1-Bs at everyone and had a dedicated team for handling foreign/immigration issues. When I transferred from government work to 'Company B' their HR screwed up my immigration paperwork so bad that USCIS issued a _deportation notice_ and I lost my job. Nightmare scenario given that I had a mortgage, and my partner was 7-months pregnant, commuting 10 hours a week, working F-T and finishing up her MBA.

Visas/immigration (and attorney fees) have been a pain in the rear for the last decade. I think I'll pay Uncle Sam the $700 just to become a citizen so I can sleep better...

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm vaguely curious about this too. What a lot of people don't know is that there a special visa for Australians to work in the US, called an E3 [1] that (IIRC) came about only 5-8 years ago as part of a settlement of a trade dispute (basically the US blocks Australian wheat imports on quarantine grounds but the real issue is Australian agriculture isn't subsidized and is competitive with US agriculture, which is hugely subsidized).

Anyway, an E3 visa is actually MUCH easier to get than a H1B visa. For a H1B visa you have to "prove" that the job qualifies (Labor certification) and that you can't find anyone locally to do it. The first part is a formality (getting an LCA from the Department of Labor). The second is the hard and expensive part.

For an E3, you only need to do the first part.

So if you can't find people locally, consider employing Australians. I am curious on the cost and hassle of doing this from the employer's side too.

Anyone had any experience with this?

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_visa>

<comment><USER8> I'm an Australian working in the US on an E3 visa. The ease of getting an E3 was definitely an advantage for me.

I recently joined a startup and did all the leg-work myself, without a lawyer. The only thing the company needed to do was fill out an LCA, which I don't think has any fees associated with it. I then went to a US consulate in Canada, completed the visa interview, and made my way back into the US to begin work.

Thole process went smoothly for me - was there anything specific you wanted to ask?

<comment><USER7> I too am on an E3 but my employer (and their lawyers, more specifically) dealt with it all the paperwork on their end. All I had to do was provide them with copies of my degrees and so forth, get a packet of paperwork from them (including the LCA certification), make an appointment with the local consulate and then go. I got my passport back (with visa) the next day.

What I am curious about is:

\- How many startups know about the E3?

\- How many would be willing to go through what seems like a lot less hassle of sponsoring an E3 (vs the far greater hassle of an H1B)?

\- How much less hassle is it really?

<comment><USER9> In my experience, most employers don't know about it, and startups are not much different in this case.

Once you explain that it is similar to the TN visa for hiring Canadians, most people are fairly relaxed about it.

I'm an Australian on my 3rd E3 visa, it is much much easier than an E3 for everyone involved from what I have heard from collegues. The first E3 visa I got was for a startup, and they got ripped off big time with a $5k 'expeditied processing' fee from their lawyer.

In reality all it costs is a few hundred in applications fees (at the consulate) and a trip to Australia. The paper work for the employer is free (LCA) and usually takes 10 days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'd be willing, if you were well qualified.

<comment><USER11> So that probably means an experienced hire. What about relatively unexperienced new grads? Do they have any hope in joining a startup on a visa?

<comment><USER12> Only if the sponsoring company can demonstrate that there are no available US citizens with the same qualifications. The fewer qualifications involved the less likely it is to be able to demonstrate this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> In the bay area, given the current market, any reasonably funded startup would likely work with you, assuming you passed interviews, etc.

It may be somewhat easier at a company that's dealt with the process before, but most valley startups will have access to experienced immigration attorneys.

<comment><USER14> The issue is interviewing in the first place- you'd have to fly out specifically for the interview and hope that it works out. Quite a financial gamble if you do it repeatedly...

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that would be a lot of money. Do companies do interviews over video-chat at all?

<comment><USER15> Yes, that is how I got my current job was through a couple rounds of video chat. I'm a Canadian citizen working at a US startup through an I-84 work visa.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There's a threshold, just because of the cost involved. In general, if a startup is big enough to be able to afford it, they'd gladly sponsor you.

A previous company I worked at sponsored somebody after their second round of funding.

</comment><comment><USER17> I've recently had some experience with this and it seems only about 60k h1b visas are available each year (year starts in September).

[http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f...](http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=4b7cdd1d5fd37210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=73566811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD) If you want to see a count down for the 2012 quota

I've been told that most of those go to larger companies and that startups might find it harder to get them (this is anecdotal though)

</comment><comment><USER18> I am in your exact situation, I plan to leave everything I've behind and hit the states or Canada in one year or so and as far as I know there shouldn't be any problem for any kind of startup to get you in(legal wise), of course there's the money problem, the startup has to choose if you are worth the money they are going to spend on lawyers and other expenses (~$10k as I've heard) but nothing that a good resume can't beat, also you can offer to pay for the expenses as I am willing to do.

<comment><USER19> > there shouldn't be any problem for any kind of startup to get you in(legal > wise)

Have you spent five minutes to Google this?

* Excepting the premium processing fee, H1B holders can't pay for their own legal costs.

* H1B holders can be "passively" involved in other companies, including founding them, but cannot derive any benefit from them. (Confusing!)

You could work for a startup in the USA simply for wages, but that would be certifiably insane. The usual answer is to assign ownership to the investor(s) or American employees and have some arrangement whereby you'll get the benefits later, but that involves a degree of trust in investors that I don't have, personally.

See [http://danashultz.com/blog/2011/05/06/can-i-get- an-h-1b-visa...](http://danashultz.com/blog/2011/05/06/can-i-get-an-h-1b-visa- working-for-my-own-company/) , [http://danashultz.com/blog/2011/01/18/visa- basics-for-foreig...](http://danashultz.com/blog/2011/01/18/visa-basics-for- foreign-entrepreneurs-part-2-what-constitutes-work/) .

There are ways to get around this, which are pretty similar to money laundering (look it up in a dictionary sometime). Some lawyers are willing to do this, others aren't. Be aware that a lawyer specializing in individual immigration cases is not going to jeopardize their relationship with the US Gov't just for you.

Also, even if you conceive of some scheme to get around this, be aware that startups are often very distracted. I tried to join one in the 90s, where a relative of mine was even the CEO, and the relationship was hot/cold for months. One week it was "yes, we're totally doing this!" and the next it was "um, not the right time, wait a month more!"

<comment><USER14> > You could work for a startup in the USA simply for wages, but that would be > certifiably insane.

...why? It would just be like, y'know, having a job.

<comment><USER19> Because you could get a similar and higher-paying job with zero risk by applying to one of the bigger companies.

<comment><USER14> I'd definitely contend that a job with a bigger company would not be 'similar'. I previously worked at a "bigger company" and the job was utterly miserable. The startup I work for gave me stock in the company, but I wasn't actually expecting it- I would have worked there anyway.

As long as you're getting decent pay I see no reason to stay in a miserable corporate job if you don't want to be in one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There are startups willing to go through the troubles of H1B sponsorship. Engineers are in demand and the (typically) $5k it costs is a small number when signing bonuses can be much higher. There have been periods where this was a timing problem, and a small gamble, but the past couple years and this year there has been a significant drop in applicants. What this means is that your H1B is all but assured if you're qualified.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm currently in San Francisco with a H1B at Academia.edu, a reasonably well- funded startup (not that early stage, but still only 5 developers and very much a great startup atmosphere), so it happens.

Also, they/we did/do interviews through Skype, so no flights. Though interviews being convenient does not make them any easier :)

(ps: we are hireing: <http://www.academia.edu/hiring>)

</comment><comment><USER22> I myself left Europe in 2001. It wasn't easy. I attempted to get sponsorship from 77 businesses but no luck.

I finally settled agreeing to work for 3 months unpaid internship, at the end of which I got my first job in Australia.

It ain't easy to wing it, so be ready to think outside the box.

<comment><USER23> I did something similar for US. Got there on internship visa (J-1 I believe) for 6 months, and then was offered an FTE on H-1B. Back then in 2006 the yearly H-1B were "released" in late May or early June I believe, and they finished in a month or so, so this might be good to take into consideration when planning. I believe a good time for the employer to file application is in April or May, and then the H-1B is typically ready in September.

