Joe Hewitt speculates on the future of Apple TV - <AUTHOR> http://joehewitt.com/2011/10/25/airplay-tv

<comment><USER2> I completely agree with him on AirPlay's potential.

When AirPlay came out, I was thinking that it would be great to take advantage of it outside plain audio and video. I figured, if CPU allowed, it'd be possible to create a video stream on-the-fly with whatever UI you'd want in it and push it to the AppleTV. (I'm no hardcore developer, so this never went much further than a theoretical dream)

Then Apple announced AirPlay Mirroring, which is pretty much what I was thinking with the advantage (I believe) that it's managed in big part through hardware, making CPU usage lower, thus doable. My Twitter stream is witness of my excitement about that.

I'm convinced that when games start to really take advantage of it, this will give Apple access to gaming in the living-room. And not only racing games, first-person shooters, etc. but board games, games à la TV-game show, etc. Having two screens, one being private, can lead to very interesting apps and games. For example, you can have Pictionary/Taboo-style games where one player has an iPod with some info, and the rest is shared on the TV. And you can also take advantage of other iOS devices nearby.

Now, I was not convinced about Apple going to the expense of building TVs when the AppleTV (box) already has much of the benefits of what I would think an Apple TV set would do. But Joe made some good points about improving the current TVs: no need for a remote to turn on/off, no need to switch inputs, possibility to improve the network connection with the devices… (e.g. like AirDrop does with a dedicated channel between two Macs)

Finally, regarding his last line _"If I were an iOS developer, and I'd start investing in AirPlay right now."_ , my understanding is that it's actually very simple to implement: [https://developer.apple.com/library/safari/#documentation/Au...](https://developer.apple.com/library/safari/#documentation/AudioVideo/Conceptual/AirPlayGuide/EnrichYourAppforAirPlay/EnrichYourAppforAirPlay.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40011045-CH6-DontLinkElementID_7)

You can get a notification of a second connected display and use that screen to build your UI in exactly the same way you would your main interface. The only thing that seems to defer is just the window object it's applied to.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not sure I agree about the necessity of building this into a tv. I have an ATV2, and the TV just stays on that input, generally. This would be more true if there were more content apps. Also, my TV goes to sleep when the ATV does. So I just leave it on, and when I want to watch something, I hit the ATV remote, and everything turns on.

Mirroring is actually not what I want from Airplay. I want full mirroring only as an option. Usually, I want the TV screen to display _just the video_. I want all the UI to be on the iPad (or iPhone or iPod). I also want to be able to queue up video, manipulate video, and do other stuff on the iPad _while the TV continues to play video_.

I'm also not sure about games. Maybe casual gaming, but not serious gaming. When playing a serious game, you don't want to have to look at your controller. Your eyes should stay on the screen at all times. The controller should become an appendage. With a touchscreen this is never really true (which is also why typing on a touchscreen is never quite as satisfying or accurate).

I think this certainly opens up new and interesting interactions, just like the Wii did, but I don't see it becoming a viable control system for serious games, and I also don't really see Apple releasing a console-style controller.

<comment><USER2> _Mirroring is actually not what I want from Airplay._

I think Apple made a mistake by calling it that. Yes you can mirror your whole screen, which is interesting, but the really cool thing is when you do what you're describing (see my other comment too): you show one thing on the TV and another on the iOS device.

As for your comments on games, I think it has the potential of competing more against the Wii than Xbox/PS3. "Real" gamers will probably want a controller (though some will argue that real gamers will play on a computer :)), but for the rest (which is a majority of people), a tactile controller can be enough. Remember that it's not only tactile but has a gyroscope and accelerometer…

<comment><USER3> I know individual apps can sort of do what I'm describing. What I'd like is to be able to is leave video running while doing other things on the iPad. Right now, if I'm playing a youtube video, when I leave the app to tweet or queue up another video, the one on the TV stops playing.

I'm probably asking for too much, though.

As for games, yes, I agree that this is a real disruptive threat to Nintendo, but not to Xbox/PS3. But how big of an industry is casual gaming compared to 'serious' gaming? I would have assumed that casual gaming was bigger, just from the demographic size, but from what I understand, one of the Call of Duty Modern Warfare games broke theatrical box office records.</comment></comment></comment>


Smashing the Z/OS LE "Daisy" Chain for Fun and Cease and Desist Letters - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/mainframe/comments/400ogh/smashing_the_zos_le_daisy_chain_for_fun_and_cease/ <comment><USER2> this is a really cool read, well put together and very thorough, but near the end the author betrays a startling amount of naïveté:

> Considering how simple the PoC is, I hope it's clear that in order to be > able to exploit a vulnerability, the planets really need to align. The vuln > needs to exist, you need to somehow figure out how to craft the payload > (hard if you're not on the system, and have access to source code, compile > listings, and a debugging session), and get the payload on the system. Then, > when you have arbitrary code execution, you need to know how the system is > set up to do interesting stuff. Open sockets, create files, edit files, > delete files, what have you.

This is not a good conclusion to come to. The overall, high level conclusion is that the hardware that Z/OS runs on still overlays code and data and has some rudimentary memory protections, but is not memory safe by design and can still be exploited via direct code injection or return to libc / ROP. Relying on the secrecy of the system (its configuration, code, and hardware) is not a strong guarantee as motivated attackers can defeat this.

Or to put another way: for reliable x86 exploitation, the planets also need to align, but attackers make them align regularly and have for 20 years...

</comment><comment><USER3> Very interesting read!

During my training, I worked on a BIND4->BIND9 transition in a mainframe team and given the honourable task of looking for ways to make the configuration more secure.

I did quite a bit of reading back then, and I think I kind of remember reading something about z/Architecture having all the pieces in place to provide W^X-style memory protection, but the OS not using it (at least not z/OS). This article seems to say the opposite. Now I am confused if I mis-remember this detail or if the article I read back then was wrong. :-?

<comment><USER4> If anything didn't happen in the past couple years, the article is correct. z/Architecture doesn't have non-executable memory nor ASLR. The reason I think is in part that they don't have a free bit on each page descriptor to use.

Also, many mainframe programs are really old, and some may still rely on self- modification in unknown ways. And having ASLR would (IMHO) make debugging really painful, because they still rely on assembler programs a lot.

z/OS (which drives development of z/Architecture) is kind of Australia of operating systems. Early independent evolution -> lot of weird and backward stuff there.

<comment><USER5> >and some may still rely on self-modification in unknown ways

To the point that they have the EX instruction. It's an indirect logical or and execute single instruction to allow for re enterent self modifying code. How can you even begin to W^X given that you have that instruction?

<comment><USER4> I don't think EX typically accesses writable memory, so that wouldn't be a big problem (and hardware could actually enforce that target of EX is in executable storage). It's used as a workaround to have variable portion of instructions that aren't normally variable.

The actual non-reentrant code is becoming less common, but it still happens sometimes.

Although I think it could be possible to implement that writable pages cannot be executed via a special bit in PSW. Not sure about practical implications to z/OS, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Holy crap. If I'm reading this correctly, Z/OS servers do not support non- executable memory? The essential anti stack-smashing protection that was even added to Windows XP in 2004?

<comment><USER7> Even worse: If I understand "z/Architecture does not feature executable space protection" right, you can even just overwrite the function that is called next directly.

<comment><USER8> And on top of that, it only has some weird sort of pseudo-ASLR.</comment></comment></comment>


One SpaceX rocket flight is equal to 395 one-way transatlantic flights - <AUTHOR> https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/13/new-analysis-shows-billionaires-dream-space-tourism-would-be-disaster-emissions <comment><USER2> Doesn't this depend on the engine in the SpaceX rocket? Their new engines are methane based, and don't use kerosene.</comment>


The Internet - You ain't seen nothing yet (2011 Video) - <AUTHOR> http://turingfest.squarespace.com/videos/2012/2/12/albert-wenger-you-aint-seen-nothing-yet.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I saw this talk given at the 2011 Turing Festival in Edinburgh. One of the most inspiring talks I've seen given in person.</comment>


In Switzerland, a giant machine is sucking carbon directly from the air - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/switzerland-giant-new-machine-sucking-carbon-directly-air <comment><USER2> 1.000001 more Carbon sucked from Air then energy wasted doing it, that would be a headline.

