Journal 2.0: Mental Space for What Matters - <AUTHOR> https://blog.usejournal.com/introducing-journal-2-0-1667b4d295a <comment><USER2> I downloaded and installed, but then I saw it forces me to sign up using gmail or apple only. This led me to start reading the privacy policy... you basically collect every webpage I visit, ip, how many times/time of day, etc... and sell it to advertisers.

I don't like advertisers manipulating me through their psychological research into my habits. It's unethical.

If this software were offered in a way that respected my privacy, I would honestly try it. But for this reason I tend to stick to open source software. It may be much less functional and require more manual work, but it gives me peace of mind.

Wish you the best... just not my cup of tea.

</comment><comment><USER3> I went through a multi-step process of trying to access Journal on my phone: being redirected to desktop, checking my inbox for an invite email, going to journal.com, having to download a desktop app, signing in, and then...after all that, I am informed that Journal is invitation only. I'd suggest maybe informing users earlier in this process that the app is invitation-only.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's definitely a bug. Sorry for that experience! If you're on the desktop app, please hit create account before trying to sign in. That message is leftover from when we were an invite only product, and only shows up if you try to sign in without signing up. Sorry once again, and we'll have that fixed immediately!

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the quick reply. Works now!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really want to see pricing, early on and massively obvious in the UI. I need to know if this is Oss or free, or if I'm gunna get hooked on something I can't afford...

<comment><AUTHOR> Great point, definitely need to add the pricing to our website! And no, we're not an open source app. In terms of pricing, we have a Free tier and a $10/month "Journal Plus" tier. Currently the differences between Free vs. Journal Plus are: 1\. number of app integrations (2 vs. unlimited) 2\. amount of data synchronized from those apps (last 14 days vs. years) 3\. file size upload limit (10MB vs. unlimited)

One commitment I can make is that we'll never monetize off of your data or by dumping algorithmic ads on you. So, to do that, we're creating a subscription scheme that allows us to provide some powerful but expensive features, but also provide a very useful free tier.

<comment><USER5> What's the takeout process like?

I love having an external brain, but "lock-in" and "external brain" are mutually exclusive in my book.

<comment><AUTHOR> Honestly, we're so early we don't have a take out process yet. But we definitely want to support that when people ask, and it also means that since we don't have a process yet, the first few people get to tell us how they want things exported and we'll make it work :).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Usually my first and only questions when looking at trying a new note-taking app - have you implemented client-side encryption? How are my notes secured?

<comment><AUTHOR> Nope, we haven't. Part of that is we are trying to help you save content from many places and be able to provide great search for you as well, which means we need to be able to index the content server side. We do encrypt the content server side, making the content inaccessible to anyone at Journal without explicitly accessing the decryption keys, for which we have an audit trail. Also makes it harder for someone to access your content if for some reason we got hacked.

<comment><USER7> You don't need to make it server side, but it certainly is easier. But client side is totally doable. You can compress word embeddings and search them with great accuracy.

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure how foolproof the encryption is if I can know every word you have typed in each note. Sure I can't make sense of the full structure but I'll know exactly what you've written about, so I'm not sure that's any more effective.

The way I see it, if you want your notes to be encrypted while also cloud synced and searchable, there are only two options I can think of:

1\. Store your notes in an encrypted file (sqlite) on the cloud and sync the entire file locally every time you login (and push updates somehow). Roam does this but wirhout encryption and it sucks so bad (opening the site takes tens of seconds if not more) because of that.

2\. The product promises to store everything encrypted; data is instantly written to an encrypted personal sqlite db on the cloud (you alone have the decryption key, it's not saved in the server). Much more seamless experience.

Im _also_ trying to create my own notes app, because I'm convinced I can create an app that can support a thousand users for the same cloud cost as a single roam research subscription. Current immediate plan is not to encrypt the notes, but my eventual plan is to try 2. If there are any other workflows that don't degrade user experience that can still encrypt everything client side, I'm interested to know more!

<comment><USER9> > The product promises to store everything encrypted; data is instantly > written to an encrypted personal sqlite db on the cloud (you alone have the > decryption key, it's not saved in the server)

It's not really clear where does the encryption/decryption happen in this scenario (client/server).

Any way, in my app ([https://github.com/zadam/trilium](https://github.com/zadam/trilium)), I encrypt on the client (not the whole database, on a per-note basis), sync with the server already encrypted data when internet is available (fine granularity so small and fast sync) and search happens completely on the client (which has full offline database and decryption key).

As a self hosted app encryption protects against a bit different threats so encryption is done only on request for particular notes (since it implies annoying "enter password").