After the internship some other option came up for me back home in Sweden so I never used my H-1B.

Note: This was not for a startup, but for an established company with HR and all that stuff. But the timing aspects should still apply I believe. As a side-note I eventually moved to Singapore, and getting an "employment pass" (equivalent to US H-1B) here was extremely smooth, comparing to all the work to get the H-1B for US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> We're hiring. We will sponsor a work visa for the right person, and would consider exceptional new grads. <http://careers.thinknear.com>

</comment><comment><USER25> Does it have to be a startup?

There's a huge continuum between fledgling startup and entrenched multinational. There exist smaller multinationals where you can still have a huge impact.

</comment><comment><USER26> I am on a visa myself at a small 4-person startup that has only raised seed funding, so yes it is possible if you are a strong candidate.

</comment><comment><USER27> You could work for a European startup which has offices in the US, work for them in Europe for a year and then transfer out on an L1.

</comment><comment><USER28> Yeah, I'd love to hear about this too! Anyone with experience for/against this?

</comment><comment><USER5> I would like to know this as well. Do you mean H1B visa?

<comment><AUTHOR> I wouldn't be too picky, as long as I had a piece of paper allowing me to stay and work in the country for a longer period of time.

<comment><USER29> I'm interested in this as well (again, on a long term basis, not going anywhere any time soon). However, I am concerned that the type of visa would restrict my employment options once in the country. First, I believe they are often linked to one company, and not trivially transferable? I.e. if I quit, I will have to leave the country more or less immediately? Second, even with saved money, I'd have to jump through hoops in order to take a month between jobs (since I'd be unemployed)? Third, becoming self-employed is not an option since I can't sponsor my own visa?

I'd like to be proved wrong, but these issues are deal breakers for me, which probably means I won't get to work in the US, except on short secondments.

<comment><USER14> I've just done this- you're mostly correct, but with an important caveat.

If you switch between jobs, you can start working for your new employer as soon as you've sent off the paperwork- you don't have to wait for them to process it (which can take many, many months). However, you cannot have a gap between jobs- your employment must be continuous.

<comment><USER30> So, something like taking some time off before you start at the new job would be frowned upon?

<comment><USER14> Depends on your old employer. If you get on well with them and they are OK with your leaving, you could conceivably use your vacation time at the end of your employment with them.

<comment><USER5> That makes working on visa a little difficult, doesn't it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> So, what can you do?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, I was unclear. It was meant as a general question, if start-ups are willing to do so. I am staying put for at least 1 more year where I am right now.

But thanks for asking!

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> never too much hassle if there is a mutual click</comment>


Paid Google Apps now required for any domain with more than 10 users - <AUTHOR>

Not really a big deal for me, but definitely a change. Here's an email I received today for one of my domains:
<comment>----
Hello,
We recently announced upcoming changes to the maximum number of users for Google Apps. We want to let you know that, as a current customer, the changes will not affect you.
As of May 10, any organization that signs up for a new account will be required to use the paid Google Apps for Business product in order to create more than 10 users. We honor our commitment to all existing customers and will allow you to add more than 10 users to your account for [redacted].com at no additional charge, based on the limit in place when you joined us.
Sincerely, The Google Apps Team </comment><comment><USER2> I got the same email on my various google app domains. I can't say I blame them and IMO 10 users is still extremely generous for a completely free service of such high quality.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yeah definitely can't blame them for that either. Before it was 50 I believe which is quite a ton of users for free software.</comment>


Infrastructure as code - <AUTHOR> http://www.alexgallego.org/random/thoughts/2015/03/28/infrastructure-as-code.html <comment><USER3> The crew at Mailgun are kinda doing this, and its been enabled by vulcan proxy:

[https://github.com/mailgun/vulcand](https://github.com/mailgun/vulcand)

At first, sure, Vulcand is just another reverse proxy, but what they have been doing is registering individual HTTP handlers with the proxy -- into etcd:

[https://github.com/mailgun/scroll](https://github.com/mailgun/scroll)

(there is a python implementation somehwere too, just can't find it)

What's neat about exposing these individual HTTP handlers, is now your reverse proxy can produce metrics, apply circuit breakers, etc, all in a central way, but your "micro" service just has to register with etcd:

[http://blog.vulcanproxy.com/vulcand-news-circuit-breakers- be...](http://blog.vulcanproxy.com/vulcand-news-circuit-breakers-better- metrics-and-anomaly-api/)

So, you end up with an architectural style where you can deploy a single HTTP handler as its own service, similar to what the article was pointing to, but in a multi-lanaguage approach, where HTTP is the communication method.

<comment><USER4> Very similar :)

We do use a proxy/router. The main difference is that instead of using etcd for service discovery we are deeply integrated with Mesos.

Our framework scheduler does the registration/deregistration, resource allocation/colocation, etc.

The main reason for a proxy at this point is to have unified metrics collection, distributed routing (each reverse proxy knows only its immediately connected downstream operators), tracing (think dapper), and facilitating the communication with other languages (c++, java, go, js - node, ruby, etc).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The problem is that there's a certain essential minimum complexity to every interesting piece of software. You can't eliminate essential complexity - <USER2> can only move it around.

Monolithic architecture turns a configuration management problem into a coding problem. Eventually, coupling within the monolith makes it hard to develop.

Service-oriented architecture turns a coding problem into a configuration management problem. Eventually, the potential combinations of small services become unmanageable and untestable, making it hard to run operationally.

You have two kneecaps. Which one gets the bullet? Because you're gonna get kneecapped either way.

<comment><USER6> Unless you have a framework sitting over the lot, defining that some set of (service, interface, version) tuples collectively makes up an 'application'.

This way, you get most-every benefit of SOA whilst being able to reason about an application as a whole.

That's the approach we're taking with our microservices framework, wym: [http://wym.io/](http://wym.io/)

<comment><USER5> You add a layer of complexity to try to manage the complexity. Which works, but it ain't a free lunch.

<comment><USER6> Yes, absolutely. Much in the same way that web frameworks do this. :)

The complexity is handed off to the framework authors/community and (web) development is revolutionised for everyone else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's a nice line of thought, but I think there's a lot of existing work that's should be investigated. Essentially, it seems like another "wouldn't it be nice if everything were written in $LANG, even the OS?".

Erlang is mentioned as an example, since its VM certainly offers many features we'd like from an OS. Maybe comparisons to Smalltalk, LISP machines and even regular UNIX shells should be offered.

It's likely that all this has been done before, and I'm tempted to think that its major problems would stem from having too much power in the config language. For example, I'd imagine you could do this with SysV init's runlevels and shell scripts, but it would be pretty horrible. What would make the language du jour any less horrible?

Also related is, of course, the Nix ecosystem: Nix package management, NixOS configuration management, NixOps provisioning, DisNix distributed services, etc.

<comment><USER8> > _Essentially, it seems like another "wouldn't it be nice if everything were > written in $LANG, even the OS?"._

In all honesty, I'm not sure you read the article. The entire point is the idea to deploy tiny chunks of code, independently, in _any_ language.

<comment><USER7> > The entire point is the idea to deploy tiny chunks of code, independently, > in any language.

What does "tiny chunk of code" mean? According to the article:

> Literally, a simple interface that did one (or very few) things well.

Hmm, sounds like the UNIX philosophy to me. Operating on code in a language- agnostic way? Sounds like scripting to me...

> What if instead you could deploy classes.

Classes are a language feature, so this looks to be asking for an alternative scripting language.

> What if your operating system was in a way an API to deploy services (it > is!) > but the size of the code deployed was so small that it would in turn > be hard > to make mistakes.

That's the point of UNIX: do one thing and do it well; compose the pieces using scripts.

Of course, UNIX is not perfect, it's just an obvious comparison. I mentioned a few others above. That's what I got from the article, after squinting through the jargon ("deploy" instead of execute, "services" instead of processes, etc.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This sounds a lot like CORBA ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Object_Request_Broker_Ar...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Object_Request_Broker_Architecture)).

