Introducing the Command Bar - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blog/1264-introducing-the-command-bar

<comment><USER2> Wow, a command-line interface to a website is something I never thought I'd see.

My first reaction was that it's a step backwards because the usual benefits of a command line aren't present here (you're usually _already_ using your mouse, commands can't be piped, no shell scripts to run things in sequence)...

But I'm intigued -- maybe it's a possible step forwards? The implementation is very well done. I suppose maybe it functions like traditional keyboard shortcuts in a way? To follow a user, instead of finding their page and clicking follow, you just type "@user follow".

Still, all the commands are so basic, and many are infrequently used, I don't really see much of the "shortcut" value. I'm very curious to see if this user interface concept grows. Imagine if this became a standard way to interface with web API's!

<comment><USER3> I know for one of the games I work on, the chat-commands/command-line interface is one of the most popular user interface features for power users. And the main reason is what you suggest about navigating and clicking. Admittedly, in a game you might "/equip meat helmet" or "/use mmj" a lot more frequently than you will friend someone on github, but it's a similar concept.

<comment><USER4> For a universal search bar I've been wanting to implement a chat bot style thing for issuing actions:

       /find search term

Which is actually the same as not including "/find"... it acts like a search box when not told otherwise.

       /goto inbox
       /goto home

Navigation to common pages.

       /me is dancing

That one updates your status.

       /me slaps [user] with a trout

Is the equivalent of a Facebook poke I guess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Playing with this for a few minutes:

* I wish it had vim keybindings (ie, hit esc, then use hjkl to navigate)

* It gives me the option to follow myself. (Bug?)

* I like how I can learn commands via the autocomplete bar (issue, branch, graph, etc)

* I like how the autocomplete bar refreshes after I have control-tabbed away and back. Too many autocompletes lose this behavior

* Searching in a repository username/repo <searchterm> doesn't work the way I expect. It just brings up the regular search

Overall, very useful though.

<comment><USER6> In multiple places on github, as a vim user, I occasionally instinctively hit escape. Github sometimes closes a comment box and I lose all the stuff I had been typing. It's an unfortunate UI issue for me (and probably others).

<comment><USER7> Just use VIM proper; after all, It's All Text! <https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/its-all-text/>

(alternatively, use Pentadactyl and press C-i when the focus is on a text box)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Cool toy, but how about letting users just _search_ for code in a repo properly?

<comment><USER9> For a site like GitHub, I would imagine this is a huge engineering effort to do right. For instance, in a plain vanilla code search facility, how would you expire results efficiently when the text can change from minute to minute (to seconds, to even less)?

<comment><USER10> Super efficient search would be great and idea, but slightly delayed searching is perfectly acceptable imo. Especially because I am not necessarily looking for extremely up-to-date changes.

<comment><USER9> Even slightly-delayed searching would be a huge deal, engineeringwise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Well, we already have a command bar at the top of the window. What about these commands?

        http://github.com/username
        http://github.com/username/follow
        http://github.com/username/unfollow
        http://github.com/me/dashboard
        http://github.com/me/notifications
        http://github.com/username/reponame/search/term
        http://github.com/username/reponame/branchname

<comment><USER12> What is your point? REST is meant to make it easy for machines to talk to each other.

<comment><USER11> My point is that the address field of my browser is _already_ a "command bar" and that the URI is _already_ a command line.

With a carefully chosen URI scheme, 100% RESTful or not, you have your command bar.

<comment><USER12> Personally I don't relish the thought of memorizing the REST API of every website I visit. Anyways, it's not like they did away with the URI scheme you are describing...

<comment><USER11> Agreed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The one command-line feature I want most on Github is `git grep`. I have cloned projects locally solely to be able to do that.

</comment><comment><USER14> This UI concept seems to be gaining in popularity. Jira 5 has a similar (though less powerful) option-completion action bar that you can pull up with a shortcut when viewing an Issue.

I've been considering adopting a similar concept for a complex enterprise application that I maintain where the number of possible actions on a certain page is huge.

</comment><comment><USER15> I really like seeing this UI approach becoming more popular. I find it particularly worthwhile because I think it helps build familiarity without being limiting the way simple autocomplete can. This approach broadens the knowledge of the user — even (I think) in the case of something like GitHub where most users are particularly competent.

</comment><comment><USER16> To remind everyone how awesome xkcd's commandline is:

<http://uni.xkcd.com/>

</comment><comment><USER17> I like github for their sweet hosting and easy collaboration. I have no idea who would use this command bar. Do people really want to move the mouse to click on a cli and then guess/remember the syntax?

I don't really get why they built this... Anyone?

<comment><USER18> hitting 's' anywhere on the page activates the command bar. I will use this a lot.

<comment><USER17> oh, that makes it much better. I only have a handful of repos and a few collaborators, so I don't really spend tons of time on GH. I imagine you spend more time than me to be excited by it -- what are you doing on there?

<comment><USER19> Well, I can't speak for burke, but I use GitHub Enterprise at work. Once this trickles down to GH:E, I'll probably use it very regularly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If you want a command line for your own site, you can use the GCLI project (BSD licensed, use it freely!)

<https://github.com/mozilla/gcli>

This is the command line that's in Firefox 16's Developer Toolbar (final release is coming in early October):

[https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/08/new-firefox-command- line-h...](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/08/new-firefox-command-line-helps- you-develop-faster/)

I love command lines, personally :)

</comment><comment><USER21> Nice. I wish more GUIs had this kind of capability.

Long live the command line. At least until I get my neural implants.

</comment><comment><USER22> This is similar to a plugin I have been using in Alfred for quick access to Github (but not nearly as feature complete):

<https://github.com/KevinSjoberg/github.alfredextension>

</comment><comment><USER23> This paradigm is very powerful. The only thing I see missing from these types of interfaces is the ability to select part or all of the output and use it as input for a new command.

Think of it as an intermediate step of piping where the user has the ability to manually filter content. This UI concept would cover the vast majority of UI needs as almost any workflow could be captured with the following...

1.) Issue command that produces 0..N results. 2.) View results in list format. 3.) Select individual results for details view. 4.) Select 0..N results as input to a subsequent command.

</comment><comment><USER24> This seems like a step in the right direction, because GitHub's search remains awful.

For example, I can now type in "<user>/<repo> #123" to go to an issue, but if I am already on the Issues page for that repo and I type "#123" in the box labelled "Search: Issues & Milestones..." it _still_ comes up with nothing. And that's not even challenging.

I'm desperately hoping that this feature is an indication that they've noticed that finding anything on the site requires either 8 million mouse clicks or manually editing URLs.

</comment><comment><USER25> Note, Chrome junkies, the Firefox awesome bar already does most of these :)

</comment><comment><USER26> I put together a little admin command line that you could bring up with the ~ key that looks like this: <http://i.imgur.com/mq7ko.png?1>

It is built for asp.net but you could easily apply the same concept somewhere else. More info if anyone is interested: [http://lukencode.com/2011/12/11/netbashan-alternative-to- end...](http://lukencode.com/2011/12/11/netbashan-alternative-to-endless- admin-pages-in-asp-net-web-applications/)

</comment><comment><USER27> You only miss one thing:

* map the '/' symbol to focus:search box.

<comment><USER28> I find this really annoying, I use '/' to use the browser find-in-page, and apps hijacking it for their search field instead ruins it.

Yes, there are other bindings, but / is in finger-memory at this point.

I wonder if there's some sort of noscript-alike that would give you fine- grained enough control to permit exactly which keys could be intercepted by an app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think it would be even better to have some terminal emulator on github. Even now with so improved UIs I like command line interface.

<comment><USER30> Keyboard is at least 100x as productive as mouse (assuming you know what to do and what to type). Even the best peachy UIs cannot change it. Still there are things that aren't convenient to do from CLI like photo retouching, but these are quite obvious exceptions.

That said, I'm not sure what would you like to do in such terminal?

<comment><USER29> I'd like to search for repos, create new repos, create initial files, edit existing, star/unstar, watch/ignore, work with messages etc.

<comment><USER31> I agree that a keyboard is orders of magnitude more conducive to productivity, but I'm surprised that you do some of these frequently enough to make learning the commands a worthwhile endeavor, if one of these consoles were available. Even starring/unstarring is something that I do frequently, but I don't think I'd get any boost out of typing 'star' instead of just clicking on the star when my brain is already saying "make that star thing light up."

<comment><USER29> My point of view is based on personal experience. I explain it:

Git was initially a set of commands from terminal. A lot of programmers use terminal everyday. Even now I have terminal opened for doing different stuff. This terminal-nature of git itself and of github audience makes it obvious it would be used.

The other interesting question is how it would be implemented. With my repos on github (as opened as private) I think it would be great to have an opportunity to do some set of things from the site CLI.

P.S. I understand there are a lot of those who prefer GUI over CLI but I believe I am not the only one who wants to have CLI also available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Giving the type of people who like command lines a command line -- not a bad idea!