But this, this is not even removing it from the cycle- its pumping it into greenhouses.</comment>


Apple's App Store hit by malware attack in China - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34311203 <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10243151](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10243151)</comment>


The Invisible Artist: On directing theater - <AUTHOR> https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-invisible-artist/ <comment><USER2> Copy/pasted to [https://pastebin.com/8Ju1Fw30](https://pastebin.com/8Ju1Fw30) since it won't render without Javascript enabled.</comment>


Ask HN: Help me beta TConsolidate.com - <AUTHOR>

	Hi All,
I'm hoping a few of you can take the time to help beta test a Twitter app I have been tinkering with. The purpose of this application is to prevent direct message spam.
This is achieved by allowing users to set up custom spam filters. YOU WILL NEED TO MAKE YOUR OWN SPAM FILTER UPON REGISTRATION! Any message that does not pass this spam filter is stopped from hitting your Twitter inbox (though it does not do a constant fetch) but a local copy will be kept by the script in your 'Spam' folder for review incase it was important. The script will also send you e-mails (at your choice of interval) telling you which messages were blocked that it thought were spam for your review. While there are other functions in the script itself (i.e. create folders, save local copies of DM's) the main use of this script should be to setup a DM filter and let the e-mails tell you what was blocked.
The website to join up is Tconsolidate.com and signup should safely link with your Twitter account via Oauth. Keep in mind this has simply been a hobby project of mine in my spare time. I am aware most links do not work on the website but they should within the script itslf. Any feedback is appreciated.
What this script should do for you (the two big ones are key): • Send you daily, weekly or monthly reports on all of your received direct messages • Allow you to create custom SPAM filters to filter some messages into SPAM (let me know if you need help setting this up) o Spam messages should never hit your Twitter.com inbox • Allow you to create folders and move DM's to easily categorize and save the good ones • Easy and fast maintenance / cleaning of your inbox • Blacklist some users so you never get their DM's
Issues I already know about: • I know graphically this is ugly right now • Server response time might at times be slow • Broken links (ie Help, WTF) Things I'd love for you to especially look for: • Is the signup process clean and simple? • When joining were you forced to put in your e-mail address? • Are you receiving the correct reports (ignore formatting) • Is the SPAM filter you established workign and stopping messages from hitting your Twitter.com inbox? • Folders etc working cleanly for you?
Cheers, Alex <comment><AUTHOR> I should mention, you can give me feedback here, through the feedback script on the website or get my contact details via Twitter (@AlexBlom).</comment>


Microsoft opens up OneDrive storage for developers to integrate into apps - <AUTHOR> https://blog.onedrive.com/the-new-onedrive-api/

<comment><USER2> I can barely see the text on that page!</comment>


The world of 19th century patent medicine - <AUTHOR> http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/narcotics-in-medicine

<comment><USER2> So, pretty much like my Ginseng dealer of today?

</comment><comment><USER3> I like that the advertisement for the paper-mache elephant points out that "this is a better thing than it appears to be"!

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm going to play Oregon Trail and know exactly what to buy after reading this article.

Or maybe what _not_ to buy...</comment>


Trump's tariffs just about killed DefCon badgelife - <AUTHOR> https://the-parallax.com/2019/08/08/defcon-trump-tariffs-badges <comment><AUTHOR> MITM routing to avoid Trump sanctions:

"If China can't sell to America, it can sell to South Korea and do a middle man without the tariffs involved. The longer the trade war lasts, the more these intermediaries will grow, like veins after a heart attack," says Craig Medlen, professor of economics at Silicon Valley's Menlo College.

<comment><USER2> Uhh, not all sanctions are created equal, but it is true that 'life finds a way'. Just from what I saw thus far, the moment a bank notices that an entity attempts to circumvent sanctions, bank goes hard on them. The fines and penalties make it a risky proposition otherwise.</comment></comment>


Planet Generation - Part I - <AUTHOR> http://www.shaneenishry.com/blog/2014/08/01/planet-generation-part-i/ <comment><USER2> If you search for "fibonacci grid sphere," you'll find the grid used for research. It's less regular and a lot more work, with a few regions of five or seven sides, but it might look more natural, and it's used because it has fewer sharp corners than the icosohedron. Just another option.

<comment><USER3> Fibonacci grid spheres look really cool. But...

The surface geometry is not very important in this task. You can easily push out a million triangles or more, so you're going to get a pretty round shape in the end, no matter which primitive you take as a starting point.

The hard part is texturing and area distortions. Ideally you wouldn't have texture boundaries crossing the triangle boundaries. Since textures are rectangular, using the "cube sphere" is a very popular choice for planet rendering.

Things get more difficult if you have to use real-life imagery (satellite images and aerial photography), because then you're going to have to stitch several layers of textures on top of each other. There are texture splatting techniques and other tricks that need to be done to get proper texturing on the planet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder if anyone has generated planets by running a geological simulation - plates, subduction zones, vulcanism, erosion.... etc.

<comment><USER5> Dwarf Fortress does.

<comment><USER6> Does DF actually generate the geology of the whole planet, rather than just the playable area?

<comment><USER7> You select the area you'll be playing with at the embark, so yes, the whole planet's surface is generated. But I apart from the surface layer, I doubt that this simulation takes planet core into account, for example: in the game world's it would be filled with SPOILER anyway.

<comment><USER8> plate tectonics is a planned feature for worldgen in the future

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Very cool result! I've been wondering about applying the height-maps that you get from Perlin/Simplex directly to the vertices of a planet, for 3D terrain. I'd imagine that the cube mapping approach might not be perfect for this because of the irregular distance between vertices. The geodesic dome would probably work, but I have no idea how you would generate noise for a shape like that.

<comment><USER10> I've used a cubemap approach to render procedurally generated asteroid geometry and it works pretty well. I start by generating the heightmap using 3D simplex noise, Then when rendering I use a domain shader to offset the vertices of an icosphere along the normal vector according the the height in the heightmap.

[http://imgur.com/rpKalpk](http://imgur.com/rpKalpk)

I've got a bunch of other procedural content generation blog entries over at [http://www.junkship.net](http://www.junkship.net), including this entry [http://www.junkship.net/News/2011/11/13/building-steam- with-...](http://www.junkship.net/News/2011/11/13/building-steam-with-a-grain- of-salt) which covers a lot of similar ground to the parent article.

<comment><USER9> That's an impressive result! My worry was that it would become more obvious if I were to skimp on the poly count of the shape. Doesn't seem to have been an issue for you.

Thanks for the links, I'll definitely check them out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> One approach that you might want to try is to generate the planet using spherical harmonics. If you draw random coefficients for those harmonics, their distribution (in particular their rate of decay) will dictate how "coarse" the terrain looks.

Edit: scratch that, you need an ungodly amount of parameters to get anything fine... works better for designing asteroids

</comment><comment><USER12> How to draw the owl...

</comment><comment><USER13> Shanee, I saw this and was immediately trying to figure out how I could email it to you. Then I saw the URL :) Nice work getting it on HN!

<comment><USER14> Ha! Nice to meet you here :)</comment></comment>


Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/pdf/nclimate2938.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> It might be worth mentioning that this article was co-written by Michael Mann, of 'hockey stick' fame.</comment>


Ask HN: What are some cool ideas for a Chat Bot? - <AUTHOR> I want to build bots as a side project, and would appreciate some ideas. They could be just productivity increase ideas (e.g. solve human problems/needs in a office(?)), or just for fun. I'm thinking about integrating with Slack, but not necessarily limiting the platform. Thanks for any help. <comment><USER2> I too have been thinking around this area. My first thought was some bot that could be used to determine if a chat agent was a bot or not. I didn't see that having much value however in the long run.

</comment><comment><USER3> Curious what bots you're working on currently.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've created one that solves the problem of finding out which meeting room is available right now or at a later time (for a defined period 15,30, 60 min) in a pool of 15/20 meeting rooms. It can be a pain to find out in the calendar interface, so the bot only returns the available rooms, and with a simple click, boom, you book it... added some extra functionalities around this main feature.</comment></comment>


"OLPC XO Laptop 2.0 Has Dual Touchscreens, Looks Amazing and Future-y" - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/392060/olpc-xo-laptop-20-has-dual-touchscreens-looks-amazing-and-future%2By <comment><USER2> Set the eventual retail price over/under at $150?

Just like the OLPC XO would have been a success at $100, this will be a stunning success at $75 (or $100) but I just can't see them getting there. I'm glad they're working on cheap touch screens though; I'm really looking forward to the XO screen technology trickling down to the (Bourgeoisie) masses.</comment>


Digital Hand Tremor Assessment - <AUTHOR> http://www.christopherlsmith.com/projectblog/2014/5/13/hand-tremor-analysis

<comment><USER2> I inherited tremors ... mine aren't always present and when I have them they're relatively minor. The bad news is that I can see how they progress by watching my mom's tremors. I'm pretty sure I won't be drawing or even writing in another 20-25 years.

So what I'm wondering is whether this "test" can be adapted to become an "exercise". Will practicing with the test for some number of minutes a day condition my hands to stay more tremor free? That might be an interesting body hack.

<comment><USER3> The quick answer is probably not. Tremors run in my family and I have them pretty bad - using a fork with my left hand is iffy for me. The tremors are not a matter of weakness.

For modest tremors you may want to look into the drug Propranolol. I've used it and it helps but has side effects - for me drowsiness was the worst part. In severe cases there are surgery options. It involves the brain so it's not a minor thing. I have an anesthesiologist friend who tells me it would be fun but I think he means fun for him, not me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Very interesting. I "diagnosed" (not a doctor) my father's early-stage Parkinson's a few years back when I went home for the holidays and noticed a resting tremor in the classic "pill-rolling" motion. No one had mentioned anything to him about it and a resting tremor is unlikely to be noticed by the sufferer.

I got him to see a neurologist, whose more accurate and professional testing confirmed my concerns. But this looks like a great early-warning system.