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A password signup option would be appreciated. While the social logins are convenient and I often use them, I prefer to use passwords for services that I'd also like to use at work because I intentionally avoid signing into my personal Google account on my work computer. A username/password login option provides a nice way to share a service without spilling my personal Google account onto work equipment.

</comment><comment><USER11> I understand the emphasis on getting users to sign up, but I wanted to read more to see where this might fit into my workflow.

\- Does it support markdown?

\- Can I export my notes?

\- Are there any to-do list features?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, great questions: \- We do support markdown as you're typing (they're turned into the appropriate element as you type). Currently, pasting markdown has some bugs, but we definitely intend to fix those soon. \- Right now, you export a single note as a PDF. I figure you're asking, "can I export all my notes and take them with me". The answer to that is currently no, but we fully intend to support that. And if you need that in the meantime, we'll definitely do a one-time export for you. \- Yes, you can create checkboxes in markdown, and we also have simple checklists ala Google Keep as objects. However, we don't have complex todo features such as due dates, assignees, dependencies, etc.

<comment><USER11> Thank you for following up. I like the product. The UX is very nice and the workflow adds alot of value for me.

Definitely going to test it out.

2 things

1\. On windows, your app is getting caught by SmartScreen. I imagine this will fix itself, but fyi.

2\. How do I report bugs?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, very nice to hear =). Looking forward to your feedback!

1\. Thanks for letting us know! I'll definitely look into that to see if we can submit to Microsoft. 2\. On the bottom right of the app, there's a support button that opens a menu. Click Share Feedback and send us a message there. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is really cool. I like the idea of "spaces" per project. Any thoughts on how to integrate hand written/ios pen written notes into the workflow?

</comment><comment><USER13> Why do you ask for my mail during sign-up and then continue to only offer oauth with google or apple.

<comment><USER14> I'd really like this answered as well. I'd like to try this, but that prompt has put me off.

<comment><USER14> ... [crickets]

Welp, gonna delete your app now. Shame I didn't get to try it.

<comment><USER13> Just a follow up:

1) Don't think you miss much, don't see how it's supposed to provide me a better "mental space" as lets say a notion note.

2) I guess the only thing you're missing is daily at least one email from them...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Any import tool from major notes app?

<comment><AUTHOR> We currently integrate with Evernote making your Evernote notes searchable and viewable from Journal, but we intend to make that a converter into Journal very soon.

Are there other tools you'd like us to support import from?

<comment><USER16> IThoughts would be great.</comment></comment></comment>


Doublespeak Denials Of PRISM Hid The Truth About Participation - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/07/doublespeak-denials-and-broken-hearts/

<comment><USER2> OK, so the article grossly underestimates the complexities of PRISM and FISA.

But the facts remain the same: Tech CEOs carefully chose their words in order to make what they said _technically_ true while not addressing the issue as a whole. What the government said was true and what the tech CEOs said was true, yet they seemed to contradict each other. This was a case of careful politicking from all sides.

The thing that confuses me, is did the CEOs really think this contradiction would go in their favor? In other words, did they think no one would call them on that and they would be able to get away with it? Their statements attempted to seem very forward: "Our company 'never' granted 'any' backdoor access" etc. But as a result of that feeling so contradictory to the statements of the government, it necessitated further prying.

<comment><USER3> > Tech CEOs carefully chose their words in order to make what they said > technically true while not addressing the issue as a whole.

I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. All the companies issued _flat-out denials_ , which they are not required to do by law. This is as opposed to the normal "no comment" or "if such an order existed..."

Google said that they only hand over specific data about specific persons after valid court orders have been reviewed by Google's lawyers. So far I have seen nothing to contradict that.

> What the government said was true and what the tech CEOs said was true, yet > they seemed to contradict each other.

Could you be very specific about "what the government said"? Are you referring to an actual quote from a specific government official or to some anonymous source?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why do I keep clicking on TechCrunch links when the content is all just clickbait?

Seriously, I think the person writing this article is actually literally retarded....

<comment><USER5> I couldn't get through the first paragraph without getting angry about the writing style. closebox

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Could someone explain to me why the "mailbox" is so scandalous? The government makes a legal, valid request for data on a specific individual. Now the tech company has to relay that information to the government somehow. How would you prefer they do that? Email? FTP? Postcard?

No, they use a secure electronic dead drop. So what? How does that make the various CEOs' statements in any way misleading? The statements were about the government not having the ability to go on unsupervised fishing expeditions. And that seems to be perfectly true and not in any way misleading.