The down side is that, I think, this is really only useful for the github power user. The upside is: I'm a github power user!

Seriously, though, I hope they don't use this command line as a sort of cop- out for continuously improving their UI.

</comment><comment><USER33> I want this for every website, and for most of the desktop apps I use. Typing, for me, is so much easier than finding menu items and clicking on them. Imagine Photoshop with an autocompleting command line instead of a maze of menus. I could work _so_ much faster.

</comment><comment><USER34> It is fantastic that a command interface is now a part of a very public system like github.

These things really speed up work for power-users and let maintainers add functionality without adding more complexity to the user experience than is appropriate.

</comment><comment><USER35> This is awesome. I would love to see the concept of a website command line interface explored a bit further, hopefully Github implement something like Vim keybindings and a few other useful commands. The future is bright, man.

</comment><comment><USER36> It was already shown here <https://github.com/blog/1252-how-we-keep-github- fast>. So we could have known it would come.

</comment><comment><USER37> Am I the only one who thought this was going to let me run git commands?

<comment><USER38> yeah me too. then i realized this would do for a web interface

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I wondered why the "search" bar had suddenly got really slow today and caused Firefox to freeze a little bit when using it.

Need to juice the performance a bit I think

</comment><comment><USER40> Great feature - I really like it. My only request is that the suggestions be clickable links so that you can open one in a new tab.

</comment><comment><USER41> Don't you use the browsers address bar for that?

</comment><comment><USER42> Now I just need an Alfred extension that talks to the backend URLs

</comment><comment><USER43> cool, but how about making it context (page) aware, so you could write just "@watch" on a repo's page?

</comment><comment><USER44> Death to the CLI/GUI religious wars.</comment>


Ask HN: What Hardware/Software Apple use in their own datacenters? - <AUTHOR>

They do make great hardware/software for consumers but do they same HW/SW for their own datacenters? <comment><USER3> Pretty much everything runs on Java which each team having a different stack.

Full WebObjects/Project Wonder is used for iTunes Store. Just the web part of WebObjects used for the Apple Store. JBoss for Apple ID/ADC. Cassandra and Teradata used extensively. SAP for billing. Hadoop stack for analytics. The architecture generally is SOA/Microservices. Hardware is typical - <USER2> unusual.

The interesting parts are really Siri which uses Mesos and Apple's recent acquisition of FoundationDB.</comment>


Why UK startups should stop trying to be US startups - <AUTHOR> http://not100percentaccurate.com/why-uk-startups-should-stop-trying-to-be-us-startups

<comment><USER3> I've worked in Shoreditch for over 6 years. The startup people here don't dress like they do in Silicon Valley. And people in the UK use the word Awesome all the time. It might be an Americanisation but it's not on account of people trying to be like Twitter, it's because of the A Team and Knight Rider.

If people are asking whether they should spell it colour or color, that's probably the reason they are not doing well! What a ridiculously pointless thing to worry about.

For me there is an elephant in the room regarding UK startups not achieving the same sort of success as they do in the US. It's quite simple. People in the UK are far more risk averse than people in the US. It's a completely cultural thing, and it's not going to change any time soon.

<comment> DanI-S I can't agree enough. I'm British, and I wouldn't want to change that for the world. But growing up in the UK, ambitious young engineers dream of going to work for Microsoft or having a successful career within a big accountancy firm. Entrepreneurship is something that happens to other people - stereotypically, middle-aged men tinkering in their garages with clockwork radios.

I've somehow ended up in Silicon Valley, and the difference in aspirations is immense. To some extent, people dream of running companies far before they are capable of doing so - but this is what, over time, lets them build the fearlessness they need. By getting used to being out of your depth you can focus on making your enterprise a success, rather than how scary it all is.

The irony is, with private health insurance and a limited welfare system, the penalty for taking a risk and failing can be a lot worse in the US than the UK. There's just some key cultural difference. It's the same aspect of character that makes Americans less afraid to strike up conversation with strangers.

<comment><USER4> > The irony is, with private health insurance and a limited welfare system, > the penalty for taking a risk and failing can be a lot worse in the US than > the UK.

You're assuming something about what happens when you fail in the US that isn't true.

> But growing up in the UK, ambitious young engineers dream of going to work > for Microsoft or having a successful career within a big accountancy firm.

That "UK dream" is the US backup plan.

Seriously - health insurance and welfare isn't one of the things on my "what happens if I fail" list because I'll just go get a job.

Oh, and the health insurance costs aren't actually that significant. I know, because I've had the backup plan fail and had to do them out of pocket. Since I'm "old", I'm pretty much a worse case.

<comment> DanI-S All this is totally dependent on your personal background.

It may well be easier if you're "old", since you've already had a chance to establish a career and make yourself hireable - but I can imagine it takes some balls to try to start a business immediately after graduating (or instead of going to college) unless you have a pretty good parental safety net. However, we see it all the time from US kids - and not so much from the UK.

<comment><USER4> > It may well be easier if you're "old", since you've already had a chance to > establish a career and make yourself hireable

You're assuming something about age discrimination....

> I can imagine it takes some balls to try to start a business immediately > after graduating (or instead of going to college)

Huh? Why are you assuming that a youngster is less hirable/desirable after the biz that they start fails? They're not, they're more hirable/desirable, at least in the US. (Of course, if they weren't very hireable before, that may carry over, but we're not talking about those folks.)

> unless you have a pretty good parental safety net.

That's not particularly relevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe this article is just highlighting one of the effects of the internet. Easier long-distance communication means more people are exposed to foreign language and ideas, especially between technologically literate English speakers. How long did it take for the phrase 'epic win' to spread across the globe?

I'm not sure this guy understands how much of the English-speaking internet is produced by Americans, especially relating to technology. I'm from the UK, and a huge proportion of my media comes from the US (hasn't this been the case for a really long time anyway?) Even programming language tutorials have words like 'awesome'. The Brits aren't faking it, they've adopted that language because they've heard it so often.

It's silly to tell people to stick to one set of social norms because of their place of birth. Every culture is a mishmash. And anyway, the internet is making culture less dependent on geographical location.

<comment><USER6> > _The Brits aren't faking it, they've adopted that language because they've > heard it so often._ //

I'd probably go so far as to say they've [we've] adopted that language becuase that's the culture we're living in. I live more in a culture that approximates US American culture, heavily skewed that way, by virtue of the internet, than I do in British culture.

Like you seem to intimate so long as we've been the poorer cousin WRT receiving media money this has been the case. We get a version of USA culture via movies and games and TV shows and books and the internet. If they amount to any substantial part of your life then you're living in that culture to some extent.

/ramble

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> 24yo from London here too. The author's point was:

'Whats toxic is that this then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, teams get funding because they look/sound the part. This means that there are more teams that succeed that fit the stereotype and on we go creating Tigertailz instead of the Beatles.'

Morgan is using metaphors to show how UK startups need to be themselves. Instead of aping US startups as much as possible in every way they can (for example: dress sense and language), they need to be themselves, focus on developing their own styles whatever that may be.

<comment><USER8> Sure, but he makes no attempt to define what this "UK culture" they all need to adopt is (bar stating that The Beatles were popular and that Motley Crew were more like Motley Crew than a band that wasn't Motley Crew).

American culture's been slowly infiltrating the UK for decades (I don't have a problem with that), why should a particular group of people suddenly start rejecting it?

<comment><USER9> There is no single UK culture, so telling people to adopt the ideas of, say, London, isn't any better for people in Edinburgh than telling us to think like Californians.

I think the key point is not being afraid to find your own path. In the start- up world the Valley dominates everything - there is a huge push to get to California or you're not going to achieve anything big. Governments around the world want to make 'the next Silicon Valley', leading to 'silicon roundabout' in London which is an attempt at the superficial trappings of the Valley without any of the substance.

People are starting to realise that the big VC-funded start-up isn't the only way to go - and people outside the US are starting to see that modelling themselves after American companies and American ideals isn't the only way to go either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think this commentary is relevant even within the U.S. It reminds me of companies like <http://brainsonfire.com/> and <http://bellstrike.com/> who have put the plug in for their state (South Carolina) when they present themselves nationally. Despite presenting nationally and working internationally, Geno Church is so totally South Carolina in his speech and presentation. It's distinct. Some other examples come to mind as well, like <http://sproutbox.com/> and their pride of Bloomington, IN, etc.

</comment><comment><USER11> The headline is a relevant one, but the article seems to focus on dress sense and accent? Imitation of success stories occurs in every walk of life - <USER2> just happens to be Silicon Valley people in this industry.

It's quite possible to be unique and have your own voice even if you are inspired by dressing and talking like Steve Jobs.

<comment><USER12> 24 yo from London here. That language is completely standard to me. I've been saying awesome with a straight face for as long as I can remember. I'm not sure it's the best way to have made the point.

<comment><USER13> 33 yo, and I can cope with using awesome too. I've even been known to use dude and on occasion, stoked. However, that is because I've always been into "extreme" sports (windsurfing, snowboarding, etc). In these sports, it is very much about small fairly close-knit communities who adopt common vocabularies made up of technical terms and also (normally) a bunch of "Americanisms" to express their feelings.