The big problem with distributed classes is that network communication links are fragile and you need to bake how to deal with failures into your methodology. Erlang handles this in a way that Joe Armstrong explains here:

[http://armstrongonsoftware.blogspot.com/2008/05/road-we- didn...](http://armstrongonsoftware.blogspot.com/2008/05/road-we-didnt-go- down.html)

<comment><USER10> It also brings up Fowler's First Law of Distributed Object Design: "Don't distribute your objects."

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't get it. Is that yet another CORBA clone?

I think the CORBA clone currently in fashion is SOAP (or did we get something newer?). There probably are SOAP tools for Earlang, and you'll really get the possibility of using an heterogeneous system, like you said you'll want.

Yet, those things never work so well as people think they should. Keeping interoperability within a code-base is hard work, distributing it just makes it harder.

<comment><USER4> > I don't get it. Is that yet another CORBA clone?

Happy to explain what you don't get. Definitely not a CORBA clone.

<comment><USER11> What I don't get is exaclty this. What's the difference of this to remote procedure calls?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> For this I would go with some J2EE or clustered framework. Erlang is nice, but is outdated and does not handle clustering that well. It is about migrating clients and threads, while multiple versions of the same library exist within system.

> _The size of the code deployed matters_

And I disagree with this. The hardest deployment I ever seen was 2KB of code. Sim toolkit is impossible to modify once it is flashed into 2 million SIM cards. :-)

<comment><USER13> In what sense does Erlang not handle clustering well? It's true that you wouldn't run a "native" (ie EPMD-based) cluster of hundreds of nodes, but what would stop you from implementing a clustering architecture you'd build with, say, J2EE in Erlang?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sounds like you're looking for a distributed actor framework like AKKA

<comment><USER4> I would agree that on the surface the problem does seem to be solved by an actor framework.

The issue and main point is that I want that cross language, cross platform with isolation, tracing and debugging hooks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Maybe D-Bus fulfils the requirements of OP?</comment>


Massive Security Bug In OpenSSL Could Affect A Huge Chunk Of The Internet - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/07/massive-security-bug-in-openssl-could-effect-a-huge-chunk-of-the-internet/?utm_campaign=fb&ncid=fb

<comment><USER2> Extensive prior discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7548991](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7548991)</comment>


A lifetime Crate premium account for $6. - <AUTHOR> http://www.appsumo.com/lets-crate-coupon/

<comment><USER2> How is this different from <https://www.dropbox.com/home> ? Other than the drag and drop file uploading I originally started with 2gb of space and I got even more from referrals / completing challenges (I'm up to 5.6gb now.). Dropbox seems to be lifetime for me already.

<comment><USER3> Crate and Dropbox are approaching things from two totally different directions.

Dropbox is meant for collaborating with other people on a group of files. It's a two way street for two people who are relatively tech savvy. Crate is meant for quick file sharing. If you want to send a 50mb file to your officemates, it's simpler to just give them a Crate link and not have to go through the process of making a specific folder public, etc.

I think they are two totally different use cases. I use both and they don't intersect at all.

With regards to the space issue: we are going to upp (sp?) it, and anyone who buys the lifetime premium membership can expect to see their space increase _dramatically_ in the very near future.

Disclaimer: I am a cofounder :)

<comment><USER4> What does crate offer me that dropbox + this script doesn't? <http://wiki.dropbox.com/DropboxAddons/Dropbox%20Service>

I've also never had to set a folder as public myself, even using this script. It came with a Public folder.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> At <http://letscrate.com/> I find it inconvenient to not be able to check the pricing unless I register.

<comment><USER6> another service was criticized on HN for hiding prices like this. the founder commented back that it increased his conversion rate. so despite being annoying, probably optimal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Shouldn't be a limit on how frequently AppSumo can advertise here?

<comment><USER8> That's what flagging is for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What does, _unlimited file-size and up to 2 Gigs of space,_ mean?

<comment><AUTHOR> You have up to 2gb of space, for uploading files (10 files of 200mb, for example).

Unlimited file-size means that there is no restriction on any individual file (like there is with the free account).

<comment><USER10> What if the single file is 2.01GB or above? I'm still confused by the language of the copy.

<comment><USER11> Despite their wording, the file size limit is size of the account. In this case, 2GB. It really should say 'file size is only limited by the size of the account', or some such.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/05/washington-sues-facebook-and-google-over-failure-to-disclose-political-ad-spending/ <comment><USER2> The numbers reported strike me as very small (I buy digital political ads for work). Especially 1.1mm in 2016 for FB statewide strikes me as tiny!

Looking at official candidate committees for Senate+Congress only in '16 is close-ish to 30mm raised (1). Plus PACs, 501c3/4s, any Presidential spend on top, I would guess double that at least. Even if 50mm total spend that would be only 2% spent on FB which seems really low, based on a low spend estimate.

I wonder where they got these numbers...

[1] [https://www.opensecrets.org/races/election?cycle=2016&id=WA](https://www.opensecrets.org/races/election?cycle=2016&id=WA)

<comment><USER3> Doesn't matter; every penny must be accounted for when it comes to political spending. Failure to account is literally the corruption which is rotting the foundation of our democracy.

I'm personally applauding Washington for taking this bold move, as both Facebook and Google have Seattle-area offices which they will likely not want to close. Washington and Oregon tend to act alike, and both Facebook and Google have not just offices in Oregon, but datacenters too, with the Prineville and The Dalles facilities respectively.

Edit: You want pseudonymous/anonymous/corporate speech in politics? Form a PAC and donate to it. That's what PACs are for. Might as well stand for "Pseudonyms, Anons, and Corporations", am I right?

<comment><USER4> Anonymous speech (for individuals) is also central to a functioning republic democracy.

<comment><USER5> But relatedly, money being treated as speech is antithetical to a functioning republic democracy.

<comment><USER6> So how do you get your message out without spending money? Do you only consider it freedom of speech if no one has a chance of hearing you? Spending money is how people with novel ideas expose it to more people and can hope to compete against established ideas that don't need to be marketed.

<comment><USER7> Stopping the treatment of money as speech doesn't ban money, it just means it has to be spent transparently.

<comment><USER6> Actually that's exactly what it would do. _Citizens United_ was about the government banning a film because it was illegal campaign spending.

<comment><USER8> No, banning money would make campaign spending illegal for any reason.

<comment><USER6> So you're fine with the government telling you it's illegal to distribute a movie?

<comment><USER8> What do my feelings have to do with what the current law says?

<comment><USER6> Presumably, you're telling me what you think the law _ought_ to be. As far as the law is currently concerned, spending is protected as speech.

<comment><USER8> I did mean "used to be", you're right. I was saying that pre Citizens United money was not banned, it was regulated. There is a huge difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _> At least some of the many payments making up these results are not properly documented, and from the looks of it, this could amount to willful negligence. If a company is operating in a state and taking millions for political ads, it really can't be unaware of that state's disclosure laws._

Seems to be overstating the case just a tad. Less than a million, in total, for Google at least. That's two or three engineer-years. It's substantially below the noise threshold.

I mean, Google should comply, yes. No question. But I don't really see any evidence that the failure to comply was willful. It looks like instead the requests of the two gentlemen cited in the suit simply didn't make it to the right people.

<comment><USER10> OTOH, if Google did not willfully fail to follow the law, does that mean they are simply incompetent? Local TV stations find a way to pay attention enough to comply, but Google can't?

<comment><USER11> Yes, that makes sense to me. Local businesses are much more likely to know the local laws. Google is everywhere, covering thousands of local places. It'd be hard to know all the different regulation.

<comment><USER12> So what? They're still responsible for complying with the law.

<comment><USER13> Following the law isn't black and white. I'm sure each of us as individuals broke the several times today without even knowing it.

<comment><USER14> Yea, but each of us aren't multibillion dollar corporations significantly influencing governments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> With gdpr, I came to realize that (for better or worse) the internet is transitioning from a place outside of the law to a place subject to the union of all laws.