<comment><USER7> The secure "mailbox" from the NYT article isn't even news. I'm sure I read articles more than a year ago that described Google and others using exactly this type of set up as a way of streamlining subpoenas, search warrants, and court orders.

It is unsettling, but it isn't anything like what was detailed in the PRISM leak.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This article seems to misinterpret the (admittedly complicated) facts for the sake of the instant gratification of conclusion-jumping.

From the OP:

> _The New York Times says you knowingly participated in the NSA's PRISM data > monitoring program. In some cases, you were asked to create "a locked > mailbox and give the government the key", to allow it to peer into our > private communications and web activity. Even if the exact words of your > denials were accurate, they were false in spirit._

This is the article that the OP refers to: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech- companies-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies- bristling-concede-to-government-surveillance- efforts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&amp);

Do a Ctrl-F and see if "PRISM" shows up. It didn't for me (not even with case- sensitive option turned off).

OK, now read the passage in the NYT article about "a locked mailbox and give the government the key"...and then read the paragraph immediately after it:

"The data shared in these ways, the people said, is shared after company lawyers have reviewed the _FISA request according to company practice_. It is not sent automatically or in bulk, and the government does not have full access to company servers. Instead, they said, it is a more secure and efficient way to hand over the data."

FISA != PRISM (or at least, as PRISM has been reported initially), not in acronyms or in spirit.

<comment><USER9> That complicated? Really? The original Google blog post have a feel of being written by a lawyer. I guess a pass through an authorship identification tool can confirm it. So I guess the story of that post on Google blog was actually a pretty simple one and close to the following: "David Drummond wrote the text, Larry got it as an e-mail, added the subject "What the ...?" ;) and published it".

<comment><USER8> What about the post reads like it came directly from a lawyer?

I don't disagree that a lawyer vetted it -- lawyers generally vet anything legal related that comes out of an organization. All of the major news stories on this topic have likely been vetted by lawyers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > © 2013 AOL Inc. All rights reserved.

TechCrunch = AOL

AOL = Program Participant

I mean, okay, so at least the editor and the writer for this article can be sort of credited with promoting discussion of some paper thin lip service, but what about including AOL as part of their list of villains in this narrative.

...or at least offer a "full disclosure" disclaimer at the end of the article, right?

Obviously the same goes for huffington post articles, since they were absorbed by AOL too, after all.

</comment><comment><USER11> Techcrunch knows nothing, if this is really going on it will be confirmed by someone within one of the companies forced to implement it within days. As of now I doubt that it is, I think the Washington Post got it wrong. Does anybody think Google and Apple would bend over for the federal government because of some semi-legal secret court order? Give me a break.</comment>


Asynchronous JavaScript in 1995 - <AUTHOR> http://geocar.sdf1.org/ajaj.html <comment><USER2> Weird article. Most people did async javascript before someone coined the term Ajax. The term arose around the same time browser support was increasing.

The article doesn't mention he actually did async js. I assume setInterval or dynamic scripting tags inserted that call a function on the page?

What's the point of this article? "I did that before it was cool"? Then this strange assessment:

> We need things that help us think about problems, and this is an area that I > think has not been well-explored by the programming industry.</comment>


F-35 C++ coding standard [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf <comment><USER2> They require that pointers be declared as

        int32* p;

and not

        int32 *p;

and I know that is the convention in C++, but it still makes my eyes bleed. It's a gross violation of the Law of Least Astonishment, since, of course,

        int32* p,q;

doesn't do what you might think it would, based on the syntax. This is not a problem for the F-35 code, since multiple declarators per declaration are forbidden.

Sorry, I'm an old C guy and I guess there are some new tricks I just can't learn...

<comment><USER3> It seems that this standard definitely goes for clarity of code over syntactic shortcuts.

Which, you know, is probably a good idea for critical system software on an aircraft. It's better for your intermediate developers to know exactly what your code is going to do than to be able to use some greybeard tricks that can lead to buffer overflows if the person modifying them doesn't know exactly how they work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Don't get too wrapped up with these standards. When asked about them Stroustrup himself said they aren't a general C++ standard, but something very specific to the embedded & critical systems of fighter jets. I can't remember the exact talk, but it was from one his Going Native talks:

[http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/GoingNative-2012...](http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/GoingNative-2012/Keynote- Bjarne-Stroustrup-Cpp11-Style)

or

[http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/2013/Opening- Key...](http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/2013/Opening-Keynote- Bjarne-Stroustrup)

(both are _well_ worth a watch if you like C++ or program in it)

</comment><comment><USER5> I thought the military uses Ada?

Edit: Link in case anyone is interested from the discussion below is interested.