I see tremendous similarities between the startup culture and the extreme sports culture. Both tend to reject conventional methods of rewarding people with "status" (i.e. family background) and focus instead on meritocratic measures like ability / performance. Issues like nationality tend to also become less relevant as people travel around frequently. Thus it is not surprising and, is actually welcome, that a universal vocabulary has emerged to connect startup'ers wherever they might be based.

Of course, I accept that the author has a point about slavish imitation being a bad strategy. In extreme sports circles, no one likes the guy who turns up with all the kit and the lingo but without the skills, so the key lesson to UK startups is probably best summed up as: focus on walking the walk, before we start talking the talk.... ;)

(Separately, the Beatles might have emerged from Liverpool, but they were hugely influenced by a number of American acts, and indeed were involved in a virtual creative arms race against Brian Wilson at one point.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This does not just apply to the UK, it goes much farther, it applies to every place that is not Silicon Valley.

</comment><comment><USER15> The underlying point which has nothing to do with nationality and merits ongoing consideration from every human being is that there's a fine line between learning from someone good and cargo culting.

</comment><comment><USER16> Seems like the author is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The key is to be thoughtful about what traits you learn from, not to give up on learning from others altogether.

</comment><comment><USER17> Wow - tigertails were the shit. What happened to 'em?</comment>


Why Quantum Computers Are Better Suited for Enslaving Humanity  - <AUTHOR> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/cfqt-hqp032912.php

<comment><USER2>
      What surprised the researchers is that the quantum simulations are still not as efficient as they could be: they still have to store more information than the process would seem to need.

      That suggests quantum theory might not yet be optimized. "What's fascinating to us is that there is still a gap. It makes you think, maybe here's a way of thinking about a theory beyond quantum physics," says Vedral.

Here's my thought from this (all absurdity aside): The gap between the theoretical minimum and the optimal quantum simulation could arise from the overhead needed to run a simulation inside another simulation.

Perhaps the researchers should calculate the minimal information needed to simulate the future inside another such simulation?

Using this information, we could predict if we are indeed inside a simulation. And, if several simulation overhead quantums fit into the gap, within how many levels of simulation we exist.

</comment><comment><USER3> Very interesting. So one could infer the workings of the universe on a deeper level than quantum mechanics by studying how much information needs to be stored with a certain statistical representation.

Can we un-editorialize the title though? This has nothing to do with enslaving anyone.

</comment><comment><USER4> Holy editorialized title. There's absolutely no basis on which to equate Matrix-esque reality simulation technology with slavery. Sure, that's one possible use for it, but so is immortality.

</comment><comment><USER5> Cute fact: quantum mechanics under Heisenberg was originally called "Matrix mechanics." ;-)

</comment><comment><USER6> I, for one, would welcome our new quantum computer overloads.</comment>


Ask HN: Is There a Hacker News Equivalent for Politics? - <AUTHOR> Or heck, just about any sort of forum you can discuss the subject that isn't filled with idiots, flame wars and fights about every little thing?<p>Because the signal to noise level at most political forums and subreddits I've seen is ridiculous, and I feel it'd be neat to find somewhere you can talk about politics and society in a more reasonable way instead. <comment> wh-uws That would be hard to make. And if you find a solid one let me know I'm passively looking myself.

Why do I say it would be hard to make?

I came up with this thought about politics and religion specifically years ago that I think still holds true.

"It's hard to get people to think their way [around] positions they never really thought their way into"

Most people come by their politics by assimilating their family or communities, especially in college, and never really think to question.

It becomes a deep part of their identity.

And if you question their politics it's as if you are insulting them.

It's hard to have a solid conversation about a subject when both sides feel constantly personally attacked...

It's very hard to remove that element and speak clearly about ideas on their own merits.

<comment><USER2> > Most people come by their politics by assimilating their family or > communities, especially in college . . .

I, without a doubt, formed my opinions largely because of my family (against my moderately-strong conservative family), not that much because of my community (my high school friends had very neutral political leanings), and definitely prior to college (high school).

I feel that many opinions are formed by high school friend groups and rarely questioned beyond that and that community is only important in generally shaping that high school exposure and experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've been a long-time member of a smallish but active forum (I won't post the address, maybe several hundred regulars). We've had very rational discussions and good exchanges of views between (U.S.) left and right in the 15 years I've participated.

However, since the presidential election, things have devolved into sheer anger. On the right, it's defending indefensible behavior (IMO, obviously). On the left, it's grasping more and more ridiculous legal theories and overreacting to trivial culture-war provocations. On both sides, the tit-for- tat has increased exponentially.

This forum has some very rational people who (outside of the politics threads) are very intelligent and sane on many subjects. The fact that this group can't manage it tells me that right now, I don't think anyone can.

</comment><comment><USER4> In my experience, Metafilter has excellent moderation, particularly around politics threads as of late.

<comment><USER5> Seconding Metafilter. Reading the "current politics" thread can be a firehose compared to topic-based breakdowns that Reddit has, but it's still an order of magnitude more intelligent. The moderators are the key to making that happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm not aware of one, but the Lobsters codebase with very similar functionality is available if you'd like to start one: [https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters](https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters)

You can get help in #lobsters on Freenode. If you know Rails, deploying to Heroku is an afternoon job; using the provided ansible scripts on a bare VPS is a day or two.

I'd strongly recommend checking out the moderation at [https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview](https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview). They deal with difficult political topics on a daily basis and generally have very high-quality discussion.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think [https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/) does a pretty good job.

</comment><comment><USER8> Unfortunately, given how polarized the political landscape is today, if you don't want to see fights/flame wars, you'll have to choose a side, and then go to an echo chamber for that side. Your definition of "filled with idiots" will differ greatly from those who disagree with you politically, and vice versa. That's not to say that echo chambers are healthy - in fact, they are quite the opposite. But anywhere that political ideologies clash, fights/what you will view as idiocy/flame wars will exist.

There are plenty of such echo chambers available for both liberals and conservatives. Facebook is the most obvious one. Twitter is another, if you follow people aligned with your ideology. CNN and MSNBC offer almost exclusively liberal slants on the news of the day and will quickly satisfy any desire you have to hear liberal echoes, while Fox News is a largely conservative echo chamber. As far as forums, liberals might go here [1] for example, while conservatives might go here [2].

[1] [https://www.liberalforum.org/](https://www.liberalforum.org/)

[2] [http://www.conservativesforum.com/](http://www.conservativesforum.com/)

</comment><comment><USER9> There are really low-noise and well monitored sub on reddit, where the scope of their information is limited. An example, to talk and share news about Syrian situation, [https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar](https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar) is an amazing neutral space.

</comment><comment><USER10> To what end? Honestly ask yourself about when the last time was where you were convinced to change your mind on something in an internet forum.

A site like that would be filled with the programmer equivalent of vim vs emacs.

In a subject like politics, there isn't anywhere for 'the middle' to go discuss things rationally. By 'the middle' I mean people that may be affiliated with a party (or not) and aren't gung-ho about everything that party aligns with. That might actually be a neat name for it... get people to come together and see "the other side" from "the middle".

Okay I answered my own question about "to what end?" \- to get people talking with each other online instead of shouting into echo chambers like FB, Twitter, Reddit, etc.

It would be neat to have a strongly moderated (no content trolls), strong account policy forum to go to.

</comment><comment><USER11> > signal to noise level at most political forums and subreddits I've seen is > ridiculous

Welcome to the internet!

Any forum based medium will and should allow for dissenting opinions. Even some bordering on what you might consider idiotic. It is easy to bait people into a fight specially when you call them wrong. So, you will see lots of troll behavior and ensuing fights. And with time lots and lots of flamewar.

</comment><comment><USER12> reddit.com/r/politicaldiscussion always has measured and thoughtful threads.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think you have a few options, depending on what you are looking for and what you are already doing.

1) Look for local options (city and state level in the US, or even neighborhood level sometimes), and particularly on focused but not too focused areas. I've come across good local transportation oriented forums and I would guess there are decent local forums for things like education, foster care, environment, and health care. One of the better ways of getting information is via people who are on various advisory committes, so look for forums that those people participate in. I've also heard that it can be fairly easy to get on one of those committes yourself. Maybe twelve years ago or so I found the Pittsburgh Policy Issues Online Forum when I lived in Pittsburgh that was set up by the current mayor (Bill Peduto), who was then a city council member. He didn't participate himself and I wasn't super impressed at the time but in retrospect even having a few people in city government posting occasional responses about details of particular issues was better than almost anything else I've seen. Now almost all traces of its existance have been removed from the web (searchable web at least). I've wondered what the people running it thought of the experience.