</comment><comment><USER5> Not to hijack the thread, but I really like a "tremor-stabilizing spoon" mentioned in the article: [https://www.liftlabsdesign.com/](https://www.liftlabsdesign.com/). Will look into for someone I know with a tremor.

<comment><USER6> Hey Zavulon, Chris from the blog here. Glad you found the link. I found their technology interesting as well, and so close to creating real human value, its inspiring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm 21 years old and inherited Essential Tremor from my grandfather. They're definitely noticeable normally, but can get worse during a caffeine or adrenaline high (also if anxious about something). It makes taking notes during a lecture or handwriting for a long test kind of difficult. Answers get messy, so professors can't always read everything. Either that, or I try to slow down my pace, but then that ends up using more time than I have.

I think there's a long way to go until there's a "cure" or way of treating it, but the work you've put in will hopefully be prove useful to the research community. Thanks Chris for taking the time to work on this cool project.

<comment><USER6> Thanks spike, hopefully research comes a long way in the near future to understand the root cause and address it in some way.</comment></comment>


#gamedev Lead Quick Start Guide - <AUTHOR> http://www.altdevblogaday.com/2013/11/05/gamedev-lead-quick-start-guide/

<comment><AUTHOR> s/game/web to taste.</comment>


Psychology's New God (a critique of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy) - <AUTHOR> http://hbmag.com/jungian-psychology-series-psychology's-new-god/ <comment><USER2> I've written a lot of articles in the health field (around 200), and, iirc, the efficacy data for therapy of psychoanalysis and CBT is similar, actually, again, now that I think about it, iirc, any psychological type of therapy (within reason) is roughly as effective as the other.

As such, from the insurer's side, which is preferable: one that lasts something like 12 weeks and has limited amount of sessions, or one that lasts years and can have 4 sessions a week?

People need to feel listened to, cared for, important - in one form or another.

<comment> steve-howard 4 sessions a week is always excessive. It's not that people don't need the help -- it's just that you need more time to process information.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know about that. It's not like people aren't "processing information" either during or after the therapy sessions.

And is 4 sessions a week really "excessive"?

Remember that most therapy sessions are only 1 hour long (sometimes as little as 45 minutes, or even 30 minutes long).

It can feel very rushed to have to cram a description of and then a discussion of everything significant that's happened to you in the course of a full week in to just 1 hour of therapy, especially if you are going through a very rough time where there's a lot going on (both external and internal).

That's why many therapists prefer "intensive therapy" (ie. more frequent or perhaps longer sessions) for people going through a crisis, and then advise less frequent sessions as their lives stabilize.

That said, I think 1 hour per week is the norm in most types of therapy. 4 hours per week is relatively unusual.

<comment> steve-howard Not to tell too much about my life and the lives of those close to me, but two hours a week is the crisis setting. If a therapist tells you anything of value about the way you think or behave, it takes some time to think about what that can mean for your life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to trust any magazine that includes articles on homeopathy: [http://hbmag.com/category/6-holistic_therapies/homeopathic-n...](http://hbmag.com/category/6-holistic_therapies/homeopathic- naturopathic/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also very interesting:

      Post Qualification Training in Selective Ignorance

<http://www.midpsy.org/training_in_ignorance.doc>

Excerpts:

 _"the assumption .. [is] that [CBT] represents a lucid treatment framework, founded upon a solid body of theory and research... [but] when this approach is examined from a historical perspective, it is revealed as a self- contradictory mishmash of psychiatric ideas, behavioural techniques, crude clinical pragmatism and post hoc justifications from the academic discipline of 'cognitive psychology' - or at least those bits of it that can be made to fit with the claims of the therapists.

In other words, CBT is a 'tradition' rather than a distinct modality, owing most of its success to its appeal to a superficial rationalism and to the promise of delivering 'cheerful efficiency'"_

The papers presented in one of the conferences mentioned in the above report are collected in this book:

<http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/195/6/557>

</comment><comment><USER4> Another critique of CBT, this one from a psychoanalytic perspective

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/09/psychology.hum...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/09/psychology.humanbehaviour)

The Guardian article is theoretical or philosophical at best, but presents some interesting ideas, such as criticisms of the methodology of CBT studies. Specifically, the focus on solving one symptom while not taking into account development of others.

</comment><comment><USER5> Another critique you can level against CBT comes from the thinking behind Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). I've read books on ACT that argue that trying to rationally challenge and control and manage your thoughts often has the paradoxical effect of making them stronger, and making them more prominent in your life. A common comparison is that a person trying not to have negative, depressed thoughts is like someone trying not to think of a red lion; you can't make yourself _not_ think something.

The ACT approach to negative thoughts and behaviors is more mindfulness based and is about accepting the things that come from your mind without necessarily getting sucked into them or being controlled by them. Personally I think bits of several approaches can help.

</comment><comment><USER6> i tried CBT when my life was a mess last year. it helped me accomplish some goals for a while, but it didn't last.

now i'm going to analysis 5 times a week, and it's made a world of difference.

<comment><USER7> How many hours a week do you spend in therapy? And what is the price to you?

Not trying to make a point in reference to CBT, I'm just curious about the numbers, if you feel like sharing.

<comment><USER6> i go to 5 one hour sessions each week. the therapy and medication cost me over 2 thousand dollars each month, but i credit them with totally turning my life around. before this therapy i had zero emotionally intelligence; i would feel things so intensely that i would be overwhelmed with the emotion and unable to think about it rationally. now i am building the ability to step back and see what is happening.

another really helpful move i took was to build the website <https://www.thoughtplot.org>, which has been incredibly valuable for me in understanding my mood.

at cbt, i told the guy that i sometimes become convinced that i am supposed to trigger the singularity via a giant public sex orgy. instead of trying to figure out why that is or what i could do about it, he was like "why dont you make it a goal to eat vegetables today?" it actually helped, but it was adressing the symptoms (psychosis) rather than the problem (a feeling of lonliness and self hatred.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I thought this was posted for it's comic value, but then I read the comments.

This is a critique of a therapy repeatedly proven empirically superior in it's efficacy to other non-pharmacological approaches. And, amazingly, it's a critique coming from what seems to be a Jungian nobody from Reno.

I say this as a huge advocate, and student of, Jung, Freud, Adler and the rest. But come on, if something helps people who can't leave the house, hold a job, or drive a car function again, without 10 years of 5 session a week therapy, how can you ethically justify attacking it this way.

CBT attempts to change negative thoughts and maladaptive behavior by addressing thoughts and behavior. Jungian therapy attempts to help people integrate elements of their psyche carried over from previous lives, an inherited collective psyche (yes Jung was a Nazi).

<comment><AUTHOR> _"This is a critique of a therapy repeatedly proven empirically superior in it's efficacy to other non-pharmacological approaches."_

Well, that's the question isn't it? Has it really been proven to be superior, or is it just scientistic, reductionist hype that is championed by insurers, governments, and societies that values cheap, quick, superficial bandaids instead of potentially more expensive approaches that might actually require a long, hard look at the depths of your own self.

 _"I say this as a huge advocate, and student of, Jung, Freud, Adler and the rest."_

I really wonder about that, considering your later mischaracterization of Jungian therapy.

 _"But come on, if something helps people who can't leave the house, hold a job, or drive a car function again, without 10 years of 5 session a week therapy, how can you ethically justify attacking it this way."_

But does it help them? That is the key question. You clearly seem to think so. Not everyone agrees.

 _"CBT attempts to change negative thoughts and maladaptive behavior by addressing thoughts and behavior. Jungian therapy attempts to help people integrate elements of their psyche carried over from previous lives, an inherited collective psyche (yes Jung was a Nazi)."_

First, it's not like Jungian psychology does not "address thoughts and behavior". It does. It just has a different understanding of what the causes of these thoughts and behaviors are, what they mean, and how and when to change them.

Second, to say that _"Jungian therapy attempts to help people integrate elements of their psyche carried over from previous lives"_ makes it sound like Jungian therapy is based on a belief in reincarnation. This is false.

 _"an inherited collective psyche"_

This is more accurate. Humans inherit certain instincts, such as the sucking instinct a baby exhibits when presented with a nipple. Human brain structure is partially an inherited characteristic. Jungians argue that there are psychological instincts that are also inherited.

For instance, an image of a breast might trigger certain feelings and behavior in an infant. The image of an infant might trigger certain feelings and behavior in a mother.

The actual theory of such "archetypes" the "collective unconscious" is actually much more complex. Entire books, in fact many, many books have been written on these subjects. So the above should not be taken as even an adequate summary, much less an exhaustive account of what they're about.

 _"Jung was a Nazi"_

This is troubling and problematic, but not really relevant to the question of whether Jungian therapy works. It's even less relevant to the question of whether CBT works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> "In addition, CBT has been enthusiastically embraced and promoted by insurance companies because it is considered an effective, short-term therapy. Owing to the hundreds of research studies documenting its efficacy in treatment for the above illnesses, CBT is the quintessential 'evidence-based treatment."

If it's more effective, then it should be the program of first choice. Why is this hard to accept? Can we not simply select the maximally effective treatment?

I find the article an appeal to irrationality.