<comment><USER16> The Internet transitioned from a place that felt very 'underground' in the 80s/90s to this advertiser/data driven retain-every-piece-of-user-data world. It has moved from something that was sort of decentralized to something that is very centralized, particularly in the hands of large companies, so now we need laws to constrain those companies.

<comment><USER17> While that may be true in theory, in practice your last sentence should say "constrain all companies".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Out of curiosity, how does political ad spending work in the US?

It seems that TFA hints at the fact that political ad funding is public and requires proper recordkeeping. Does that mean that when someone sees "This message paid by friends of Mr. Foo", one can write to the TV/radio/website and request more information about "friends of Mr. Foo?"

<comment><USER19> Kinda sorta. Political campaigns and some large organizations are required to report their spending and donations, and, as a separate thing, advertisements may be required to identify themselves.

The State of Washington, though, as well as the City of Seattle, have somewhat unusual laws that requires substantially more. They have a law on the books aimed at TV channels and newspapers requiring that all political ad spending be disclosed in full by the companies that sold the advertising. Like, totally. And the records basically need to be available for immediate public inspection. So in theory you should be able to walk into a newspapers office and ask to see the big book of political advertising purchases and see exactly who spent how much and exactly what they bought.

What does that mean for companies like Facebook? It's hard to say! I live in Seattle and there's been a fun bit of ongoing drama when a reporter for our local paper, "The Stranger," thought to try it out and simply walked into the Facebook and Google offices and asked to see the books. It's been a fun bit of local political news drama for a while now, and it's just escalated a bit.

Here's a link to all of the recent pieces by the original investigator of all this: [https://www.thestranger.com/authors/12168/eli- sanders](https://www.thestranger.com/authors/12168/eli-sanders)

Here's Seattle's law: [https://library.municode.com/WA/seattle/codes/municipal_code...](https://library.municode.com/WA/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT2EL_CH2.04ELCACO_SUBCHAPTER_IIICADI_2.04.280COADDURE)

The important bit that everybody's gonna fight over what it means is this: "Each commercial advertiser that has accepted or provided political advertising during the election campaign shall maintain open for public inspection...The exact nature and extent of the advertising services rendered."

<comment><USER20> How does an ad _seller_ know whether an ad buy is "political"? Requiring the seller to _keep_ records seems reasonable, but requiring the seller to _make_ records, does not. That is, an ad seller ought not be expected to know which incoming buys are political. That ought to be the responsibility of the buyer/"creatives" to declare.

<comment><USER21> Because the buyers are all registered political entities: candidates' campaigns, political action committees, etc. It's illegal for a "regular person" to go buy political ads and not register with the state.

<comment><USER22> That sounds like an outrageous First Amendment violation.

<comment><USER21> No one is stopping that person from buying anything; they just have to register first.

<comment><USER23> So if you don't register, your free speech is abridged. The first amendment doesn't say you have to register before you are given free speech.

<comment><USER21> I don't know what to tell you, other than that the Public Disclosure Commission and the Fair Campaign Practices Act have been Washington state law since the early 1970s.

<comment><USER22> I don't know what to tell you either, but the authors of the First Amendment had some pretty strong ideas on the subject about 200 years before that. They didn't seem quite as ambivalent on the subject as most people here. I wonder why?

<comment><USER21> Is a law prohibiting me from secretly giving an elected official a briefcase full of one million dollars constitutional? If so, why is it not the same if there's a law that says I can't secretly provide $1,000,000 in services to the same elected official in the form of political advertising?

The authors of the U.S. Constitution had some pretty strong ideas on the idea of bribery; in fact, it's explicitly listed in Article 2, Section 4 as an impeachable offense. The public has a right to know when its politicians and government officials are receiving money (or goods and services) from outside entities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Eli Sanders, the journalist who sparked these lawsuits, wrote a great article with far more details here: [https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/06/04/26941316/faceboo...](https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/06/04/26941316/facebook- and-google-sued-by-washington-attorney-general-for-failing-to-disclose- political-ads)

</comment><comment><USER25> How many of the funders breached federal or state mandated limits on spending? I ask, because in the "brexit" circumstances it becomes clear the "leave" campaign eggregiously breached the declared public advertising spending limits through use of indirect/third-party funding channels who did placement in social media.

<comment><USER26> This isn't strictly illegal in the U.S. due to the Citizens United decision. Because of free speech blah blah blah I can spend an unlimited amount of money for a cause or canidate as long as I don't coordinate with that campaign.

<comment><USER27> And apparently the definition of "coordinate" is quite flexible. E.g.: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/here-are-the- secret-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/here-are-the-secret-ways- super-pacs-and-campaigns-can-work- together/2015/07/06/bda78210-1539-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html?noredirect=on)

In practice, I'm not sure sufficiently rich people face any practical limits in influencing elections.

<comment><USER28> They don't because of the first amendment. A person is allowed to influence the election as much as they can. There is no difference between HBO broadcasting Bill Maher into millions of home and Bill Maher paying for YouTube ads.

You can't even differentiate between people and corporations. Because otherwise the government could tell the New York Times to stop writing articles against trump. After all they are a for profit corporation.

It's a tough spot.

<comment><USER29> I completely disagree. Placing a flat limit of $1000 per person per tax year, and only allowing actual people to contribute should not have any negative effects on free speech.

<comment><USER30> They aren't contributing to the compaign - Citizens United was about spending money on your own advertising. You are allowed to buy whatever airtime you want to say whatever you want.

If you happen to want to say something nice about one candidate or mean about another in the airtime you bought it's hard to argue that's not covered by free speech rights.

You can argue that this has perverse effects - but the courts have consistently held that free speech has wide latitude even when it has negative effects. Exceptions are extremely limited and the harm has to be immediate and direct.

<comment><USER4> Citizens United made and sold a documentary. There's no difference between that and HBO, spending limits are ultimately an attack on independent media and new media.

<comment><USER31> If you equate money spent on political advertising with votes (which I believe has strong empirical support), then failure to regulate inevitably devolves democracy into plutocracy.

Assuming that's not desired, the question then becomes how best to balance free speech with equalizing commercial political speech.

<comment><USER32> And according to the Supreme Court, many times over, the very purpose of the first amendment is to protect speech, and the most important form of speech to protect is political speech.

Yes, there are downsides to unfettered speech, but freedom means having to let other people do things I don't like, and in exchange, I can do things they don't like.

If the problem is that money can buy unlimited federal power, then you can limit the federal powers available for purchase without curtailing the freedom of the citizenry to engage in political speech as they choose.

<comment><USER33> > If the problem is that money can buy unlimited federal power, then you can > limit the federal powers available for purchase without curtailing the > freedom of the citizenry to engage in political speech as they choose.

This is an excellent point.

<comment><USER34> Actually it isn't.

(a) The money has an outsized power to argue for an increase in available powers as I said upthread since I couldn't reply here.

(b) Democracies seem to work better and more stably when votes make a difference. If there's a full house of people wanting to shift in a certain direction the democratic principle is that the shift in that direction should happen. Otherwise democracy becomes a sham and its institutions shed trust. This creates precisely the atmosphere for antidemocratic or unliberal people to gain power. If you can vote for someone who supports your views but they can't implement them while they're operating in the system, why not vote for someone who supports your views and is willing to ignore the system to get it. And what will all checks and balances do in that environment!

If you like liberal government (in the traditional sense not the partisan sense), the most effective way to get it is to encourage liberal preferences in the electorate.

<comment><USER32> Your response assumes that without the federal government doing something, nobody will do it, but that misses the fact that we have 50 state governments and DC perfectly capable of regulating themselves.

Past that, local elections already matter more in one's day to day life than federal elections, and those votes will have even more value as the role of the states grow.

<comment><USER34> It doesn't assume that - it assumes that if it's bad when the federal government gets involved with something, it's equally bad when the state government gets involved.

For instance, this thread is about a state pursuing large tech companies on what can be described as free speech violations.

But I've never seen anyone argue that it's okay for a state government to ban free speech, but it's not okay for the federal government.