2) Forcasting, detailed discussions aimed at predicting what will actually happen rather than what should happen. Look at Good Jugdement Open:

[https://www.gjopen.com/](https://www.gjopen.com/)

3) Forget online discussion and make friends with a journalist and/or find local groups. I think in general the closer you get to particular current issues (and the people actually making the decisions) the more the discussion is restrained by the current political environment in that particular area, but also the more detail you get. I've heard that it can be shockingly easy to have a direct impact on local politics outside of areas that powerful interests care most about.

4) There might be better discussions hiding behind the key word "ethics" or something similar rather than politics directly. In a way you can split politics into a) the details of things like what is required to make particular policy changes and what are the likely or actual results of such a change and b) what should the goals be. For b, you are likely to get a better discussion if it is mostly removed from current politics.

5) Put less effort into finding discussion opportunities and more effort into finding people writing with more detailed perspectives. Some journalists go into much more detail than others. These days lots of people previously involved in politics have blogs and some write in detail. It is easier to track down a bunch of interesting writers individually than a forum. Sometimes those blogs have comment areas that are decent or you could start your own politics blog. Also, published books can be a great source of information due to the longer write/edit/print cycle and authors being selected more for long term interest and expertise.

Edit: Also, look for multiple perspectives on history. In addition to history being generally important in politics, you can often find detailed discussions of what are now heated political issues.

</comment><comment><USER14> Also: Is there a 'Hacker News' with less politics and politically motivated voting? Please?</comment>


Leveraging Duo Security's Default Configuration to Bypass SSH Two-Factor Auth - <AUTHOR> https://www.appsecconsulting.com/blog/leveraging-duo-securitys-default-configuration-to-bypass-two-factor-authent <comment><USER2> The secure configuration means when Duo is down, you can't login, unless you have some out of band login method that's not protected by Duo. That is a pretty big commitment to Duo's uptime, and it makes sense that it's not the default.

<comment><USER3> Have Duo had big outages? I don't think it's reasonable to expect end users to be unaffected in those situations, especially if it implies this sort of insecurity in normal situations... If the default were to fail closed, then Duo customers could _choose_ to fail open instead, but it would be a conscious, aware choice.

<comment><USER4> > Have Duo had big outages?

I imagine a more relevant question for most is could Duo have a big outage.

<comment><USER5> As the article points out, in a directed attack it just has to be an outage which affects the target server: e.g. compromise a firewall, lan DNS, or managed switch in front of the server and "block" duo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Personally I use the google-authenticator PAM module for two factor authentication for SSH.

[https://github.com/google/google-authenticator- libpam](https://github.com/google/google-authenticator-libpam)</comment>


.NET core spies on users by default - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/dotnet/cli/issues/3093 <comment><USER2> Lots of FUD as usual with these topics.

The .NET Core CLI/SDK dev tool to build and package code is the only thing sending telemetry. It's not the main `dotnet` command itself nor anything in the runtime. The data is also available for anyone to analyze: [https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/dotnet/core/tools/telemetry](https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/dotnet/core/tools/telemetry)

It's definitely nothing out of the ordinary and is common practice among many tools and apps you already use. Your smartphone sends back way more data if you're that concerned.

There's also a warning the first time you use it, and if you're using something like this then it's a reasonable expectation that as a software developer you understand the message and how to disable it if you want to.

EDIT: the insights based on this telemetry are also interesting to look at and add further clarity: [https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2017/07/21/what- weve...](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2017/07/21/what-weve-learned- from-net-core-sdk-telemetry/)

<comment><USER3> > _Your smartphone sends back way more data if you 're that concerned._

That's not true. My iPhone asked me if I want to share iPhone / iCloud analytics and I said no. This wasn't an opt-out, but an explicit question. I remember my Google Nexus asking me about it as well, including for Google's Keyboard. I said no and again no opt-out happened.

And in fact it would be illegal to collect user telemetry in the EU without the user's explicit consent ;-)

<comment><USER4> I have very limited apps in my phone. And I have disabled almost all Google creepware (except Google Play Services, Maps etc) and opted out of anything Google allows me to do. Still, I see this in Disconnect Pro:

[https://imgur.com/a/ajRbI](https://imgur.com/a/ajRbI)

<comment><USER3> Are you asking me to debug your phone?

Google Analytics is a service that can be used by websites, online services and mobile apps to track users. If I were to guess, those are requests made by the browser or by the apps that you have installed. I was also talking about a Nexus 6 phone, with the pure Android experience, not whatever Samsung or the others are doing.

I don't feel this is relevant to the discussion at hand though.

<comment><USER4> According to Disconnect Pro, these are the apps does the tracking in my phone: Google Play Services, YouTube, SmartThings, Outlook & Firefox Focus ([https://imgur.com/a/Ga9Bj](https://imgur.com/a/Ga9Bj)).

I understand that other apps could be doing analytics through Google Play Services. But I don't want that. Whether it is Google doing it (I still get location based alerts even though I have disabled location history) or third party apps, Google is facilitating it (of course I am aware of the argument you are the product if its free). Since I have no way of opting out, I have to install Disconnect with admin privileges (which in itself is scary to me). I am also in the process of setting up a pfsense box so that I can block Google and Microsoft telemetry at home.

I shouldn't have to do all these.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Summary of the key problems:

1\. Microsoft won't engage with customers on removal of this even if it causes problems.

2\. The feature fires off before it informs you.

3\. We don't trust Microsoft after they turned their platform into a data gathering and leak risk.

4\. This spans more than just windows as a platform so the assumption that opt out is OK is leaking onto privacy respecting platforms.

5\. This is resurrected because it's still being fought.

6\. No one else does this. This is new and we don't want the assumption that it's ok to go forward any more than it has.

7\. Steamrolling opinion is not how you treat customers. That's how you lose them.

Microsoft are doing a big platform push for tooling I.e SQL server, powershell, VScode etc and we're making it known that when in Rome, do as Romans do.

A lot of younger users will be used to telemetry as a feature and are not sensitive to it. This does however pretty much kill the product for healthcare, finance and defence sectors.

In my case this signifies the end of a 15 year investment of my life in a platform.

<comment><USER6> How does this "kill the product for healthcare, finance and defence sectors"? This is part of the SDK tooling, it should not installed or run in the deployment evnvironment. (If teletmetry is bad, running "dotnet restore" to download code from the internet is worse).

If having telemetry in the development environment is bad too, then so was the "Visual Studio Customer Experience Program". While that was opt-in, I would think that if telemetry was so dangerous that precautions would be taken to prevent it from being turned on. Precautions that would be at least as difficult as setting an environmental variable.

<comment><USER7> > How does this "kill the product for healthcare, finance and defence > sectors"? This is part of the SDK tooling, it should not installed or run in > the deployment evnvironment.

This will also be installed in places like the build server that may have extra permissions into the production environment. Often the firewall between production and development won't be as great as you think and all software has to be compliant because the developers will be dealing with real private data.

> If teletmetry is bad, running "dotnet restore" to download code from the > internet is worse

"dotnet restore" could be hitting a local repository only, which is much more common in these environments.

> If having telemetry in the development environment is bad too, then so was > the "Visual Studio Customer Experience Program".

Typically it would be disabled, but things slip through the cracks, no matter how many precautions there are, which is why off by default is important.

Aside from that, it kills trust. The developers don't even understand that this is a privacy violation and refuse to fix it, so when the next thing on the slippery slope comes along I don't expect them to appreciate the ramifications of it. Will compiler error codes be considered telemetry? How about exceptions? How about code metrics? I can't trust the dotnetcore developers to respect privacy.

<comment><USER8> > "dotnet restore" could be hitting a local repository only, which is much > more common in these environments.

You have to do this as part of your configuration. Alongside that configuration, you can change a single environment variable to turn telemetry off.

> but things slip through the cracks

I don't see how negligence is a valid counterargument. You could use the external repository by mistake and do far more damage. Are you more likely to forget about the the telemetry opt-out? After all this fuss I doubt it.

The root comment also claims that Microsoft refuses to engage and allow the removal of it. The environment variable exists, Microsoft has clearly engaged and allowed the removal of it. This comment chain is FUD.

Finally, if you really care about privacy this much you should be building things from source. This applies to .NET Core as much as it applies to GCC. .NET Core is open source, so this is absolutely possible to do.

<comment><USER9> > Finally, if you really care about privacy this much you should be building > things from source. […] .NET Core is open source, so this is absolutely > possible to do.

It's not that simple. Until recently, you had to have .Net Core installed to build .Net Core. There is now a way to build from source ([https://github.com/dotnet/source-build](https://github.com/dotnet/source- build)), but it only works on Linux.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It also tells you that telemetry is enabled and gives you instructions to disable it the first time you run the `dotnet` command.

Just like any other tool that automatically checks the telemetry box for you. You just need to use an environment variable instead of a checkbox in this case because it is server software.

<comment><USER11> If I'm reading the comments right, it sends some stuff during installation. So before you can do anything.

<comment><USER12> It uses an environment variable, you can set that before running the installer.

<comment><USER7> Only if you know about it prior to installation. Opt-out is simply never acceptable and it should be considered spyware until it's fixed. I can't believe there are so many apologists for this sort of behavior.