<comment><USER10> I'd like to point out that the author doesn't say it _is_ more effective, only that studies have shown it effective. The human mind is more complex than traditional science is capable of handling. In particular, studies can only show you how people behave on average. The problem lies in the fact that there's no such thing as an "average" person. As Jung said, everyone is an exception to the rule.

<comment><USER9> What I've read of Jungian is pretty 'woo-woo' and does _not_ lead to any sort of rational trust.

I'd rather go with statistics: statistically, 68% of people are pretty close to the rule, and 95% are fairly close. People are all pretty much the same wherever you go if you look past the superficial trappings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not really a critique, just some rather muddled FUD from a once fashionable rival.

<comment><USER12> The real criticism, as it were, is in the final paragraphs where the author points to the usual study of psychotherapies which found small advantages for CBT. (I couldn't help but sarcastically think, 'and is 8% more effectiveness not worthwhile?')

<comment><AUTHOR> Read that again. It didn't find an 8% advantage for CBT.

Here's the sentence that mentions 8%:

 _"Dr. Wampold found that the methods and techniques unique to a given therapy account for only a modest portion (roughly 8 percent) of the overall treatment effects._ "

Note that he's talking about _"a given therapy"_ , not CBT in particular.

Also, it's not clear from the summary whether 8% was within the margin of error or not. And what kind of "effectiveness" are they measuring? Has the "effectiveness" been shown over the long-term or just the short-term? How large were the studies? Etc...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think in a lot of ways, CBT is sort of psychology's OOP. Sure it's useful and has its place, but that doesn't mean it should be used for everything.</comment>


Early-stage theories - <AUTHOR> http://blog.tlb.org/early-stage-theories

<comment><USER2> This is actually more like science than TLB says. If you've been working on something for a few months and you haven't published or at least given a talk about it somewhere, one of two things is probably true:

a) You're a reclusive genius dedicating your life to solving in secrecy a problem many hundreds of years old; or

b) You're afraid to find out that what you've been working on was stupid.

Guess which one is more likely?

<comment><USER3> Are you talking about only the web-startup domain, or life in general? I think there exist domains where you can't get something worth talking about done in a few months.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> great read, I just note that this particular Wright story is pure technology, so they could experiment on remote hilltops (i.e. without market feedback).

I totally agree that experimentation can lead you to insights that no one else has had - that no one else _can_ have without it, but which are plain once you've played with a prototype. It doesn't mean you're more perspicacious, it's just that standing on a hill, it's easy to see more. Climb a few hills that no one else has, and you have a unique perspective.

</comment><comment><USER5> In the post it says "It's the sort of startup we like at Y Combinator: technologically disruptive with a good chance of cashing in."

I can't think of many technologically disruptive YC start-ups off the top of my head to be honest.

<comment><USER6> <http://www.rethinkdb.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> the wright brother quote and perspective was awesome to read. the analogy to posterous made me do a double take. what is the equivalent paragraph about the "hard problem" that others have ignored that only posterous is or was experimenting with?

ps - the list of questions is cool.

edit: wait is "email" the answer? the comparison to flying machines still blows my mind. eit.

</comment><comment><USER8> Seems like that list of 8 things should be taped on the bathroom mirror of every aspiring web entrepreneur.</comment>


hardware/bandwidth % of revenue - <AUTHOR>

What percentage of revenue are your startup's servers/bandwidth cost?<p>What is a good percentage range to aim if any if you're in the black? <comment><USER2> I don't have an answer for you, but I have some variables you might consider:

1) how fast are you growing?

2) how fat is your profit margin?

3) what is the ratio of usage to capacity? peak usage? sustained usage?

4) how quickly and automatedly can you add servers?

5) looking at (3) and (4), what happens WHEN a server dies? can the rest of the servers cope with the load? do you have automatic failover? do you have any single point(s) of failure?

6) how much developer time are you willing to put into things like adding aggressive caching and fixing performance bottlenecks?

For the technical side of things, make sure you've read "Building Scalable Web Sites", by Cal Henderson. It will help you spend your resources much more effectively.</comment>


UK officially in recession for first time in 11 years - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53748278 <comment><USER3> What I find interesting, is that those who were betting on Brexit were probably doing so thinking it might be a little bit tough in the short term believing the UK will end up being stronger in the end.

With such a massive recession already happening, and talks around Brexit going nowhere, they are really not going to have a nice next 5/10 years.

I have just left the UK, several Europeans I know, working in tech, are doing the same. Not data backed, just personal experience. Maybe this is going to be even tougher than expected. Hopefully not.

<comment><USER4> > as coronavirus lockdown measures pushed the country officially into > recession.

This is nothing to do with brexit.

<comment><USER5> Yep, this is the first punch from the Corona and the second punch will be beginning of next year when they end up with no deal.

The sad thing is that everyone will say that Brexit went through great with no issues, it's the Coronavirus' fault that the economy is bad and is getting worse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> BBC desperately trying to add some positivity to the headline. It's the worst recession on record, and yet they are clamouring onto this notion that it has been an achievement of success that it has been 11 years since the last recession.

<comment><USER7> BBC has been very pro-lockdown, pro-panic the whole time. Now they are seeing the results and trying to spin it positively, so less anger reflects back at them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Excited for my second once in a lifetime economic correction!

<comment><USER9> Out of curiosity, why are you excited about this?

<comment><USER10> The 2008 recession was considered a "once-in-a-lifetime" event. it's ironic that we're now experiencing a second.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Comparing corona-quarantine times with normal times is silly.

<comment><USER12> But the recession has hit the UK harder than many other European countries. That strikes me as comparable and indicates that it has been more poorly handled by the UK than by other countries.

<comment><USER13> Do you have any more figures than what's in the article? In the article it's got these figures:

> The economy is more than a fifth smaller than it was at the end of last > year. This fall is not as bad as the 22.7% decline in Spain, but about twice > the size of contractions in Germany and the US.

I think Germany's handling was exceptional anyway, and for the US it hasn't hit fully yet. I reckon there's a lot more to come in the UK, as well, when the government furlough scheme comes to an end. And not to forget to mention the country is still in the Brexit transition period, which runs out at the end of the year.

<comment><USER14> Interestingly, the Q2 results for Spain are actually better than for the UK (-18.5% vs -20.4%). It's only the comparison to the end of 2019 numbers specifically where Spain comes out worse.

Debatable why, plausibly because the Spanish lockdown started earlier in Q1.

Since the entirety of the rest of the article is about today's Q2 results specifically though, a comparison of those would be more relevant. Smells like the BBC cherry picking to try and find anything where the UK isn't in last place.

<comment><USER15> It's almost certainly because the Spanish lockdown started earlier in Q1 - <USER2> I remember rightly, other articles have mentioned that the UK saw less of an economic decline in Q1 than many other European countries precisely because of the timing of our lockdown. Comparing Q1 to Q2 results and comparing countries based on that would therefore be misleading, because it's not measuring actual economic differences but an artifact of how lockdown timing happened to align with our arbitrary measurement cut-offs.

(Also, speaking of misleading, it's interesting that all of a sudden the BBC can correctly compare US GDP figures with European ones now that it's the UK they're comparing with. Previous coverage quoted US quarterly figures that had been multiplied by four to annualize them next to non-annualized European ones, making it look like the US was doing worse economically than other European countries like Spain when it was doing better.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> An interesting thing about percentage change in GDP is it's worse on the downside than the upside. If GDP falls 40% one year, then rises 40% next year, it's not back at 100% of what it was before, it's actually only back to 84% (1.4 * 0.6).

<comment><USER17> not only for GDP but also for stocks. People assume if they loose 10% they need a 10% gain but that is not true: [https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2018/11/8/saupload_i...](https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2018/11/8/saupload_iwae-2.jpg)

<comment><USER18> Easy way to convince people of this: after a 50% fall you need to double (up 100%) to get back to where you started.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> There is no hope for the UK, especially the disaster that is the UK tech industry.

After the lockdown is over, people who reside there should get out while they can.

<comment><USER20> Not sure the UK tech industry is a disaster, I left the UK for France following the Brexit result and it has really opened my eyes to how good it was in the UK.

<comment><USER21> Please expand on this. Are you referring to technical sloppiness, compensation, availability of jobs, something else?

<comment><USER20> I could write paragraphs on this but I'll keep it short, also bear in mind a lot of it will be due to specific workplaces and so on.

There's some incredible French engineers, but I get the impression a lot of the talent is lost to the US, Canada and the UK. Compensation isn't too dissimilar to the UK or other western European countries. There's still a huge emphasis, especially in larger companies, on where you went to school - if you didn't study at a Grand Ecole you can get snubbed by a lot of people. France is also very conservative when it comes to technology, and often the French bureaucracy leaks into the workplace, I had to have multiple managers sign off my request form to get a HDMI cable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> GDP as a measure is a scam.

<comment><USER23> Some models are useful, the map is never the territory etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Worst out of all of the G7

<comment><USER25> Worst out of all of the G7 so far. The US is still yet to manage its coronavirus problems and I suspect that the impact when the US finally manages to tackle this, it will dwarf anything the UK is dealing with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> It's what people demanded. UK is still in semi-lockdown, with only 30% of office workers returning to the office. UK proposed a more relaxed approach at the start but backfired in the public opinion. Now, here's the arithmetic result of forcing people in their homes.