[http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project- summary.html](http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project-summary.html)

<comment><USER6> The DoD has not used, and has in fact strongly dissuaded the use of, Ada for almost 20 years.

<comment><USER5> Ummm.... tell that to the people I know who work at lockheed.

Edit: did some research and the people I know work on projects started before the change; F-22/C-130. And it wasnt 20 years ago more like 15, although I couldn't find an exact date.

<comment><USER7> Ada is something of a running gag in the aerospace industry at this point. Only really, really old programs still use it.

<comment><USER5> So the "backbone" of a 787 is considered a really, really old program?

[http://www.adacore.com/customers/787-dreamliner-common- core-...](http://www.adacore.com/customers/787-dreamliner-common-core-system/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Note that military requirements are typically _less_ stringent than those of commercial aerospace.

<comment><USER9> How are the requirements less stringent?

<comment><USER8> There are fewer regulations, many of them informal and they don't answer to the FAA but to some branch of the DoD. This makes sense since military aircraft don't usually transport civilians or operate over populated areas.

See the software section of this document which says that military airborne software isn't, in general, acceptable to the FAA, which implies that the military are bound to weaker standards. [http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ND/8110.101.p...](http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ND/8110.101.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I couldn't help but search the pdf for brace rules, and lo:

AV Rule 60

Braces ("{}") which enclose a block will be placed in the same column, on separate lines directly before and after the block.

Example:

if (var_name == true)

{

}

else

{

}

<comment><USER3> Hey, nothing wrong with that. As long as there's a consistent standard, it does make things more readable.

<comment><USER2> I agree about consistency but I don't find that style more readable. It wastes vertical space to little benefit.

<comment><USER11> I agree with you stylistically and don't personally use that brace placement. However, given the number of people writing C++ code for the F-35, it makes sense to settle on a standard that is never ambiguous. When nesting multiple control statements, it can sometimes require good judgment to know where to place braces for maximum readability. Giving each one its own line avoids requiring your developers to exercise good judgment in all the myriad cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Previous sumbmission and comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3967316](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3967316)

</comment><comment><USER12> I do not think there is a viable alternative to C++ as a systems language, thus it's utilization in a complex project combining many systems developed by different parties makes sense. That being said, no humanly comprehensible amount of rules can make average engineer churn out good C++ code and no amount of good engineers can save project with bad management.

<comment><USER13> Have you checked out Rust yet? It's too unstable to be a viable alternative yet, but I have high hopes.

<comment><USER14> I don't think Rust is aiming for hard real-time systems. Other than that, I too am quite excited for it.

<comment><USER15> It is definitely aiming for hard real-time systems. It's not quite there yet, but the Rust developers been hard at work removing obstacles to its use in those situations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "AV Rule 1: Any one function (or method) will contain no more than 200 logical source lines of code"

Are they crazy? 200 SLOC is a huge beast. With our non-mission-critical software, we typically aim to not exceed 20 lines of code per function, and this including comments and whitespace. Typically it is not very hard to get functions of size < 10 sloc.

<comment><USER15> With your non-mission-critical software, you also probably don't have hard limits on recursion. Writing iterative versions of naturally recursive functions can blow up function sizes fast.

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure if they're defining "logical" lines of code as all non-comment lines, but if so the requirement to have all curly braces ({}) on a line of their own would add to the vertical line count.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Many of these standards are pretty reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER18> "4.13.4 Function Invocation AV Rule 119 (MISRA Rule 70) Functions shall not call themselves, either directly or indirectly (i.e. recursion shall not be allowed)."

That's too bad.

<comment><USER19> Unexpectedly running out of stack space at Mach 1 while pulling a 5g maneuver is a little different than unexpectedly running out of stack space while playing tetris. Most recursion can be rolled into loops, so it's not completely limiting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I feel like if I were a pilot with even a modicum of engineering and language experience, I'd be pretty frustrated that they aren't using something like Haskell that provides a certain level of runtime security. C++ seems like it has enough ways to generate a memory leak to sink a boat, or drop a fighter out of the sky.

<comment><USER11> C++ may not be the best choice, but a language like Haskell would be worse for an aviation application for a number of reasons:

1) Memory on the hardware is tightly constrained and controlled, and you need some visibility into its usage at any given time. Even if it exposes you to null pointer errors and the like.

2) Along the same lines, throughput must be predictable and is tightly constrained. Anything happening at runtime that can't be predicted at compile time is, for a safety critical aviation application, a huge risk and is usually explicitly forbidden by the requirements.