All that's missing is hiding the information in a basement, without stairs and a sign saying "beware of the tiger".

<comment><USER13> > Only if you know about it prior to installation.

This is a piece of third party software. "Should be" doesn't override reading the manual and knowing what you're installing.

<comment><USER7> > > [https://www.microsoft.com/net/core#windowscmd](https://www.microsoft.com/net/core#windowscmd)

Can you point out where in the installation instructions I'd find out about this telemetry or do you seriously expect me to read every single piece of documentation this might be hidden in? Considering this was added after the initial release, do you expect me to re-read the documentation on every single update?

Sorry, but even if your argument was correct, this just (deservedly) burns any good will I had with MS, which wasn't much but at least I used to have some for the .net team.

<comment><USER13> > Can you point out where in the installation instructions I'd find out about > this telemetry or do you seriously expect me to read every single piece of > documentation this might be hidden in?

I expect someone who cares about telemetry to search for it. It is well publicised, discussed, and available [1]. There is a telemetry warning when first using the tool.

> Considering this was added after the initial release, do you expect me to > re-read the documentation on every single update?

No, but I would expect you to read the release announcements. [2]

> Sorry, but even if your argument was correct, this just (deservedly) burns > any good will I had with MS, which wasn't much but at least I used to have > some for the .net team.

So, regardless of correctness you would have been burned anyway. Microsoft even releases the telemetry gathered under a creative commons license [3]. You can opt out of this completely transparent and well documented option.

[1] [https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/dotnet/core/tools/telemetry](https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/dotnet/core/tools/telemetry)

[2] [https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2016/05/16/announcin...](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2016/05/16/announcing- net-core-rc2/)

[3] [https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2017/07/21/what- weve...](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2017/07/21/what-weve-learned- from-net-core-sdk-telemetry/)

<comment><USER14> >No, but I would expect you to read the release announcements. [2]

Yeah, well...where is it?

[https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2017/08/14/announcin...](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2017/08/14/announcing- net-core-2-0/)

[https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/master/release- notes/2.0...](https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/master/release- notes/2.0/2.0.0.md)

Or do you seriously expect me to read every beta/RC release note of versions I won't ever use for elementary issues like this?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It collects redacted usage data for dotnet development commands - e.g. dotnet restore for package management - not run a backdoor on your production servers like the title implies. If you scroll down the thread you'll see that it doesn't even collect arguments you pass to the commands.

If you think that npm or any other tool you use doesn't do the same you are delusional.

<comment><USER16> Well, it is an opt-out feature, which is already a way to purposely collect data if you're not playing attention enough. Plus, if npm has such flaw, this is still no excuse for Core to do the same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Visual Studio Code also has opt-out telemetry enabled by default, with no warning (that i've seen).

[https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/supporting/faq#_how-to- di...](https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/supporting/faq#_how-to-disable- telemetry-reporting)

<comment><USER18> People don't read TOS, Agree the terms and then complain. If this kind of privacy is really important for people, they should at least read TOS.

[https://code.visualstudio.com/license](https://code.visualstudio.com/license)

> DATA. The software may collect information about you and your use of the > software, and send that to Microsoft. Microsoft may use this information to > provide services and improve our products and services. There may also be > some features in the software that enable you to collect data from users of > your applications. If you use these features to enable data collection in > your applications, you must comply with applicable law, including providing > appropriate notices to users of your applications. You can learn more about > data collection and use in the help documentation and the privacy statement > at > [http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=528096&clcid=0x409](http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=528096&clcid=0x409). > Your use of the software operates as your consent to these practices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Extremely disappointing.

First we had to keep a close eye on our browsers, now we have to keep track of our text editors, dev tools, operating system, and even our own hardware. if we're really lucky, some will have some obscure way of limiting it.

Making you job easier and improving your product are not valid excuses for this kind of despicable behavior.

When I set up my next dev machine, everything will be sandboxed or the entire machine air-gaped. Some developers and software vendors can no longer be trusted.

<comment><USER9> > if we're really lucky, some will have some obscure way of limiting it.

In this case, it tells you how to completely turn it off the first time you use it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is there any reason this matters? Besides the automatic reaction of "data = evil" that I'm seeing, I see no reason why it even remotely matters that this data gets out.* I see no practical way MS could benefit from this other than by improving the open source project. Maybe if they _reallly_ wanted to they could link your IP to a Facebook/Google account so you could get ads for developer tools? Is there actually a good reason to turn this off?

* I'm assuming MS is being honest about what they're collecting in their documentation. If someone has evidence that their sources/binaries say something different, feel free to bring it up.

<comment><USER21> > I see no practical way MS could benefit from this other than by improving > the open source project.

Then why don't they make it opt in?

> Is there actually a good reason to turn this off?

Security. In the sense of "enable only needed features, to reduce attack surface".

Of course it would be even better to not have it turned on by default in the first place.

Microsoft comes from a place of being automatically distrusted by a lot of people, and for good reason. It may seem unfair to you, but they have to conduct better than this to make up for this disadvantage.

<comment><USER20> > Then why don't they make it opt in?

Perhaps because they think it is a reasonable default that few people will want to change (vocal minorities and all that)? Curious if anybody who does opt-in telemetrics has stats on first-time downloads vs telemetry enables.

> Security. In the sense of "enable only needed features, to reduce attack > surface".

I'd assume that the attack surface here is pretty small (HTTPS request via the standard mechanism, ignore the response). If .NET HTTPS APIs are broken, we've got bigger problems. At the end of the day, everything is a cost/benefit, and it seems like this is something pretty hard to get wrong + pretty large tangible benefit for the project.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> My first reaction was "if you're really worried about accidental/malicious exfiltration I'm sure you're running your servers WITHOUT unfiltered outbound access to the internet, RIGHT?"

<comment><USER23> You're right, but at the same time you should not have to. Software should be secure by default.

<comment><USER22> Software is _buggy_ by default. That alone is enough to require you to not run with unfiltered access, if you really care about minimizing security risks. And if you do it (and you should) then this story doesn't affect you.

I agree though that transparency about data collection is important, especially for building trust.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Leaks data from production servers to a Microsoft run network.

What fun....

"Behavior The telemetry feature is on by default.

You can opt-out of the telemetry feature by setting an environment variable DOTNET_CLI_TELEMETRY_OPTOUT (e.g. export on OS X/Linux, set on Windows) to true (e.g. "true", 1). Doing this will stop the collection process from running."

<comment><USER24> Is running dev tools (compilers etc) on production servers a thing? I have always built on my machine (or build server) and then deployed to production.

<comment><USER25> That's the way to do it, use a build server, deploy with something like Octopus to production.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Fear mongering, it's relatively benign telemetry. Also needs (2016).

<comment><USER27> Thanks, we added the year.

<comment><USER28> It started in 2016 but it's not over. There are comments from a few minutes ago, maybe because of this HN thread, and tales of things that went wrong recently. Example: a failed HIPAA inspection.

I'd take the year away, not to make people think it's not relevant anymore.

<comment><USER27> Ok, we've taken it out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Yes, that is correct. Not sure what triggered this renewal of the campaign on the part of the opposition. Maybe this post on today's Microsoft discussion (re: Windows Phone abandoned)? [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15434859](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15434859)

Microsoft/.Net Foundation added telemetry to the dotnet command line last year | [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14836737](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14836737) (Jul 2017)

<comment><USER5> I've been at it for a while. I've learned that if you want something to change you don't let it go.

<comment><USER30> ... that's not absolutely right. There is way more than simply "don't let go."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It's mind-boggling that people here are equating smartphones, browsers to development utilities. This is not something I would expect in Go, node, ruby ... but it's OK because it's .NET build utilities? How is that FUD?

</comment><comment><USER32> To all the posters saying it's harmless. What's your stance on your source code being uploaded on crashes while you develop your app with new IP in it?

<comment><USER20> Do you have any evidence that this occurs? It doesn't seem to appear in MS's documentation.

<comment><USER21> If you have a debug build the source is included automatically (as debug information).

MS reserves the right to look at memory dumps and crashed binaries "to improve the customer experience" or something...

Take these two things together, and... you lose your source code :-(

<comment><USER33> if you genuinely fear this then go build tons of drivel and make it crash giving them too much to look at. The idea that MS are busy analysing arbitrary crashing code really suggests they have more time on their hands than sense. Getting people to read code is expensive as fuck.

<comment><USER30> I can analyze the data and discern real from false information pretty quickly. The thing about massive amounts of data is that patterns emerge pretty readily.

<comment><USER33> patterns are lossy abstractions though. That arrogance might bite ya one day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This title is very misleading... The code is open source. And it is NOT spying on the user. I understand an opt-in model is typically preferred. This title is about as click-bait-esque as it gets though.

</comment><comment><USER35> "FYI: Microsoft

The fact that this is an opt-out vs. opt-in and the opt-out procedure is based upon an env. var. just caused dotnet to fail an externally conducted HIPAA privacy/security audit at a genome testing lab in the backyard of your main campus.