Also, UK relies heavily on services, international business, students, tourism, all heavily hit, so that increases the pain of a travel and mobility freeze.</comment>


Not all attacks are equal: understanding and preventing DoS in web applications - <AUTHOR> https://r2c.dev/blog/2020/understanding-and-preventing-dos-in-web-apps/ <comment><USER2> Our business operates in a market that has a lot of wannabe hacker types: bored teenagers in the gaming community with the minimum knowledge required to order a DDOS. As such, we're very very careful about _never_ leaking our IPs anywhere. This has been tricky at times but it's well worth it. Cloudflare has made our lives a lot easier as it handles the bulk of the requests. Still, a lot of what it takes to be DDOS resilient is just being able to scale to high concurrency very quickly: ability to cache everything at every level, read- only mode, CDN for everything including HTML when possible, API gateways and self imposed rate limiting to third party services. With that said, there's not much you can do if your IP leaks. Some often overlooked areas for IP leaks: user generated content (your server makes a request to a URL specified by the user), or even sending an email (even many services provide the origin sender IP - such as SendGrid - as a matter of policy, so we don't use those services.)

Still to do: developing our own online ML based monitor which can detect abnormal user behaviour before it becomes a problem (ie. aggressive HTML scrapers, burp suite scans, etc.)

<comment><USER3> >Still to do: developing our own online ML based monitor which can detect abnormal user behaviour before it becomes a problem (ie. aggressive HTML scrapers, burp suite scans, etc.)

Search first. I would try something like,

        detect irregular OR abnormal behavior internet OR requests OR databases

There _are_ models for this and papers around it.

<comment><USER2> The plan I have is to use an isolation forest with dimensions like requests per minute, unique pages per session, etc. and just present a recaptcha or inaccurate data when they're outside some threshold.

<comment><USER3> That reminded me of this, [https://blog.cloudflare.com/cleaning-up-bad- bots/](https://blog.cloudflare.com/cleaning-up-bad-bots/) Not sure if you had seen it.

I like the approach. It'll still return a 200, but just slow them down. In a botnet, that's a pretty interesting approach instead of returning a captcha so they'll keep using the IP.

Something to consider...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is very well written and practical. It's exactly how you think about security when you own a company. I'm guessing the author is/was holding a large amount of stock in Heroku/Salesforce.

Summary:

1\. Don't publicly expose endpoints that are either slow or require a ton of resources.

2\. If you can't get rid of a slow endpoint; put authentication in front of it so you have a lever to pull in the event of an attack.

3\. Throttle / rate limit everything with high barriers so not to impede normal traffic patterns.

4\. Don't make it easy for someone to DoS you; reduce or eliminate well-know attack vectors and vulnerabilities.

5\. Scan your app for regex and zip bombs.

6\. The bad guys will sniff-out your N+1 queries, so fix them.

7\. If necessary: pay for DDoS mitigation from a cloud provider.

<comment><USER5> 8\. Set timeouts for the maximum time a client can take to send a request.

For Example, the attacker will send a GET request using many small packets with a large time gap between them. They do this by first sending the "G" in its own packet, after a while they will send the "E" and after some more time the "T" and so on. While this is a legitimate behavior according to the HTTP and TCP protocols, this behavior is consuming a lot of resources from the server – it has to keep the connection open, waiting for the full request to arrive. Since the connection pool is limited, it is very easy to reach pool saturation, with very little traffic.

<comment><USER4> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slowloris_(computer_security)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slowloris_\(computer_security\))

"There are ways to mitigate or reduce the impact of such an attack. In general, these involve increasing the maximum number of clients the server will allow, limiting the number of connections a single IP address is allowed to make, imposing restrictions on the minimum transfer speed a connection is allowed to have, and restricting the length of time a client is allowed to stay connected."

<comment><USER5> Yup all great points for mitigation strategies. Sometimes admins think DDoS = Traffic overload and forget to consider that slow connections can be just as effective as flooding if the configuration allows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Some of the best DDOS attacks work by sending data as character by character as slow as possible before the connection times out so as to mimic extremely slow connections and consume handler threads. Also HTTP1.1 downgrade attacks can force the usage of more connections especially if keep-alive is false.

</comment><comment><USER6> Summary: add a rate limiter to your api endpoints to block DoS, and a cdn like cloudflare to block DDOS

</comment><comment><USER7> You can use flask_limiter library for flask</comment>


Ask HN: Its the year 1996 - <AUTHOR>

For some reason you just woke up in your body from 1996, but you still have your mind and knowledge from today.  How do you exploit this kind turn of events?
If you tried to build the next facebook, would you be able to do it with the technology of the day? There is no asp.net, php doesn't come out until next year, and java is crude.  Even if you did build it, the time just might be wrong.  The world may not be willing to accept twitter yet.
Lets say you know enough about tech from the day, and you've found an idea who's time it is.  Are you physically capable of executing?  I am 23 so in 1996 I was still in elementary school. Domains cost $70, and as a kid, thats a lot. <comment><USER2> In 1996 I was in school and broke :-)

One major difference for me in the intervening period is the availability of free development platforms. In 1996 I couldn't have coded up a basic LAMP webapp even if I knew how and options for free desktop app development were rather restricted; the idea of, as a relative novice, coding what I could with today's tools but in gcc and a text editor just doesn't bear thinking about. The barriers to entry were just so much higher.

Plus, as you mentioned, if you want to host online then that becomes vastly more expensive too. A good part of the explosion of technology that we're enjoying now is a product of it becoming far more viable for students to play and produce something of comparable quality to commercial endeavours, at least superficially.

All that said:

It took me _years_ to learn that action today is almost invariably better than action tomorrow. Still not always great at putting that knowledge into practice. I'd have drummed that into myself, _hard_. Tinker. Experiment. Test concepts. Remember that what isn't viable today may be perfectly viable in a few years time as technology and adoption levels improve. Ideas multiply when you execute because you gain a better insight into the possible.

Don't just think, do.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree, i think one of the biggest ideas to take away from my little thought experiment is the concept that just because something failed a few years ago does not mean it will fail today!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I would convince my parents to buy tons of Apple stock.

I would ask that girl on a date and follow through.

I would get a cochlear implant sooner.

</comment><comment><USER4> That's a fun thing to think about. In 1996 I was 12, and quite shy. So I'd probably start to have fun with soon, being a lot more confident than I was back then.

I'd be terribly bored in classes, and thus I'd start to get bad grades. Still I might catch up on some foreign languages that I neglected in school.

I'd immediately start to play my favorite sport (table tennis) in a club, and thus have chances to actually excel at it.

At the end of my school career I'd invest a bit of money in companies that I happen to know turn out to be quite successful.

But most of all I'd enjoy having time and energy for studying another topic besides the ones I'm relatively good at. And when bored, I could try to write a good, distributed version control system, or some fun web application that nobody thought of back in the days...

</comment><comment><USER5> Personally, I would write a game such as Quake.

But I have about ten years experience with game dev, which is probably a special-case situation.

(P.S. tasteful use of C++ features allows you to approach the productivity level of other languages.)

(But the fact is I tend to prefer writing in C over C++, and Lua over both.)

(But yeah it would be silly to write a web app in C or C++.)

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm in my mid-30s, so I sometimes look back and wonder what I could have done differently. I launched my first ecommerce site in 1997, and it was just much too early. If anything, I wish I had just spent more time thinking about domain names to register and keep.

</comment><comment><USER7> I would lobby for improved ballots in West Palm Beach.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm not sure as a 10 year old I'd have had that much ability to persuade my parents of the virtues of domain names or selected tech stocks as investments. In my early teens on the other hand...

The opportunity that immediately springs to mind as having the lowest technical barrier to entry is a Craigslist-type service, starting off in the same way at round about the same time as a mailing list. A sufficiently smart ten year old with indulgent parents probably could have started that that on dialup AOL too...

</comment><comment><USER9> 1\. Get a crap job, live with your parents, and start buying domain names.

2\. Spend a year writing your own scripting language.

3\. Then start building basic services (free email service!).

<comment><USER3> I think we had Hotmail and Rocketmail by that point, but I could be wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Register business.com" is an easy one.

But really, looking back is rather painful--too much heartache, too many missed opportunities.

It would be far better to look at today with tomorrow's hindsight.

</comment><comment><USER11> I would have bought basketball.com. Looking back, it was a deal back then.</comment>


Writing an OS in Rust - <AUTHOR> http://blog.phil-opp.com/ <comment><USER2> I recently found out about Redux:

[https://github.com/redox-os/redox](https://github.com/redox-os/redox)

It's pretty incredible how quickly it's come together, there's a reasonable looking GUI already!

Edit: The author also did an AMA on reddit: [https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/3mw67c/i_am_jackpot51...](https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/3mw67c/i_am_jackpot51_the_writer_of_redox_a_rust/)

<comment><USER3> Now with weekly progress reports: [http://www.redox-os.org/news/this-week-in- redox-3/](http://www.redox-os.org/news/this-week-in-redox-3/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As far as I can tell, Rust OS projects generally use gratuitous amounts of unsafe code and are not substantially different than if they were written in C. I could just be looking in the wrong places. Are there any that take advantage of Rust's type system to provide real guarantees?