<comment><USER32> > it assumes that if it's bad when the federal government gets involved with > something, it's equally bad when the state government gets involved

Which in my opinion is a broadly false assumption, and ignores the very point of a federal republic, which is federalism. People in different states have different cultures, different norms, different geographies, different natural resources, different pastimes, different porn habits, different cuisines, etc.

State legislatures are closer to their voting populace than federal legislatures, and thus, people's interests can be more directly reflected by voting more locally.

I agree that a state trampling on your rights is functionally no better than if a federal government does so, but you have more recourse against a state government doing so, more opportunities for remedy, and more ways in which to steer the ship right where those violations are regular.

<comment><USER34> But then you're need a person who believes in women's rights to believe they stop at some arbitrary line on a map -- because American states are more like American counties than European states -- and also that anyone who believes in pro life to believe that fetal rights stop at some arbitrary line on a map. To the extent that there is competition and variety in laws there are also pressures and powers to make them homogeneous again.

As for having better oversight of state governments compared to federal governments, I think the US, Canada and Australia (i.e. all the major English- speaking federations and therefore the extent of my knowledge) have had significant problems with corruption at a state level but not so significant problems with corruption at a federal level.

Federal systems have important roles especially when -- unlike in the US -- the state borders reproduce cultural or settlement boundaries. But _empirically_ this role is not a protection of rights. If the federal government needs more members of congress to function right, you can't say "oh we've got state governments" \-- you've just gotta increase the size of congress. (FWIW, some states like California also need to take this lesson.) And if you need to protect rights, the only place to do that is in the public sphere and the community mind. Every other option might be easier but they're also much more short sighted.

<comment><USER32> > But then you're need a person who believes in women's rights to believe they > stop at some arbitrary line on a map

Not so. I'm not advocating the elimination of the federal government, nor am I advocating for a reduction in the role of the courts. The 14th amendment exists, incorporates the inalienable rights in the constitution against the states, and I believe that is just and true.

That said, yes, there are logical, rational disputes on what rights allow one to do or not do, and yes, those rights are treated differently within arbitrary geographical boundaries. This is true today. There are people in jail right now for marijuana possession because they got caught with it in the wrong state, but that pales in comparison to the number of people who were jailed for marijuana because its illegality was imposed upon them by federal decree. Similarly so with immigration, gun rights, and a variety of other topics.

The law isn't settled on every subject, and there are often reasonable interpretations by well-meaning people in either direction. Having the federal government set policy clearly doesn't solve for every edge case, and I maintain that if you are caught up in a "bad place" by an interpretation of rights that disfavors you, it's a lot easier to relocate from say, California to Arizona (or vice versa) than to have to abandon America because it disfavors your rights.

If, for example, states were allowed to implement current TSA procedures as they preferred, you would likely have states competing on rubrics of security, while others competed on efficiency, or perhaps traveler friendliness. Now, instead of alienating travelers from abroad from visiting America, perhaps they are only alienated from flying into certain states.

As for the corruption angle, again, I'm not proposing we abolish the federal government, merely reduce its workload so that it can function better as a watchdog over the states to prevent and squash corruption. Having better representation locally _and_ federally is of course a good thing, and especially so as it better empowers the adversarial system to hone in on those things that we all do agree upon, and protect those rights from being infringed upon.

Lastly, I'm not suggesting that it's a silver bullet, and that any of my ideas "solve" America, but I do think they improve upon the checks and balances that we're used to having, and allow for more freedom within American borders than we currently have, and more insulation from the legal interpretations of presidents as they are elected, and I think that's a net good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Wait, so if I want to publish a political ad online, which can be seen in Washington, I have to publish my address so any wacko can come and threaten myself and my family? I guess somehow it makes sense to people in Washington but certainly doesn't make sense to me.

<comment><USER36> Disclosure requirements for contributions to federal campaigns are similar.

Most states have voter rolls which are covered by open record laws, will release personal information on all registered voters. Address included.

I'm not sure why this law strikes you as so crazy. Most individuals aren't making independent political ad buys.

<comment><USER35> > Disclosure requirements for contributions to federal campaigns are similar.

I have to publish my address and who I donated to, for every crazy loon out there to see and for any employer or other person who could hurt me to retaliate if I support a wrong one? That sounds insane.

No wonder people like to contribute to PACs. With requirements like that, it's plain crazy not to use an intermediary.

> Most states have voter rolls which are covered by open record laws

Voter rolls just says the person has right to vote, not who he or she is voting for, right?

> I'm not sure why this law strikes you as so crazy.

Complete lack of privacy in the matter which is proven to expose people to harassment, retaliation, threats and violence.

> Most individuals aren't making independent political ad buys.

Probably because it's much safer to do it through an intermediary, I assume.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> > The case likely will not result in significant monetary penalties for the > companies in question; even if fines and damages totaled tens of millions it > would be a drop in the bucket for the tech giants.

> But deliberately skirting laws governing political spending and public > disclosure is rather a bad look for companies under especial scrutiny for > systematic dishonesty — primarily Facebook.

So they'll lose face, but not the books ...

Seriously though, come on. I'm getting increasingly cynical about this. This is business as usual in the US. They're not going to self-regulate themselves a conscience.

</comment><comment><USER38> The title should be updated to include 'political' before 'spending'.

</comment><comment><USER39> I thought campaign contributions could run afoul of Sarbanes Oxley regulation rules, and other incorrect accounting of donations, if they cant even track what they gave, how can they certify the books.

<comment><USER40> > if they cant even track what they gave

The article is about what they were paid, as advertising platforms, not what they gave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Off-topic:

> Specifically, "documents and books of account" must be made available for > public inspection during the campaign and for three years following; these > must detail the candidate, name of advertiser, address, cost and method of > payment and description services rendered.

Description services rendered? Did you mean description _of_ services rendered?

Please, let me know if I'm missing something here. These seems like yet another grammatical error in Techcrunch.

Every time I click on a Techcrunch article it is full of grammatical errors and misspellings.

Are they full of factual errors, too? Makes me wonder. If a major online publication like this can't fix missing words, what are their stories worth?

When I read Techcrunch I assume it's no better than a grocery store tabloid.

</comment><comment><USER42> Doesn't seem like a very good investment on their part

</comment><comment><USER43> The "failure to disclose" part in the article's title on the source website seems very relevant to me. The title on HN implies that the state is suing the companies solely because of their political ad spending.

The source title: "Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose political ad spending"

<comment><AUTHOR> updated the title. Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Could you change the title to say "State of Washington"?

<comment><USER45> Wouldn't the short of Washington DC simply be DC?

<comment><USER46> Isn't the state of Washington in Seattle? which means something else entirely.

<comment><USER47> Seattle[0] is the city in the state called Washington[1]. I was under the impression that when just 'Washington' was used, it refereed to the state. But looks like even Washington, D.C (formally District of Colombia [2]) is called just Washington[2].

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle) [1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C). [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_(state)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_\(state\))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> ... in the latest chapter of scapegoating internet firms for Trump's election.

<comment><USER49> Mmm, this is Washington State, not DC</comment></comment>


How Trump and the GOP-led Congress swiftly dismantled Internet privacy rules - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-congress-dismantled-federal-internet-privacy-rules/2017/05/29/7ad06e14-2f5b-11e7-8674-437ddb6e813e_story.html <comment><USER2> This has a lot of potential.

This fist stage is a blow to the Google data monopoly.

I obviously don't know if there's a second stage, but there might be, if this spreads awareness that private coroporations store everything they do online—if it makes Americans more privacy conscious—there could be a second stage.

The second stage would be to introduce strong privacy regulations applied to _everyone_. This, _again,_ would hurt Google more than the ISPs.

To someone like me who doesn't think Google can ever be hurt enough, this looks like a good law.

<comment><USER3> I think it has a lot more potential be exploited.

With Google, atleast you could choose to directly use google, or you can use tracking blockers. You had a decent level of choice. Without these privacy protections as law, anything and everything you visit, google or not, is available. So, sites that don't have google trackers on them, or don't collect specific data, like what kind of URL's your google account has visited while inside of a site - are now trackable, and sellable.