Lucky for us, we were able to convert the runtime to use Mono and get a temporary pass, but this killed the future CIL-based projects with the lab's management..."

Ouch!

<comment><USER36> Would you no be able to build a version with the telemetry disabled?

<comment><USER37> Yeah, not exactly super hard to find the info:

[https://github.com/dotnet/cli/pull/2145](https://github.com/dotnet/cli/pull/2145)

"There is a way to opt-out of the telemetry gathering process by setting an environment variable DOTNET_CLI_TELEMETRY_OPTOUT. Doing this will stop the collection process from running. "

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I know that this subject is super important to some people on this site, but it literally tells you when you execute the command how to turn it off.

Also, the thread seems to have people from MS (the core team) actively soliciting feedback and wanting to work with users. They published a blog post before they started collecting telemetry, so it wasn't unannounced.

There are lots of ways that this could be worse. Maybe we shouldn't slap their hand when they are doing a pretty good job?

I can see how this is still completely unacceptable if you are a privacy maximalist, but most people aren't.

<comment><USER30> There is no real evidence that something substantive is coming out of this feature. It definitely seems to be doing more harm than good.

<comment><USER38> What do you base that on?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I'm sure this recently discussed on HN.

</comment><comment><USER40> Maybe we should change the name of the industry from software to spyware.

</comment><comment><USER41> .NET core collects telemetry. This isn't really any different than loads of other applications, but it's microsoft instead of google so booo hiss evil evil evil.

</comment><comment><USER42> From the people that brought you Gmail man these hypocrites never cease to amaze. The telemetry they're sending back from their OS wasn't enough so now they're sending telemetry from their language tools - unless, of course, the user proactively turns it off which they probably never do because their not directly told about the data collection.</comment>


Over Constrained Passwords - <AUTHOR> http://elucidatedbinary.com/2012/09/over-constrained-paswords/

<comment><USER2> I guess Apple must have changed things recently. My Apple password is a 6-letter dictionary word with a '1' at the end (the same insecure password I use for all sites I don't really give a shit about). They haven't asked me to change it yet.

I basically have 2 passwords: secure (for bank accounts) and insecure (for everything else) that I use for all sites except the root password of my server (which I have a set of random chars that I have memorized). I agree it's ridiculous forcing people to have a convoluted password, as they'll need to write it down to remember it. And if your site is properly designed, having a dictionary/short word as a password shouldn't matter. Apple seem to have gone from ridulously lax security to ridiculously over-the-top after their recent gongshow.

And before anyone flames me I do know wtf I'm talking about. I wrote brute force passwd file crackers 20 years ago, and got all the root passwords at school/university by writing packet sniffers.</comment>


What can you do with mind mapping ? - <AUTHOR> http://evolvingworker.com/2008/1/18/what-can-you-do-with-mind-mapping <comment><USER2> I use MindManager (although other mind mapping software is available) all the time. I find it incredibly useful for noting my ideas and attaching links, documents, etc., into those ideas as they expand. I currently have 14 business ideas on the go, two of which I am taking forward now and, hopefully, the rest in the future. There is no way I could manage them all without this type of software.

</comment><comment><USER3> Before I take on a non-trivial task (programming or otherwise) I just write down a few ad-hoc examples on paper and make notes of special cases, concerns or questions I need answered.

I don't buy into the more organized attempts to get me to adopt any specific scheme.</comment>


Google tries to reinvent email with Google Wave (2009) - <AUTHOR> http://readwrite.com/2009/05/28/google_wave_google_tries_to_reinvent_email

<comment><USER2> it was a brave try

<comment><USER3> IM clients have taken up the slack here. things like slack, hall ....</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Will the US electoral voting system ever change? - <AUTHOR> Obviously no elected president is motivated to change a system that brought him into office. Nevertheless it seems crazy that one candidate gets the most votes and another takes office. I am from Germany where 1 vote really means 1 vote. Am I missing ways that this process could be changed by? Or is this really on the president alone? What are the changes this will ever happen? <comment><USER2> The surprisingly realistic path to eliminating the Electoral College by 2020

[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/9/1594792/-The- surpris...](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/9/1594792/-The-surprisingly- realistic-path-to-eliminating-the-Electoral-College-by-2020)

<comment><USER3> And an oddly polite discussion in the comments, how strange!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The United States is far different from Germany, each state acts internally like a separate country in many ways, and we have a House & Senate to ensure the less populous states do not get drown out by the larger states.

The electoral college was envisioned the same way, the founding fathers didn't want the uneducated masses electing the president directly, so they set up this arcane system where the governor of each state gets to appoint a certain number of electoral college voters, then they vote for president. They can generally vote how they please, to the point that a few have misspelled candidates names and not been counted as having voted for any candidate.

What this system ends up creating is an area where in many states, your individual vote literally does not matter since a vote in California is worth nearly nothing compared to a vote in Florida or Michigan. Also, the US media loves to dogpile on this and erroneously call states and guess at electoral college votes months ahead of when they'll vote. Comparatively, where the United States has set up democracies we do not do this, such as Iraq.

As to change, that is not going to happen short of people going out and taking action to fight for the future. Us americans are very depoliticized and non- participatory in our political parties, both major parties essentially lay dormant till national elections come around.

We need to get out in the streets and fight for the future we want to see, Martin Luther King didn't sit back at home and wait for a better America, nor did the readers of Silent Spring. Change in America can be had, but it takes activism, which most Americans think of as a dirty, unfamiliar thing with serious risks (due to how our media portrays it). We need to mobilize & empower Americans to fight for a better future.

</comment><comment><USER5> Not exactly what's being asked but I've seen some people (a lot?) incorrectly implying Clinton got more than half the votes. In reality, at the moment, 52.3% didn't vote for her. This is relevant in the sense that in some voting systems a presidential election in which the winning candidate gets < 50% could allow a second vote (sometimes weeks later like in France; sometimes on the same day, like voting for the London Mayor in the UK). In some cases this could also allow defeated candidates to form a coalition for a new majority aiming to replace the winning candidate.

One thing which is usually not discussed is the advantages of some systems where the most voted candidate or party don't win the election like FPTP in the UK.

</comment><comment><USER6> A lot of comments here are referencing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). If it ever comes to fruition, it would be a rather clever hack to get around needing a constitutional amendment to change/abolish the electoral college.

Don't get too optimistic about it going places, though. We've got three types of states these days: red states, swing states, and blue states. Let's look at incentives:

Blue states are the only ones to go for NPVIC so far, and it's easy to see the incentive: Blue states have twice in the last 20 years seen their candidate get more votes than the other and lose anyway. So far, blue states have contributed 165 electoral votes to the effort, and could maybe contribute another 17 or so (CT, OR, DE).

Swing states are not incentivized to go for NPVIC. Presidential campaigns bring lots of money to swing states. Swing states have contributed 0 EVs so far, and according to Wikipedia three such states are considering it: AZ, PA, MI. I expect each of these to fail. It would be big news if any succeeded.

Red states: They've seen their preferred candidate win while getting outvoted twice in the last 20 years. They currently see the NPVIC as Democrats asking for a rule-change to make it easier for them to win. I could see red states start to go for this if a Republican loses while getting more votes. Until that happens, the red-state contribution to the NPVIC will at or near 0 EV.

<comment><USER7> if i read it right, its really clever but also not very nice to the other states.

For the NPVIC not every state has to join it, it comes active when the states that joined the NPVIC have a majority of the electors. Then the electors do not vote according to who won their state, but to who won overall. So if the democratic states and enough swing states all sign the NPVIC to get to 270 electors, they changed the rules of the game.

There is an realistic chance for it to succeed. I wouldn't give it 84% ;) But it's not impossible.

<comment><USER6> But where's the NPVIC going to get the 270 EVs from? The blue state contribution is just about maxed out, while swing and red states have no incentive to join it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> States have gotten weaker relative to the federal government, so most people identify as being a US citizen rather than a citizen of their state. Keep in mind that Germany is smaller than California, a single US state; and Germans will send representatives rather than vote directly in the EU.

If you view yourself as a citizen of your state, then you want to avoid the problem of largely-populated states overruling everyone else. The Constitution split the House and Senate to avoid New York setting law for the whole country.

There are some bigger problems: States have a winner-take-all system to magnify their impact in the election. This encourages politicians to spend all their time on a few key battleground states.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Constitutional amendment that says, "The people voting for a member of the House also vote for a member of the electoral college, who is assigned to the same district". Then you'd see a few Republicans win in California, and a few Democrats win in Texas. And it'd be easier for 3rd-party candidates to get some visibility. There would still be a statewide vote for the electoral college members tied to the Senate.