<comment><USER3> The OP talks about this in the most recent post:

 _" In the previous post we switched from assembly to Rust, a systems programming language that provides great safety. But so far we are using unsafe features like raw pointers whenever we want to print to screen. In this post we will create a Rust module that provides a safe and easy-to-use interface for the VGA text buffer._"

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd like to see someone re-implement the QNX real-time microkernel in Rust. That would be useful. We need a QNX-like OS for embedded devices. Linux is really the wrong tool for the job. Too much extra stuff which allows attacks.

<comment><USER6> Could RIM open-source QNX, if the Blackberry Android device is successful?

<comment><USER7> I asked, both before QS sold it to RIM and after the deal, in both cases I didn't even get an answer (and I would have been in a position to put up a substantial chunk of money in order to get a dual license deal in place). Real pity, but maybe it will still happen.

QnX is one of the most elegant OSs out there and having a public domain or GPL'd version of it would be a great thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If anyone is considering working on an OS in Rust, they could perhaps consider writing a small hypervisor that could replace Xen, Nova and similar hypervisors.

This provides the same low-level challenges of writing a kernel, but it's far easier to get practically usable software than attempting to replace Linux and would actually be useful in practice.

At the moment, the only way to make a sandbox that has a chance of being perfectly secure (i.e. no security holes, ever) while still running all kinds of useful software is to use VMs to sandbox Linux/Windows kernels, and here the hypervisor is of course the weak point, and current usable hypervisors are written in C or C++.

<comment><USER9> [https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/unikernels-in- rust/2494](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/unikernels-in-rust/2494)

<comment><USER8> This seems to be about using Rust for the kernel running inside the virtual machines, not for the hypervisor itself, which is what I was talking about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> [https://github.com/flosse/rust-os-comparison](https://github.com/flosse/rust- os-comparison)

</comment><comment><USER9> I've read through what was here, and last night, actually built the first post's code. I really like the depth and style of this particular posts, it really hits a sweet spot.

</comment><comment><USER11> Relevant: [https://github.com/wbthomason/ironkernel](https://github.com/wbthomason/ironkernel)

</comment><comment><USER12> I was looking for something similar in C. Most of the resources I found (eg : os dev-wiki) do not cover the implementation details in such depth. Can anyone give few pointers?

</comment><comment><USER13> No -mno-redzone?

</comment><comment><USER14> What's the value and novelty of writing an OS in Rust?

<comment><USER9>
      > value

Well, Rust is a systems language, and so it should be a good fit for OS development. We're still working on bits of it, but it's a stated goal of the language, so testing that out is valuable.

      > Novelty

Well, Rust is still a fairly young language, so there aren't a ton of people doing things with it yet, relatively speaking. And for OS dev, which is kind of a niche subject anyway (as much as I love it), there's naturally even less. So it's basically novel by definition.

<comment><USER14> > Well, Rust is a systems language, and so it should be a good fit for OS > development. We're still working on bits of it, but it's a stated goal of > the language, so testing that out is valuable.

My questions was not well formulated. Let me rephrase it: C is also a system language and there are plenty of OS libraries written in C. C++ could be seen as another system language. Even the syntax of Rust is similar to C/C++ according to Wikipedia article. So, what's the advantage of Rust over other systems language? Better support for autonomous systems? Reflective model? Do you have a paper? It is a research project? Do you plan to replace Linux or something like that?

<comment><USER15> (Safe) Rust provides some nice guarantees. It (should be) impossible to have use-after-free, buffer overruns, race conditions, etc. in 100% Safe Rust. A pure Rust OS could provide a safe interface to build safe programs.

While mostly a novelty, an OS capable of executing untrusted code risk-free could be a powerful tool indeed.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


French wine experts can't tell a grand cru from an ordinary table wine - <AUTHOR> http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/11/the_subjectivity_of_wine.php? <comment><USER2> In other news, experts can't tell the difference between a long line and a short line:

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

This study doesn't show that there is no difference between a great wine and a mediocre wine. All it shows is that people can be tricked into disbelieving their senses.

EDIT: As for the study about experts disagreeing, you could just as easily claim that because some ice cream experts prefer vanilla and others prefer chocolate, the ice cream industry is teh fraud.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yet wine ratings in places like Wine Spectator are always done in a blind manner.

<http://www.winespectatorschool.com/wineschool/Tasting_Guide>

Wonder how both things can be true at the same time? Perhaps the tasting methodologies are just a fancy random-number generator? Something smells fishy.

<comment><USER4> It's a matter of trust. Each of these people has had thousands of red wines served to them, with none of them being an impostor white with food coloring. Therefore if a white is served to them in disguise, they simply assume it's a red, because why would anyone ever do that?

Also, whites are typically served chilled, reds aren't. If someone gave me a warm white wine with red food coloring in it I might not care for it but I'd definitely be fooled. That doesn't mean there isn't a difference.

A much better test would be to blindfold them and ask which are whites and which are red. I bet they'd do considerably better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's indeed an industry loaded with pretentiousness.

Here's a clip from a related and interesting article about the wine industry:

Source: [http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/05/news/companies/Two_Buck_Chuc...](http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/05/news/companies/Two_Buck_Chuck.biz2/index.htm)

>>>In 2002, Franzia persuaded Trader Joe's to sell a low-end label called Charles Shaw (after the winemaker who sold the tony label to Franzia, and dubbed Two Buck Chuck by consumers) that waged war on domestic wines in the $4 to $10 range - and was named best chardonnay in a blind taste test at July's California State Fair over far pricier competition. The label is one of America's fastest-growing, selling 5 million cases per year, all through one chain of stores.

<comment><USER6> the reason that charles shaw wins those taste testing contests is pretty simple, and shady to say the least.

the way they make their wine is by purchasing overstock of grapes from other producers. the grapes are very spotty and inconsistent in quality, which is why you can buy a case of the wine and every bottle will be completely different.

when they submit charles shaw to tastings, do you think they pick a random bottle out of inventory? of course not, they pick the best of what they have so that they can compete.

<comment><USER2> The price per ton of Chardonnay is relatively inexpensive, especially if you're getting your grapes from outside of Napa. Also, by California law only 75% of the grapes have to come from the named varietal on the bottle, so they could easily be blending in some Chenin Blanc or Sauvignon Blanc for consistency. Lastly, there is a lot of post-production stuff you can do to Chardonnay, most famously involving oak, but there is other stuff as well. So it seems possible that they can source from a wide variety of vinyards and still have a relatively consistent product, given the wide variety of options available under California law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you go to the store without much prior knowledge and grab an expensive bottle of the shelf your chances of getting something great aren't that high. Some things to consider: wines sell for the same price whether or not it was a good or a bad year. A premium wine in a bad year is likely to be less enjoyable than a cheap wine in good year. Premium wines are generally made to be aged, so if you don't cellar your wines you are wasting your money buying an expensive wine. Even the snobbiest wine collector doesn't suggest there is a linear relationship between price and enjoyment, but premium wines generally take more effort to make.

A lot of the quality of a wine comes down to the fruit. Do you doubt your ability to identify a beautiful strawberry?

<comment><USER8> Well, the fact that so many strawberries nowadays are large and water-filled (from being over-watered) to make them look super-sized rather than more flavour-packed smaller runtier berries may imply there are quite a few consumers who can't identify a good strawberry.

<comment><USER7> People buy on the look, not the taste. And they generally don't want to pay anymore for a great tasting strawberry even if they knew how to find one. Most people wouldn't deny there is a difference in a crap strawberry and a great one though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> <expert>

I don't know why anyone even bothers serving Coke. Pepsi is so much better. Obviously.

And Rails is so much better than PHP.

And Apple is so much better than Microsoft.

And Chevy is so much better than Ford.

See how easy that was?

</expert>

<comment><USER10> expert { background: #000; color: #FFF; font-size: 40px; text-align: center; }

All expert tags need some CSS ;)

<comment><USER3> Why stop there? This guy's an expert, right?

.expert { font-style:oblique; text-decoration:blink; font-weight: 900; }

<comment><USER10> You are right, but we missed something:

position: absolute; top: 0; left:0;

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You should see what master sommeliers have to go through to earn that title. There are more people out there than you could imagine who can look at a glass of wine and tell you what varietal (or roughly what blend) it is, what vintage it is from, what location the grapes were grown in, rough ABV, etc. It's seriously mind boggling how good some of those guys are.</comment>


Ask HN: What are the current (IT) industry skills employment cash cows? - <AUTHOR>

What do you think are the (IT) skills that employers currently pay loads of cash for and are widely searched ?<p>Spring, LINQ, DB scaling, BPMN, others ? <comment><USER2> Anything where you play buzzword bingo is not going to be lucrative in the long term. The technology's popularity attracts wannabes, which increase the supply of available labor, which drives down wages.

I'd go with something that requires specialized knowledge, either domain-based (bioinformatics, geology, finance), systems programming (compiler, OS, and distributed computing), or one of the AI subfields (information retrieval, machine learning, data mining, computer vision, etc.)