ISP's also can associate what you've visited to your actual service line. ISP's know if your IP has changed, and everything about your service. Google does not, not unless you've logged in or have cookies of your sessions, both completely optional.

I also don't think that having URL's themselves is a good metric. Google does a lot more than just URL's. Their JS trackers know what you're doing on a page, which gives more context to the data collected. So, Google and the big giants of online advertising I don't think are going to be outcompeted by ISP's any time soon. If anything, I would think that the data ISP's sell would be bought quite cheaply, because its only URL's.

<comment><USER2> You're right that this is worse for user privacy, which is exactly why there's hope the new rules could kindle an American conversation on online privacy. If that ends up giving the US strict rules for everybody, that should include Google.

(Note to submitter: Including "Trump" in headlines seems to trigger a penalty on HN. I guess the site's original headline would have kept your post afloat a little longer.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The simple thing that has happened that Bin Laden won and he has destroyed the western way of life it will still take a decade for the effects to be really felt. Bush started the loss of liberty which was continued by Obama and now accelerated by Trump.

<comment><USER5> Bin Laden had no power to changes laws in he United States. The people in power chose to use Bin Laden as an excuse to enact permanent policies to erode liberty, just like they chose to use Bin Laden as a reason to destroy Iraq which lead to countless other contemporary problems (ISIS, mass immigration, terrorism reactions).

<comment><USER4> Yeah i.e Bin Laden won. He scared the people into giving away their liberty one of the things he hated about the west and the US specially.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The politics of privacy are odd.

The issue described in the article was decided along strict party lines. Surely not coincidentally, the bill favored the big telecom companies at the expense of the newer parts of the tech industry.

On the other hand, the Email Privacy Act passed 419-0 in the House -- totally unanimously! -- in 2016, and again by voice vote in 2017. Yet the Senate is blocking it, also in a bipartisan fashion.

This issue, by way of contrast to the other one, is about balancing individual liberties against what's useful to law enforcement, without any strong or clear commercial interest on either side.

</comment><comment><USER7> Yes. Let's blame Trump and the GOP, who undoubtedly shares blame in this fiasco, but why bother singling them out when the Democrats and their privacy- invading leaders are just as bad?

Why can't we work together to solve the problem that both parties are causing?

We all agree the government overreach of the past few decades is too much. Why do we have to blame "the other party" ensuring that half the people who would help us will not?

It seems to me everyone is bleating about how terrible the other guys are, then turning around and trying to grab as much power as they can for themselves, ignoring what that means in the next election cycle, in case the other guys come into power.

<comment><USER5> Because take a look at the list of senators and representatives from a verge article. See if you can find a single Democrat's name in there.

[https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc- isp...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web- browsing-privacy-fire-sale)

The continuous false equivalences between the actions of the two parts in the US is terrible. It's getting to be in the same category as the "both sides of the story" on climate change.

During the 90s and earlier sure. But starting around the mid 2000s and only increasing since there has been a drastic split between the actions and behaviors of each party.</comment></comment>


You Can Be Prosecuted for Clearing Your Browser History - <AUTHOR> http://www.thenation.com/article/208593/you-can-be-prosecuted-clearing-your-browser-history

<comment><USER2> This phase gets repeated far too much on the internet, but in this specific case "don't talk to the police" is key.

He is effectively getting punished for voluntarily going to the police station and talking about his links to known criminals. Had he either not gone or said nothing, they would have lost 3/4 of their charges (and arguably 4/4 since the final one is based on the premise that they can show that he was being investigated, which arguably he wasn't being until he spoke to the police).

In the UK the whole talking to the police thing is "complicated" (due to the whole "But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court." bit), but in the US it not only isn't complicated, but there tons of laws on the books against lying that can be used even if you believed what you said at the time but that turned out to be materially untrue (e.g. mis-remembering something).

As an aside this is yet another case of an innocent person pleading guilty to a "crime" they didn't commit just because the way the plea system works they will be punished for actually receiving a fair trial. Why this and other case like this aren't a national scandal I'll never know?

> In March, Matanov pleaded guilty to all four counts of obstruction of > justice. When he entered his plea, he told Judge William G. Young that he > maintains his innocence but fears a decades-long sentence were he to go to > trial. His plea agreement with prosecutors calls for a 30-month > sentence—still a harsh punishment for little more than deleting videos and > clearing his browser history. Matanov's sentencing hearing is scheduled for > June.

The judge, William G. Young, is also corrupt for accepting a guilty plea from a man who claims they're innocent. That entire paragraph is solid proof of how utterly broken the criminal justice system is (even if you believe he did something, the point is HE doesn't believe it but hasn't received a trial).

</comment><comment><USER3> How many times do we have to see prosecutors using laws in ways never intended when passed before we stop passing these broad laws?

After Enron anyone fighting against Sarbanes-Oxley passage was laughed at for claiming it was over-broad. No prosecutor would misuse it, of course it's just meant to reign in other evil doers like Enron.

Why is it that anyone even considers the idea that we can rely on proprietorial discretion to keep laws in check? Shouldn't that concept be laughable by now?

<comment><USER4> At some point this is all judgement calls -- by police, by prosecutors, and by lawmakers. You can't run a complex society on a series of bright-line rules. If you don't like the judgement calls that inevitably must be made, you should pay more attention to the selection of prosecutors (local DAs are often elected; federal DAs are appointed) and those who set the agenda for policing.</comment></comment>


2018 Intel NUC Models - <AUTHOR> http://nucblog.net/2017/09/2018-intel-nuc-models/ <comment><USER2> Is anyone else just completely lost inside Intel's Canyons and Lakes? To carry the analogy a bit further, the maps I've found that detail the Lakes and Canyons aren't much help due to the Core, Pentium and Celeron monikers.

At this point, does it matter much? I have a Celeron Qnap 25X that chews up everything I throw at it, the only limitation is the 8GB of RAM. IN fact, the limitation doesn't seem to be the processor on any of my stuff. It is either a dearth of supported RAM (like 8GB max), or a lack of an SSD or slow SSD's (which is another confusing topic eVVM, NVM, etc...).

<comment><USER3> > At this point, does it matter much? I have a Celeron Qnap 25X that chews up > everything I throw at it, the only limitation is the 8GB of RAM.

It surely chews no code containing AVX/AVX instructions. Also support vor VT-d is probably missing, just as TSX. Not to speak of AVX-512, which is planned by Intel to come to prosumer processors in near future.

<comment><USER4> How much does that matter?

I get most of my software pre-compiled through apt repositories. It's all using basic X86_64 instruction sets. My computer, being a relatively recent Core i5, has plenty of advanced features [0], but outside of one piece of manually compiled software occupying less than 5% of my CPU on average (an LP solver used by a bot), I'm not taking advantage of any of it.

Considering how much electron apps have taken over my desktop, SSD and RAM play an exponentially bigger role in the quality of experience than my processor does.

[0] [https://ark.intel.com/products/91160/Intel- Core-i5-6260U-Pro...](https://ark.intel.com/products/91160/Intel- Core-i5-6260U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_90-GHz)

<comment><USER5> Java, V8, or the .net CLR could sense the processor features at run time , and JIT the code into more efficient instructions?

A lot of things are interpreted nowadays, if the interpreter is updated to understand the processor features, it can take advantage of it.

<comment><USER6> In addition to JIT-compiled code there also are libraries that do runtime detection of available processor features and dispatch to optimized implementations. Pretty much anything number-crunchy such as software image/video processing will do this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The NUC codenames and model numbers are impenetrable. Here's a summary of these rumored new models:

\- "Bean Canyon" is the expected annual replacement for the current NUC lineup. Same form factor, new Intel chips as usual.

\- "June Canyon" is a new low-cost model using Celeron/Pentium CPUs. No word on form factor.

\- "Hades Canyon" is a new high-powered model with quad-core CPUs and probably a new hardware design. There will be a special VR model that supports low- power discrete graphics. (All previous NUCs have been Intel integrated graphics only, unless you count the ability to use an external GPU using Thunderbolt 3 which appeared on this year's models.)