There was also an amendment proposed along with the Bill of Rights related to the number of representatives. It was never passed: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment)

 _Anti-Federalists, who opposed the Constitution 's ratification, noted that there was nothing in the document to guarantee that the number of seats in the House would continue to represent small constituencies as the general population of the states grew. They feared that over time, if the size remained relatively small and the districts became more expansive, that only well-known individuals with reputations spanning wide geographic areas could secure election. It was also feared that those in Congress would, as a result, have an insufficient sense of sympathy with and connectedness to ordinary people in their district._

<comment><USER9> > There are some bigger problems: States have a winner-take-all system to > magnify their impact in the election. This encourages politicians to spend > all their time on a few key battleground states.

That sounds like a tragedy-of-the-commons type of situation.

Anyway, so it seems that your vote means more depending on which state you happen to live in. Suppose we wish to preserve that property, why not simply weigh all votes in each state by the number of representatives that that state would have today, add everything together, and on those numbers decide which candidate becomes president?

Edit: For example, we have states A and B. State A has 3 representatives and 100 inhabitants, and state B has 2 representatives and 50 inhabitants. We have candidates X and Y. In state A, X receives 60 votes, and Y receives 40 votes. In state B, X receives 20 votes, and Y receives 30 votes. Now we calculate the winner:

X receives (3 * 60) + (2 * 20) = 220 "votes"

Y receives (3 * 40) + (2 * 30) = 200 "votes"

X wins.

<comment><USER8> One reason I'd oppose that is because you're making the federal government choose how each state votes. You can already go to a small state and campaign for changes to the voting method. Moving it to the federal level takes that power away from your local community or state. If you forced every state to vote the same way, I predict that method would never be touched by any politician ever again.

As an example, Maine just passed Ranked Voting, as did Benton County, Oregon. That kind of incremental change would be impossible if you moved it up to the federal level.

[http://www.fairvote.org/maine_voters_adopt_ranked_choice_vot...](http://www.fairvote.org/maine_voters_adopt_ranked_choice_voting)

<comment><USER9> I see your point, but the current system encourages states to use a winner- takes-all system because it maximizes the influence of that state, which is hardly ideal. It'd be a shame to pass up on a good system (or one that is better than the one you are using now, in my opinion) just so you can forever experiment around with individual states. "Perfect" is the enemy of "good" and all that.

<comment><USER10> You can also prevent the tragedy of the commons, without federal interference, through an inter-state compact (basically a treaty/contract between states).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It is meaningless which candidate won the most votes, because the election was not about winning the most votes. If it were, millions more Republicans in hopelessly blue states like California might have voted, and similarly on the other side. We do not know who would have won if it was understood that victory depended on total votes.

<comment><USER12> This is a really important point. Currently both parties (and voters) strategize based around the rules that are in place. Once the rules change, the strategies will change too. You'll still lose elections, and you'll still end up outraged roughly half the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> A bigger issue is that there are far too few representatives in the House. With more reps (say 1:50000) there would be room for more diverse views to be heard and represented (and likely additional parties).

As it stands right now, it is impossible for one person to reasonably represent the views of 1M people.

Edit: also Eectoral votes are tied to the number of representatives + senators + DC, so there could be an effect there too.

</comment><comment><USER14> I feel like if we eliminated the Electoral College, presidential candidates would only visit areas like La New York City Boston Chicago Atlanta to teach the maximum number of voters.

Instead of removing it, are there ways we can improve it?

<comment><USER15> Bingo, and this has been thoroughly analyzed.

The election would reduce to 8-10 urban areas, which also makes cheating a _lot_ easier.

While we're at it, why don't we remove the other part of the great compromise that gave each state 2 Senators (#electors = #of House of Representative Members + 2)

And that's one reason it'll never happen, you won't get enough state legislatures to vote their states out of relevance.

<comment><USER16> I'm curious. Why do you say this would make cheating easier?

<comment><USER14> For a cheater, these are lucrative areas: Areas with low income and education rates, where the populace doesn't typically vote. Stuffing the box won't go noticed due to low election turnout.

In Kansas, we have a system to prevent ballot stuffing. You must show state or federal issued ID. Your name must be in the pollbook for the location and pre- registered before election day.

They have two areas: The first, you show your ID and they check your entry in the location's pollbook. The fact that you showed up to vote along with the ID you presented is recorded electronically statewide and is public information instantly.

They then print an anonymous "voting ticket" and you're taking to a separate area or room. A smart card is exchanged for your voting ticket is put into an air-gapped system and you cast your ballot. Your smart card is removed and tallied on a third air-gapped system. When the poll closes, the tally machine is handed over to the county.

This system makes it nearly impossible to stuff the box, because the number of votes cast at a location cannot exceed the number of IDs presented at the checkin location. It doesn't protect from changing votes, which would require a much more sophisticated attack on the machines themselves.

It's not perfect, but it is fairly good at stopping unsophisticated opportunistic attackers. I would feel much better if all of the USA adopted such a protocol if we go to a popular vote, but that's unlikely to happen, so I can't say I'm comfortable moving away from the electoral college either.

<comment><USER17> Wait, what states don't use election rolls (id checks do vary by state)?

I'm a lot happier with paper ballots + electronic tabulation than I am with electronic ballots, what do you think those parts of the process you describe are adding?

<comment><USER15> Right now it's nearly impossible to clean election rolls of dead etc. voters, e.g. the Feds fight this hard.

However, state and Federal issued IDs have a subsidiary feature, perhaps even more important that on the spot election verification now that I think about it, in that they expire, and I'm sure some of them also have revocation measures after the ID holder dies. This is much more true for people moving.

Agreed on the paper ballot + electronic counting, and very glad my county in neighboring Missouri uses that system, I never trusted the totally electronic or electromechanical systems I used in Arlington, VA or Brookline, MA

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> We're closer than you think. Check it out: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Inters...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact)

Hopefully more states will come on board after this election.

<comment><USER19> Unlikely. Republican-controlled states have no incentive to do that, as a national popular vote would help Democrats (the country is mostly more liberal than the Republican platform). You see this reflected in the makeup of the states that have signed so far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> There's another solution. Stop concentrating wealth in a few cities around the country.

</comment><comment><USER21> The country is mostly red. Even though Clinton got 200k more votes I'm sure you can see why the the electoral system is in place.

I like to add there is still 4 million votes that are being counted. Projection even from CNN is that Trump wins the popular vote.

[0] [https://mishgea.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/geographic- lands...](https://mishgea.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/geographic-lands..). [1] [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-10/trumps- geographic-l...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-10/trumps- geographic-l..).

<comment><USER22> > The country is mostly red.

One sq mile, one vote!

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> See here: [http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/](http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/)

It's getting closer.

</comment><comment><USER24> Its going to be very hard. You need a constitutional amendment. You need to first need 2/3s of congress and the house to approve it and then 3/4ths of the states. Good luck with that ever happening. We have had popular and electoral votes split a few times before and that hasn't changed the constitution.

</comment><comment><USER25> Deal with it!

The election was won according to the previously set rules. That's why no one paid any attention to California. If the rule was to win the popular vote, you would see a lot different campaign with both the candidates paying much more attention to states like California.

</comment><comment><USER25> BTW, Trump is going to win the popular vote as well according to CNN - [http://edition.cnn.com/election/results](http://edition.cnn.com/election/results)

</comment><comment><USER26> I'd like to add to the question: How could Trump gain more than 50% of the Electoral Votes given he had even less than 50% of the absolute votes? (According to: [http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president](http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president) )

<comment><USER27> [http://imgur.com/a/5GTem](http://imgur.com/a/5GTem)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Fair = 1 person, 1 vote.

Unfair = !Fair</comment>


Reverse Demo Day: Angels Pitch Entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> http://chrisyeh.blogspot.com/2012/02/reverse-demo-day-thursday-february-23.html <comment><USER2> I'm an active angel investor and a lot of my incoming leads are from founders, I guess I bring value, but I never really thought about how to explain how I'm different (if at all) from anybody else.

I'm terrified of doing this.

<comment><USER3> Sounds like you should probably do it, just for the experience and opportunity to improve your understanding of what these things are like for founders. :-)

<comment><USER2> Not sure what you mean - I'm a two-time founder currently. Or do you mean going through the YC-style demo day pitching?

<comment><USER3> I didn't mean you personally so much as angels and VCs in general. But sure, given how much the funding environment is changing I can't imagine that it would hurt to experience what it's currently like even if you've been through it in the past.

Of course I'm speaking here as a founder who has never raised any funding, so everything I say on the topic is deserving of multiple grains of salt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The number of people with business ideas greatly exceeds the number of angels with money to invest, so the notion of angels pitching to entrepreneurs _as an event_ signals that angels have too much money.

This is not to say that angels don't pitch to entrepreneurs; they do, but they do it after the entrepreneurs pitch to them (and a pitch can be a purely reputational discussion/email (e.g. "if you want money, ask for advice") rather than a session in the elevator, so let's not be constrained by silly definitions).

To see that process run in reverse is insane and signals a serious problem in the market.

Note: I'm an entrepreneur and am in this game with some success, so I'm not speaking out of jealousy...