<comment><USER3> Another area of specialized, albeit less glamorous, knowledge: legacy app programming (Cobol, RPG, Fortran, etc.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> SAP implementer, if you want a real, honest-to-God cash cow. It will drain your soul. You will curse ABAP until your last breath. But your pockets shall never be empty.

</comment><comment><USER5> Some skills are more accessible to you than others. So a good answer is different for different people. I recommend thinking of 5 or so things that really interest you, and then checking what kinds of opportunities are available for those. I did that exercise a while back, and was surprised to find that there appeared to be a tremendous demand for people with data mining experience using Hadoop. This kind of approach has the further benefit of giving you an idea of what kinds of places might want to hire you when you hone your new skills. It'd be a shame to become skilled in compiler design, for example, and then not have much of an idea of who would want you.

</comment><comment><USER6> Nah, bro. Sping/LINQ are all work that could be easily by Java/.net shops in India. Any enterprise work is easily outsourced to India.

Stuff that can pays high six figures because they can't outsourced. Computer security (especially if you could get security clearance); geology simulation for oil exploration (high-level domain expertise knowledge); quantitative modeling and trading system design for HFT (domain and quant skills required); risk modeling in actuarial science.

All of these are if you want to work for BigCo. You could also make a lot of money by going consulting in some obscure and corporate package such as SAP modules.

</comment><comment><USER7> Hadoop

Every idiot out there wants to spray some "big data" retardation all over whatever they're doing, so they throw together a cluster -- if one were really generous -- of a handful of machines so they can use hadoop too!

Meh. It's not big data until you need a couple hundred cores.

However -- it's an opportunity to cash in for devs. Of course hadoop is a needlessly difficult programming model for most people, but never mind that. My .02 is if you can _possibly_ solve your problem by scaling up instead of out, then scale up. Hadoop works well precisely for perfectly parallelizable no communication required problems, which are few and far between. For everything else, it's a giant pita to shoehorn the solution into hadoop. Of course, most managers are retards, so spending maybe $25K on a 256GB ram, 16 xeon machine stuffed full of 15k rpm sas or ssd drives is out of the question, but wasting months of dev time to sprinkle Real Big Data (TM) bullshit on stuff is worthwhile. Sigh. 15 years into this industry and still, everybody views salary expenses / opportunity costs of dev time and equipment as completely separate things.

I'm grumpy today.

 _However_ , hadoop has a steep learning curve for anything but toy problems, and I get 2-3 requests a week on linkedin just because of my employer and having hadoop on my resume. So it's great for devs. I know people charging hundreds of dollars as their consulting rates.

Edit: just checked silicon mechanics to make sure my hardware cost wasn't too far off. If you're doing most numerical stuff, parallelization is hard, so: 256GB RAM, 2 of the fastest QPI highest cache procs, and 6x intel 160GB SSDs in a 2U: less than $30K delivered.

<comment><USER8> Personally, I don't think Hadoop's model is all that complex (obviously, if you can solve the same problem with a quick script, you have to be insane not to) but it's nowhere near in terms of polish to the tools Enterprise Java devs are used to. Creating a new cluster for example is a pain compared to the usual "unzip, copy datasource XMLs and jars, run start" for application servers.

<comment><USER7> Hadoop is extremely complex to do anything requiring communication. My favorite example is ranking: say you have a set of <set (string), id (string), score (float in [0,1])> tuples and for each unique class, you want to rank ids by their scores. This is trivial on a single core. Now try doing it on hadoop: first thing you'll do is try to do it all on the head node, but that won't work if you're doing this on more than a trivial amount of data. Next you may try partitioning by score, but scores aren't distributed uniformly. Partitioning by set won't work since you have more data than a single node can possibly handle.

It took me a week's worth of work to write a distributed ranker that will work on billions of ids in hundreds of sets; the algorithm is not obvious. On a single node you'd write a for loop that did a sort.

Those are the sort of obstacles that the hadoop programming model introduces. Again, if you haven't used it for real work, you'll be surprised at how few tasks are truly parallelizable without communication. The model is very simple, but accomplishing tasks that don't quite fit in the model is difficult.

Another example is a matrix mult. There is no way to segment the data to eliminate internode communication. It can be accomplished in an iterative fashion, but it's decidedly nontrivial. Or most optimization problems -- I don't think there even are known algorithms for no communication parallelization.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is required for the business/legal side of web apps? - <AUTHOR>

In other words, if I was to launch a web app (US based) that actually cost users money and generated an income for myself, what all would I need to do to be legally recognized as a business? <comment><USER2> You are legally recognized as a business the moment you earn a dollar doing business. You're called a sole proprietor, which is a business doing business under the name of its owner. Taxes and legal obligations pass through directly to you.

There are other types of business entities you can form -- partnerships, LLCs, S-corps, C-corps, or a simple DBA ("doing business as") -- which can have both benefits and downsides. You can talk to either a CPA or a lawyer that specializes in small business about what makes sense for you.

<comment><USER3> Exactly.

The next and easiest 'upgrade' from sole proprietor for most people is likely an LLC. As a sole proprietor, your personal assets are at risk in the event of a lawsuit or class action and such. Incorporating in some fashion will protect your personal assets in such an event and is arguably a more direct upgrade from sole proprietor tax-wise.

It's only your call when to 'upgrade' if ever, but the answer is generally somewhere between 'getting traction' and 'getting sued', with the real kicker that you obviously can't incorporate after getting sued so, y'know, there's that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There are a number of ways to go about this. The SBA has a decent breakdown of the various business structures: [http://www.sba.gov/category/navigation- structure/starting-ma...](http://www.sba.gov/category/navigation- structure/starting-managing-business/starting-business/choose-your-business- stru)

The bottom line is that you really should talk to an expert. There are legal and financial ramifications of each type of business entity, and you don't want to get screwed.

</comment><comment><USER5> How far are you planning on going with this? More apps, turning into a full on app studio? Just yourself, or hiring? Will you seek investors? These are all considerations as to whether it's worth the hassle and cost of incorporating an LLC or Corporation.</comment>


Memory Access Patterns Are Important - <AUTHOR> http://mechanical-sympathy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/memory-access-patterns-are-important.html

<comment><USER3> I think programmers frequently underestimate the kinds of performance gains that can be achieved via memory layout and access pattern optimizations. I do a lot of high-performance algorithm design and have frequently seen the case that what looks like a trivial and logically neutral algorithm implementation tweak doubles performance by virtue of having better memory access behaviors. For heavy duty memory access optimization, 10x is not unachievable in some cases.

In my experience designing high-performance algorithms on modern processors, I'd estimate 80% of all performance optimizations are actually memory behavior hacks. Designing better algorithms is another 10% and is harder to do (most software engineers have never designed a genuinely original algorithm). The last 10% is everything else, such as redesigning the code to get closer to saturating all 3 ALUs available on modern cores. (Code hacks to force ALU saturation sounds like it shouldn't do much but I've seen 2x performance gains for some algorithms where the "obvious" implementation tended to serialize over one ALU if you analyze them.)

For high-performance code junkies, memory access optimization is the bread and butter for integer factor performance gains.

<comment><USER4> I'm not a programmer by trade, but I regularly process chunks of data 10GB or larger. In this context fast vs. slow often means nigh-instant vs. twenty minutes of runtime.

In summary, from my experience- I agree. Memory access (also, storage access) is huge. Much bigger than tight loops or logical reduction/optimization.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is one of the reasons why textures in the GPU's are swizzled - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swizzling_(computer_graphics)>

From the old demo days, there was the famous rotozoom effect, and it showed how linearly arranged array when rotated 90 degrees was becoming way slower, and if some swizzling was done it was better.

Another example is texture mipmaps. If you have one large image, say 4096x4096 without mipmaps, and you have to scale it down and display at say 64x64 - <USER2> there would be a lot of cache misses (and aliasing problems - shimmering, etc.)

And those are just the most obvious problems, there are lot of more tricky ones.

Judy Arrays were written with that in mind, but maybe they are overly comlex for the things achieved - <http://judy.sourceforge.net/>

<comment><USER6> Was that demo lasse reining or toasted by cubic team and $een perhaps? iirc, Pascal wrote an article about optimizing that code for the 486's cache.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The need to access memory efficiently is also applicable beyond the JVM:

<http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4339089>

<comment><USER8> It basically has nothing to do with the JVM. These speedups are entirely a function of how modern processors work. To some extent the platform/language matters because its guarantees determine how easily you can achieve good memory locality.

(For example, one could implement a java compiler that correctly made all Java code work, but gave absolutely no memory locality--different instance variables of an object could be arbitrarily far apart, and you could even implement arrays as linked lists (or at least chunk lists) so that arrays don't guarantee locality either. One couldn't make the optimizations he made under those conditions. But any language where you know what data will be contiguous allows you to make these optimizations.)

I'd guess that you knew this, but your comment suggests that there's something special about the JVM that makes it especially well-suited for these optimizations, which might confuse readers.