<comment><USER8> Not sure if Bean Canyon will have the same form factor as all of them are 28W. I certainly hope they've got a new cooling solution! June Canyon (Gemini Lake) will be the same as Apollo Lake I'm pretty sure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't understand why they are never releasing a fanless model. Especially now that their m3 CPUs are fanless in lots of machines. There's _a lot_ of aftermarket cases and mods for this. An official product would make things so much simpler and well-tested.

Maybe those June Canyon, with 10W TDP will be finally fanless. But an i3 would be so much better.

</comment><comment><USER10> I often thought about going with a NUC in the past but either the price tag was not convincing or the only performant option was housed in a skull case.

<comment><USER11> > _or the only performant option was housed in a skull case._

So?

<comment><USER10> I didn't know it came with a non-skull plate, but to answer your, erm, question, I think a skull on the desk is not really an option for an office which clients would visit.

<comment><USER12> "I think a skull on the desk is not really an option"

How is that not self evident? Are hospitals supposed to just populate their facilities with skull enclosures? How about a funeral home? The receptionist is supposed to put a skull on the desk and think nothing of it?

If you're having trouble understanding why someone may take issue with skull cased computers you should look at your own development; it's not progressing properly.

(Yes I know Intel supplied a non-skull cover; you're missing the point as well.)

<comment><USER11> > _Are hospitals supposed to just populate their facilities with skull > enclosures? How about a funeral home?_

Is the parent working on a hospital or a funeral home or some such place? Did they mention they are interested in using it in a professional setting? And even in such a setting, does it say anywhere that the computer has to be in prominent display? And is the presence of a skull decoration such big of a deal, when tons of stuff people buy, wear and sport have prominent skulls and similar motifs?

(Not to mention that hospitals feature skulls all around their premises, from signs outside the x-ray department -"danger radiation"-, to labels on chemical bottles, bins where they throw hazardous material in, etc. Heck, anatomical skeletons are quite common in hospitals / doctor offices as well.

> _If you 're having trouble understanding why someone may take issue with > skull cased computers you should look at your own development; it's not > progressing properly._

If you're having trouble not insulting people you don't know about their "development (...) not progressing properly" (sic) because of a question for something which many people/cultures in the world would find totally inconsequential if they saw it in an office ("it's a PC with some decoration, nothing to see here"), maybe you should check your manners?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I like the NUC, I've got several. These seem to be reasonable bumps along the line. I find it amusing that Intel's NUC was in response to the Mac Mini and they have now developed a nice niche market while the Mini has wilted on the vine.

</comment><comment><USER14> Are there any SFF models with new AMD Ryzen? Any coming out soon? I have been unable to find anything.

<comment><USER15> The lowest TDP for Ryzen is 65W, so while there has been at least one laptop announced with a Ryzen 7, it might be the most thermally throttled CPU/GPU combination ever.

AMD has announced Ryzen APUs, but the specifics aren't out yet. If they come with USB/SATA/PCIe connectivity on the processor like normal Ryzens, they could lead to some very small and very power efficient laptops and SFF PCs. Waiting for a laptop with one of these myself. Just watch out for DDR4 ram prices.

<comment><USER16> >The lowest TDP for Ryzen is 65W, so while there has been at least one laptop announced with a Ryzen 7, it might be the most thermally throttled CPU/GPU combination ever.

Big gaming laptops can handle astonishing amounts of heat. The Origin Eon17-SLX can achieve useful overclocks on an i7-7700K and _two_ GTX 1080s. It's two inches thick, weighs 12lbs and needs two power bricks, but there's clearly a market for desktop-replacement monsters.

Intel and Nvidia have the laptop market dominated for now due to their greater power efficiency, but it isn't inconceivable that AMD could make some inroads into the laptop and SFF market when the Ryzen APUs launch.

[https://www.originpc.com/gaming/laptops/eon17-slx/](https://www.originpc.com/gaming/laptops/eon17-slx/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm excited for the NUC7i5DN variants that are shipping "real soon now"... They're very similar to the current NUC7i5BN with the addition of a bunch more headers on the board and vPro is enabled.

[https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/nuc/nuc-kit- nuc7i5dn...](https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/nuc/nuc-kit-nuc7i5dnke- nuc7i5dnhe-board-nuc7i5dnbe-brief.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> A small form factor VR computer would be really nice just for ease of setup (especially for installations or demos). At [1] CHIVR everyone that does a demo is either bringing a gaming laptop or desktop.

[https://www.meetup.com/CHIVR-Chicago-Virtual- Reality/](https://www.meetup.com/CHIVR-Chicago-Virtual-Reality/)

<comment><USER19> I've seen the group before. What exactly do you guys do? Is it just a networking with a few corporate demos?

<comment><USER18> CHIVR meetups are centered around a panel where a few people talk about how they use VR (usually split between ad agencies and creators / video game designers / content). There is networking before while people eat food and after. There are a demos before and afterward by people. Its actually really interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> These might be interesting for a home firewall. Much more powerful and flexible than the usual suspects.

Except for that whole Intel Management Engine fiasco. I've read that (all?) recent Intel CPUs have that? I presume the Ethernet has an IME and is potentially vulnerable?

</comment><comment><USER21> I've got two NUCs, which I use as HTPCs running Fedora. They're fantastic machines. Really tiny, quiet, and plenty powerful enough for HD movies and light gaming/emulation.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm considering buying a NUC, attaching a big hard drive, and running syncthing on it. Good idea?

<comment><USER23> Some NUC models cannot house 2.5" SATA drives. For those that do, heat dissipation is an issue for 7200RPM drives. Plus max capacity of internal 2.5" hard drives is only 2TB, and depending on your use case it might or might not be sufficient.

Your use case does not seem very computation-depending. Maybe a cheaper Raspberry Pi-based solution will also work.

<comment><USER22> Thanks for the advice. Yeah, a NUC would be way overpowered most of the time. A R-Pi and NFS probably solves 90% of my use case.

<comment><USER24> The RPi, even the 3, isn't a great choice for networked storage, since the NIC is running over the USB bus. A Beaglebone Black[1] would be similar but have better hardware for the job.

1: [http://beagleboard.org/black](http://beagleboard.org/black)

<comment><USER25> I have a Beaglebone Black with a WD USB 2 portable HDD attached to it. I get only around 5 MB/s while copying (from Beagle to PC) a ~500 MB file over 5 GHz wifi. Not sure if this is because of USB 2.0 though.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Boost VC Launches Bitcoin Fund and Accelerator Program - <AUTHOR> http://onbitcoins.com/2013/05/25/boost-bitcoin-fund/

<comment><USER2> This is nothing but a spam site. Looking at the page and its just full of ads

<comment><USER3> It's only blogspam. It's just a copy the post from [http://adamdraper.com/post/50416559002/the-boost-bitcoin- fun...](http://adamdraper.com/post/50416559002/the-boost-bitcoin-fund) wrapped in some ads.

From the guidelines: "Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter."</comment></comment>


Blockchain project FLETA partners with Oracle to build high-performance cloud - <AUTHOR> https://zephyrnet.com/blockchain-project-fleta-partners-with-oracle-to-build-high-performance-cloud-server/ <comment><USER2> This is some great news. Connecting on and off-chain protocols is key for blockchain to become more adopted.</comment>


Brainless Embryos Suggest Bioelectricity Guides Growth - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/brainless-embryos-suggest-bioelectricity-guides-growth-20180313/ <comment><USER2> Everything in biological systems depends on everything else; all variables are global, all methods are public, and all definitions are recursive. It's all spaghetti code- there is nothing like the separation of functionality that we impose on our designed artefacts for the sake of our limited minds. A signal needed to be sent from one place to another, and the brain has the machinery for endocrine functions already, so why not have it handle it? So while this is a quite valid and interesting result, it's not nearly as exciting as the popular press is going to make it out to be.