<comment><USER5> On the other hand, the number of GOOD people with GOOD business ideas is almost always far less than the available capital. Angels don't want into any old deal; they all want into the best couple of deals. That is why YC Demo Day is so well attended.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a brilliant idea.

As a young, first-time entrepreneur still learning the ropes, it'd be interesting to see just exactly how angels differentiate their 'value prop'. Which is interesting, because as startup or founder, you're always looking for unique ways for the 'right' investor to help you.

I'd be surprised if 90% of the investors didn't just pimp their successful stories or portfolio exits. And the next logical step after that is just, 'well, we work really hard for you'.

</comment><comment><USER7> Though angels often seem to be nice people they are hard-bitten dealmakers (while first-time entrepreneurs are not).

No serious angel would participate at such an event.

<comment><USER8> And you say this from what sort of experience? Investing is all about deal flow and this is a chance to gain additional visibility. Visibility turns into deals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The fact of the matter is "the best" companies naturally have investors competing to get a piece.

What defines "the best" and what creates true competition is quite fickle. The private equity market, despite all recent changes, is still inherently inefficient. So I'd venture to say there are several dynamics going on:

1) Social Proof: Many investors are just lazy and won't look beyond who is introducing or vouching for the deal. Nothing wrong with that, it is a legitimate defense mechanism, but this limits what they actually pay attention to and creates frenzy around half-baked projects with "superstars" onboard. Think Color.

2) Right Fad: This is closely related to the previous point. If an investor has a theory that something "just like XYZ" is the next big thing, they might be willing to overlook a LOT of legitimate red flags. This could create a frenzy around a certain space or make them avoid another because "it is played out", which is often wrong.

3) Their Knowledge: On one hand this is what they legitimately understand about the space to make their own intelligent judgement of why there is an opportunity. That is the type of investor with the most potential to bring something useful if they can explain: "because I've done this and this, I can contribute this". Flip side, experience often means pre-conceived notions, with Exhibit #1 being YC's bias against solo founders.

4) Actual Metrics: If your numbers speak for themselves quite a few investors would want in just on this basis. The flip side it might be too late. Another flip side is investors might think a deal is overpriced or they cannot get enough control, etc. Best companies though are able to execute regardless of who invests or not invests. That's where you can have a legitimate competition on who is allowed to invest, based on what they offer.

5) Hidden Gems: Investors can often get the best deals by being early enough but that's where you have to find something new, that has a good chance of success, bring something to the table and get a better deal. But this requires to pay attention and do some actual work, so not everyone wants to do this vs. try to co-invest in the latest syndicate someone else is putting together.

If you are an entrepreneur you want to maximize your outcome, but if you focus all your time on jumping through the hoops of investors who do not actually understand what you do or have much to contribute you are being distracted from actual business. Note, I am not using the word "startup" here, because every successful startup is a business. Ignoring this simple fact is what gets people into trouble, leads to bad deals or puts them on the road to failure.

So yes, investors pitching to entrepreneurs could be a great idea but it works only if both parties bring the right mindset to the table and can articulate their value proposition.

PS: As entrepreneur you have to be extra careful with people who invest mainly based on social proof / fads. Do not expect them to do much for you, though their involvement might be a social proof for someone else who would make an actual contribution.</comment>


Ask YC: Do you still use Google Wave? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> I for one do. I basically use it as a Google Doc, but I also like collaborating within it and using it as a place to let discussions happen, or let multiple people post points around a question or topic. I enjoy seeing the characters update as collaborators post, though there is no unique benefit that Wave offers, that makes me decide to use it, it is simply based on habit, rather than a specific benefit.

</comment><comment><USER2> I think the number of responses to your question may be telling.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Indeed, it may be.</comment>


Show HN: 0-learning curve chorded typing - TBF-RnD http://doug.tbf-rnd.life:22357 <comment> TBF-RnD More info:

[http://tbf-rnd.life/blog/2019/06/16/0-learning-curve-chorded...](http://tbf- rnd.life/blog/2019/06/16/0-learning-curve-chorded-typing/)

Might be usefull with haptic input/gloves in VR/AR settings. If interested please comment, participants are very welcomme!</comment>


Coronavirus hastens Japan's shift away from hanko seals - <AUTHOR> https://dw.com/en/coronavirus-hastens-japans-shift-away-from-hanko-seals/a-53783541 <comment><USER2> _Companies needed senior officials to be physically seated at their desks just so they could apply hanko to company documents, without which entire businesses would have ground to a halt._

I understand the general thrust of the article, and am reminded of verifiable private keys used by many modern encryption schemes, but I don't see why an executive can't simply take the hanko seal home.

<comment><USER3> So then the employees have to pack up their documents and drive past the executives home to get them stamped?

<comment><USER2> Scan and send electronically prior to stamping. Have a single box of outgoing stamped documents go from the executive to a secure mailroom twice daily for distribution. This doesn't sound very complicated.</comment></comment></comment>


How Kleiner Perkins almost blew their biggest investment since Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/11/23/businessinsider-how-kleiner-perkins-almost-blew-its-best-investment-since-google-2010-11.DTL

<comment><USER2> This is so poorly written; no wonder print journalism is dying.

"that Kleiner's ever invested in over _it's_ life."

"from a guy _who's_ firm"

"What makes Doerr's boast even more fascinating is the story about how KP's investment in Zynga never happened." _(Then what are we reading about?)_

"According to lore" _(Is that your official source?)_

Not to mention that the article is made up of 13 paragraphs, not one of which has more than a single sentence. Contrast that with any article from NYTimes.com, which is likely to have short paragraphs (as news-style writing does), but not single sentence paragraphs.

<comment><USER3> This article was contributed by Business Insider.

<comment><USER4> The fact that they outsource their news-gathering doesn't bode well either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _KP decided to pass. Why? "Silicon valley had stopped believing in games," KP partner Bing Gordon tells us._

I doubt that's the only reason there was to pass on Zynga. I'm sure Pincus gives off an odd vibe even to the money jaded sand hill road crowd. At some point, surely, a company segment can be defined by how they do business instead of what business they do. Just look at various multilevel marketing firms that are defined by MLM instead of their end products like beauty.

If Zynga could be just as defined by their techniques - such as offer based revenues, don't innovate only copy, or abuse your users - as they can be defined by being in gaming - I wonder how fair it is to say they were getting passed over for their niche. And maybe KP would have been right despite leaving money on the table - surely at some point % return isn't the only metric. I'd assume that even if heroin became legal tomorrow they wouldn't be investing in heroin pushers at elementary schools.

<comment><USER6> You have a more charitable view of VCs than a number of us! But cynical commentary on ruthless VCs aside, I think "stopped believing in games" is probably accurate. Here's why.

The gaming biz had largely stepped away from PC platforms in favor of consoles and decreased piracy. PC based gaming had bifurcated into two major areas: casual games (Bejeweled) and server-based games (World of Warcraft), with the original gaming market being a rather beleaguered middle ground.

And various firms had tried to replicate success in these new areas. But as may be obvious, once WoW beat Everquest, nobody's been able to dethrone them. And casual games were... well, everywhere. Kongregate, MSN Games, Yahoo Games, Real Arcade, ad nauseum. No big differentiators. Easy to knock off. And not very lucrative without enormous scale.

So when investors heard "new game company" their usual inclination was "nope, next". And venture capital is a business that ultimately doesn't thrive on risk but instead on as close as they can get to the sure thing, which is why you see so many clones of any business that seems to be doing it right... latest trend being Groupon. VCs are looking for a reason to say no early so they can get back to looking for other opportunities, working with their existing portfolio companies, or the other things that occupy their time (public speaking, golf, etc). There could be fabulous opportunities in a business but they are often dismissed as "in the wrong space" - regardless of the success of that firm - if that space is out of vogue.</comment></comment>


US refuses to join international effort to develop Covid-19 vaccine - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/01/us-covid-19-vaccine-refuses-international-effort-coronavirus <comment><USER2> My United States would continue to support the World Health Organization and cooperation with the Covid-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility (Covax) which includes China and nearly everyone else. Why do we keep Donald Trump around when he clearly does not understand or care. He'll probably loose the election, but, considering the damage he continues to do, we really need him gone sooner.

If we are to have a future as a species, we need go cooperate and work together. The COVID-19 Pandemic is just the first of many existential crises we will face in the next couple of decades. Global cooperation will be needed to ensure human survival in the face of global warming (and other assorted crises). So far, in the COVID-19 Pandemic, the US has earned a failing grade. Where will we be when the going gets much much worse.

</comment><comment><USER3> Money. Cui bono?

American Big Pharma can't charge as much as it wants if it's part of a world- wide process.

</comment><comment><USER4> "The US government has said that it will not participate in a global initiative to develop, manufacture and equitably distribute a vaccine for Covid-19 because the effort is co-led by the World Health Organization."

Has the WHO ruled out using the chinese communist party's vaccine?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Inspiring.

<comment><USER5> How so? (I would've summarised as "rhinoplasty" ... or, given the luxury of two words, "contrafacial rhinoplasty.")</comment></comment>