<comment><USER7> I was trying to convey the opposite, as you stated, that inefficient memory access is not limited to the JVM.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Everything hard, or not well understood by the programmer is now branded a pre-optimization and hand-waved into the "we'll fix it when it becomes a problem" category.</comment>


Forget Micropayments -- Here's a Far Better Idea for Monetizing Content - <AUTHOR> http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/stopthepresses_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003940234

<comment><USER2> I think this is just another "micropayment dream", and will not work ultimately. Internet just doesn't work this way.

The only thing I can imagine could save online newspapers is, that they will become better and better in quality, that will attract many visitors, and the website will survive by ads revenue.

IMHO the core problem is, that the World Wide Web was not created with the intention that it should provide business opportunities. It was mainly established for free exchange of information between scholars and scientists.

Later on, some people and companies discovered that Internet has monetization potential and so the .com companies emerged. Some were successful, other weren't. But nobody said every kind of business can survive on the Internet - WWW has it own principles, and if you don't play by it's rules, you might not survive. And, one of that core principles which lies in the very heart of WWW is that information is passed for free. I don't think any company has the power to change that.

</comment><comment><USER3> I will be interested to see how they keep people from gaming the system.

Once you get someone to support your site the goal will be to get them to visit your site as many times as possible in a month. I think this will lead to increased sensationalism and gimmicks.

Also, visits are typically delimited by a period of inactivity (say, 30 minutes). I can think of several ways off the top of my head that publishers could manipulate that inactivity window to create additional visits (thus increasing their slice of the pie).

It is an interesting idea, but as always, the devil is in the details.

<comment><USER4> Gaming this type of system is certainly possible, but I can identify a few factors that would limit this.

For one, no matter how large "their slice of the pie" is, the publishers won't make much if the user doesn't feel that the content is valuable. Thus, blogs and what not will still be encouraged to deliver quality content to truly increase earnings.

I agree, however, that basing payout on the number of visits to a "supported" site is flawed. I could see myself supporting a site, forgetting that I did so, and then end up paying much more than I had intended. No thanks.

<comment><USER5> You only pay whatever you set your fixed monthly total Kachingle subscription to be (say $10). The number of visits just allocates what _percentage_ of that fee goes where. The idea is that once you decide to support a site, you don't have to think about how to divvy up your support; it's based on your usage patterns.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is basically the "pay what you like" monetization that Radiohead used - 60-65% paid nothing and the rest paid an average of $6 (30% of market price). Personally, I feel that this is not sustainable.

Newspaper monetization could be in the form of customized filtering. While many companies try to provide such a service, the quality isn't high enough that someone would pay from it.

<comment><AUTHOR> How high does the quality have to be before the average user pays for it?

<comment><USER7> The average user won't pay no matter how high the quality is if they can get it for free otherwise.

<comment><USER8> Maybe I'm not 'average', but I pay $80/yr for a subscription to the Economist even though I can get all the articles free on their website.

Part of that is that I spend 12-15 hours a day on my computer for my job and side projects... being able to go outside and read my news on paper is a welcome break from that.

But the other part is that I find the reporting to be of generally high quality and depth. I think the print media that is hurt the most by the Internet are those with shorter stories and lots of ads in between. The Internet does this bite-sized content extremely well, so traditional media will have a hard time competing, but there is still demand for longer, in depth content, which is (so far) best supplied by paid reporters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Kindle and its model fits into this discussion somehow. Where's the itunes of publishing? I know it sounds silly to pay for something you'll read only once, but perhaps if it was cheap enough and super convenient.

Many of us would pay for Hacker News - is that because of the variety of news sources, the discussion, the community?

</comment><comment><USER10> Yeah, I don't know why people a scrambling around for all these crazy systems.

The newspapers are just going to do the obvious, they will have free and premium content with a monthly subscription.

The big media companies like Fairfax will bundle all kinds of premium content under one subscription. I guess it will be like a pay tv model.

</comment><comment><USER11> Well, it's better than per-click micropayments. I think most people are willing to pay a set amount for news as a sort of utility as long as it goes to the outlets they choose and they don't have to evaluate the payment with each click.

From the newspaper's standpoint, they become mendicants, or worse... PBS or NPR. I don't think that will sit well with many in the industry, but faced with an inefficient, obsolete business model and eventual bankruptcy, the NPR- ization of all media just might be their only option.

</comment><comment><USER5> Very interesting idea, but I don't think it will work on a commercial scale. It's based on gratitude and goodwill from consumers who are used to getting things for free. Many will pay and a few sites will make decent money, but the majority of people won't see anything in it for them, as they can get the content for free. Just like TipJoy (which I love), this seems geared more towards hobbyists than serious businesses. Hope I'm wrong.

Also, this is an especially hard sell with the economy the way it is.

</comment><comment><USER11> > But I do believe that the patented model Kachingle represents can work...

Given the In re Bilski, anyone have any ideas about the status of this patent? My understanding was that process patents had to transform an article's state or be bound to specific hardware (but I'm not an IP specialist).

</comment><comment><USER12> Anyone reminded of those PBS pledge nights right after nature and NOVA?

</comment><comment><USER13> I like making detailed comments on here, ideally supported by a personal story, or a link to some science or history. But on this one - I just gotta write that my gut says "not gonna work". Now, there's been lots of gut feeling throughout history that something's "not gonna work" that did, in fact, work. But this one - I'm thinking not.

Two reasons off the top of my head: Where's the value in signing up for Kachingle? What do consumers get? Assuaging of guilt? If Kachingle negotiated so that every Kachingle publisher had Kach-only (or otherwise paid only) content, it could work as a giant "subscription fee to everything". But Kach would need a lot of traction to get heavyweights like the NYT to make some content only available to Kachingle users.

Second - privacy. I'm not Captain Uber Security online, but I don't want my credit card and favorite reading online linked. I've seen too many companies abuse user data to be excited about telling Kachingle/AMEX/whoever else exactly what I like reading and my interests are. Ultra-targeted demographic based advertisements all over the internet does not appeal to me.

</comment><comment><USER14> I think this is overlooking something important. I would never pay for access to say, NYTimes.com or something.. because it doesn't give me what I want.

Data. Hard facts. I'd much prefer to pay to access something like AP's newswire, where I can get a lot more salient information without having it regurgitated by someone.</comment>


BODY: social-first online group workouts – take live classes with friends - <AUTHOR> https://www.getbodyapp.com <comment><AUTHOR> We built BODY to bring group fitness to the world. BODY is a first-of-its kind fitness & wellness experience that brings high-end group fitness classes and personal coaching to users in real time -- wherever they have an internet connection -- at a price almost anyone can afford. Everyone gets to take a free intro class – no credit card required.

A few quick thoughts for context: \--- For only $30 / month, we've created a full service health ecosystem, which includes a $50 starter kit, a 24/7 wellness hotline, unlimited classes, a personal coach that helps you optimize your fitness.

\--- Justin and I are both engineers. Justin is a coach and I am a fitness consumer. We built this to be a perfect solution for coaches and consumers. We know what coaches need to teach well and and what consumers need to workout well and so we built that solution.

\--- Lots of streaming and DVD services already exist, but these are all a 'one-way street', so the instructor can't see any of the participants, which is dangerous and delivers suboptimal results. Many of the new ones are trying to retrofit the same type of experience with different delivery channels (dvd, streaming, mobile, etc). None of them are very fun or engaging. Many celebrities are now trying to pump out even more videos or streaming services. They can't grow with you, and generally don't help you learn new skills. BODY does.

\--- Our program is a combination of HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training) and functional training. Why is strength / functional training so important you ask? In a recent study (link below) overweight subjects were assigned to three groups: diet-only, diet plus 30-50 minutes of pure aerobics, and diet plus aerobics plus weights. The diet group lost 14.6 pounds of fat in 12 weeks. The aerobic group lost only one more pound (15.6 pounds) than the diet group. The weight training group lost 21.1 pounds of fat (44% and 35% more than diet and aerobic only groups respectively). Basically, the addition of aerobic training didn't result in any real world significant fat loss over dieting alone. However, the addition of resistance training greatly accelerated fat loss results. (www.t-nation.com/training/hierar...).

Ask me anything! If you have any private comments or issues, don't hesitate to email me at firstname.lastname@example.com. Feedback is appreciated!

<comment><AUTHOR> The link to the study about optimizing fat loss got cut off - sorry about that: [http://www.t-nation.com/training/hierarchy-of-fat- loss](http://www.t-nation.com/training/hierarchy-of-fat-loss)

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> What are the hardware requirements?</comment>


The Flipboard Dilemma: Who Owns User Experience? - <AUTHOR> http://www.stoweboyd.com/post/848965669/the-flipboard-dilemma-who-owns-user-experience

<comment><USER2> In many cases you cannot read the entire article in Flipboard, and must click the Read On The Web button, which takes you to the content in the context intended by the publisher.

Slightly off topic, the Flipbook experience of HN is pretty good except that there is no way to get to the most important part of HN content: the comments page.</comment>


High-Speed Rail – Japanese Shinkansen vs. TGV – Is One Better Than the Other? - <AUTHOR> https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=p3zrqotjw7A <comment><USER2> Over the Shinkansen's 50-plus year history, carrying over 5.3 billion passengers, there has been not a single passenger fatality or injury due to train accidents.</comment>