<comment><USER3> I appreciate the code architecture observations, but this result is exciting as hell. I am fascinated by ontogeny. Who knows? A century from now, lots of currently unimaginable things could be traced back to this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > "Where does shape come from? What makes an elephant different from a snake?" > he asked. DNA can make proteins inside cells, he said, but "there is nothing > in the genome that directly specifies anatomy." To develop properly, he > maintains, tissues need spatial cues that must come from other sources in > the embryo. At least some of that guidance, he and his team believe, is > electrical.

I don't get it. Where does that electrical guidance came from? The brain. Where did the brain came from? The DNA.

If DNA is the ony information that makes it from a parent to offspring (and we can grow organisms in a petri dish from fertilized eggs) is the DNA, then whatever electrical guidance or other abstraction must have been encoded in the DNA first. (Plus some constants encoded in the enviroment.)

<comment><USER5> > If DNA is the ony information that makes it from a parent to offspring

I don't think this assumption is warranted. Human embryos develop in utero, not in eggs like amphibians. They are connected to the mother through an umbilical and immersed in amniotic fluid. Both the umbilical and the amniotic fluid are full of chemical signals in many forms, not just hormones. Human embryos (and all mammals, really) develop in symbiosis with their mother.

What you are saying is another one of these CS-centric views of the world that only focus on where the information for development comes from; that the development of the brain is somehow encoded in DNA, and that the entire development of a human is therefore also encoded in the DNA.

I've come to doubt this view, not only because of mammal development, but the fact that immune systems and digestion (the microbiome of the GI) develops _in response to_ the available biodiversity of food and encountered pathogens.

So the view that we just put the little DNA program in a dish and feed it raw materials and energy and out pops a fully-formed human is just _false_.

Humans develop in cooperation with, and in response to, the environment.

It's a bit like staring at the code of a machine learning model and expecting to figure out how it works. The system (a human) contains a lot of code (DNA) but also responds to data (training set)--much more so than we ever realized.

<comment><USER5> > It's a bit like staring at the code of a machine learning model and > expecting to figure out how it works. The system (a human) contains a lot of > code (DNA) but also responds to data (training set)--much more so than we > ever realized.

Or like a Smalltalk programming environment, which consists of an image with live, editable objects, not just a static text program.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Everything old is new again. Early 20th-century biologists were exploring the role of fields in the development of embryos. This line of inquiry was snuffed out when DNA came along. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field#Historical...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field#Historical_development)

From the article:

> The rationale [...] was that "since DNA is what is inherited, information > stored in the genes must specify all that is needed to develop."

> The extreme form of this view is "to explain everything by saying 'it is in > the genes,' or DNA, and this trend has been reinforced by the increasingly > powerful and affordable DNA sequencing technologies," Huang said. "But we > need to zoom out: _Before molecular biology imposed our myopic tunnel > vision, biologists were much more open to organism-level principles."_

> The tide now seems to be turning, according to Herrera-Rincon and others. " > _It's too simplistic to consider the genome as the only source of biological > information,"_ she said.

(emphasis added)

If genes are all-powerful, there is no hope for those who begin to deteriorate. But if our bio-electric fields are more important than our genes, there is much greater possibility for improving our health than the geneticists have led us to believe.

<comment><USER7> I think any sane biologist will agree that there are layers upon layers of complexity on top of genotype. But the first layer is still DNA. There is a difference between gene-centric and gene-only. The former gives biologist an anchor point to begin their research, the latter is ridiculous.

<comment><USER6> > But the first layer is still DNA.

This would be one hypothesis. The article is about how the competing field of inquiry ("bioelectricity") has been mistakenly ignored for the past 60+ years.

What if the field is more important than the genes?

<comment><USER2> Your idea of "morphogenetic fields" is fundamentally incorrect; re-read the wikipedia article you linked to, the word "electricity" doesn't appear in it _at all_. It's talking about "fields" of _chemical gradients_ which control the development of tissues; that kind of idea has been established developmental biology for over a century.

Meanwhile, in terms of the parent article, yes- it turns out that "bioelectricity" is an important part of the embryonic development. But this is not at all serving the same role as DNA; DNA stores durable information, whereas these fields are being used for, essentially, intercellular communication. I would think that the fact that the researchers successfully replace a frog's _entire brain_ , for developmental purposes, with a simple tweak to an ion channel, pretty clearly demonstrates that the amount of vital information being carried this way is minimal.

<comment><USER8> Nice. I assumed NGF interactions with other developmental signalers like SHH, BMP, etc was the mechanism of action in this anyways.

It's been a while since I was in a devo lab, but I've watched a few presentations regarding wound healing and denervation such as seen in paraplegics with sacral ulcers. The hypothesis was that the nerves were gone and therefore NGF and other trophic factors were gone leading to impaired healing. I'm assuming healing and development are nearly synonymous in some tissues. Like you said, it's not the electrical signals that necessarily matter that much, it's the chemicals produced by the nerves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > there is nothing in the genome that directly specifies anatomy

What about HOX genes?

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

</comment><comment><USER10> Don't homeotic genes* explain anatomical development pretty well?

* [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeotic_gene](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeotic_gene)

<comment><USER11> Yeah, but, that's the instruction manual. This seems more like identifying part of the toolkit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> For anyone interested in this subject, I highly suggest Life Unfolding: How the human body creates itself[1], by Jamie Davies. No one really knows the full story, but what we do know or suspect is pretty amazing.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Life-Unfolding-human-creates- itself-e...](https://www.amazon.com/Life-Unfolding-human-creates-itself- ebook/dp/B00HSJ8KFI/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=)

</comment><comment><USER7> There are some interesting studies by Michael Levine at Tufts that looks at bioelectric field's effect on flatworm regeneration. And there are some cool experiments done in salamanders that looks at nerve dependent regeneration (aneurogenic limb).

</comment><comment><USER13> Is it possible that some forms of cancer may be a result of something going wrong with bioelectric signaling, causing abnormal tissue growth?

<comment><USER14> I think cancers are always associated with a genetic mutation within the cancerous cells. But that break down occurs due to damage or a failure in repair mechanisms. The plausible causes for either are legion. There's a lot of woo out there though with the words bio and electrical combined, heck Brent Farve is even hyping it in late night infomercials.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Thoughtful suggestion, brainless embryos.

</comment><comment><USER16> i wonder if this is true for neurons in the brain as well.

<comment><USER17> Highly likely. Some years ago I listened to a lecture by a woman who was researching electrical waves in the retina (which is in practice a specialized extension of the brain). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retinal_waves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retinal_waves)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Interesting, but can you mine BitCoins with it?

<comment><USER19> Totally off topic, but maybe the machines in the Matrix needed human brains to solve a proof-of-work puzzle that was more efficiently computed with a human neurocortex. Morpheus just used a battery because it would have taken too long to explain blockchains and ICO's to Neo.

<comment><USER20> I'm not generally one for the concept of "head-canon," but I think this is now my head-canon for The Matrix.

You see, the Matrix itself _is_ the proof-of-work puzzle, formatted for compatibility with the neocortex. The simulation of a circa-1999 metropolis is not just something to keep the humans' brains occupied while they power the machines; its very substance is a cryptographic hashing process in the form of a simulated world, which also explains why everyone has to be in the same Matrix rather than instanced versions. Agent Smith's real job was just to prevent 51% attacks!

<comment><USER21> This might work but then what is Neo's power?

<comment><USER22> ASICBOOST?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Microsoft's reorganization is a bad idea (2013) - <AUTHOR> https://stratechery.com/2013/why-microsofts-reorganization-is-a-bad-idea/ <comment><USER3> The article is old, but the comic in the story is fun and worth clicking on the link

</comment><comment><USER4> It's been three years since the reorg. How did that work out?

<comment><USER5> Satya shot that reorg in the head. As far as I know it was not really rolled out.

<comment><USER6> Yes it was. Satya made some additional changes later (mainly downsizing the hardware division and merging it with OSG/Windows) but the basis of the organizational structure still essentially follows the 2013 reorg - <USER2> particular, it's still organized functionally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This:

> And thus, the divisional structure was borne. It [...] remains the model for > nearly every corporation of significant size, except, notably, for Apple.

Seems like an overly simplistic statement. I'd be happy to read numbers from current research. Any relevant link?</comment>