3) Haskell is relatively new. C++ has stood the test of time and the DoD can be sure plenty of C++ programmers will still be around in 30+ years.

All of these are dealbreakers from the DoD's perspective. The technical risks associated with handling your own memory and not having provably safe code can be addressed with enough time and expense. Since the DoD is not short on money and operates on time scales of years or decades, this is acceptable. In a startup or academic environment, the balance of risks and resources is completely different. But believe it or not, the DoD and commercial aviation entities actually do look at the tradeoffs associated with the tools they choose and don't simply choose them out of inertia.

Source: I develop commercial jet engine software, where many of the same resource/risk tradeoffs exist.

<comment><USER21> No disagreement, but wanted to point out that groups like Galois have been using Haskell-embedded, compile-to-C DSLs in some interesting ways recently:

[http://smaccmpilot.org/images/dronecon- talk.pdf](http://smaccmpilot.org/images/dronecon-talk.pdf)

This has the potential for nice compile-time guarantees without the runtime cost (and potentially at much lower cost than full formal verification)

(also, fwiw, Haskell has been around since 1990, making it about 7 years younger than C++)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I thought the avionics software are written in Java these days.

<comment><USER23> Strongly real-time embedded systems and garbage collection don't play well together.

<comment><USER22> Thanks. I was just joking and it seems like a lot of people did not get it :(. My joke was targeted to the people who think if there is one programming language left in the world it should be Java.

<comment><USER23> Ah. I'll adjust my sarcasm detector...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I stopped reading after the very first rule: Any one function (or method) will contain no more than 200 logical source lines of code. Seriously?

<comment><USER25> What of it? It's a lot of code, but it's C. Simple things usually take more lines than in higher-level languages.

<comment><USER24> No. Actually it's C++. A very different language.

<comment><USER3> C++ is also not Java. When you're working with low-level hardware on real-time systems, C++ ends up looking a lot like C.

Besides, most commercial applications of C++ tend to devolve into "C with objects." IMO this is because well-written blocks of C are actually very readable, and you're a lot more likely to mess up memory management when you start passing data around just to break up large code blocks. The whole reason Java has garbage collection and only one way to pass objects is because they help write more readable code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Did the poster have some point in mind, or do we just post random PDF documents on HN now?

</comment><comment><USER27> No wonder this thing doesn't fly (as expected). In all seriousness, perhaps the choice of the language has affected the software release dates?

<comment><USER27> I'm surprised folks are down voting my comment. See [http://rt.com/usa/f35-jet-software-delay-233/](http://rt.com/usa/f35-jet- software-delay-233/) for example. And as the one who programmed in C++ for 20 years I think I know what I'm talking about.

<comment><USER28> You are being voted down because your comment was completely unsubstantiated. Maybe if you had thought about it a little longer you'd have figured put there aren't actually that many (any?) viable alternatives for C++ for the kind of systems programming you'll find in a fighter jet. Or, if you disagree, you could have offered some insight as to what these languages would be.

If you can't have non-deterministic behavior such as GC, you can't waste gobs of heap or stack memory, you have to be able to interface with C libraries and embedded components, you need hard real-time guarantees, and your whole development stack needs to be stable and well supported, you end up with C or C++, it's that easy. You don't gamble by picking the hipster language du jour all the cool kids use to write websites or phone apps, but proven technology that (if used correctly) gives you reliable and predictable results, and will still be around and supported in 40 years time when these jets are still in service.

Blaming the failure to deliver the f35 on time and within budget on C++ is really quite a cheap stab.

<comment><USER29> C/C++ aren't the only languages that lack a GC (see Ada) or in which you can severely restrict the GC (see Rust, though it's not suitable for this sort of project yet). The OS that most of the software runs on (that is, not the software running on LRUs with their own embedded OS) offers the same APIs to Ada and C and C++. It was a _choice_ to go with the non-Ada languages. Ada is hardly a hipster language, it's been around for 35 years and will likely be around the rest of this century (for better or for worse).

<comment><USER28> Well, that may be true, but what advantages does Ada offer over C++? I understand it may be one of the (very few) workable alternatives for this kind of systems, but I can imagine has many disadvantages over C++. Where do you find enough developers with Ada expertise, for example? How current (up-to- date) are Ada toolchains? How many commercial vendors can provide and support Ada toolchains? Can you expect weird incompatibilities linking between internally developed Ada code, and externally provided C++ code?

Questions like this are probably why the DoD decided to move away from Ada, not problems with the language itself. Almost nobody uses Ada for anything anymore, so sticking with it would have been a risk. I agree that it's not a hipster language, that qualification was supposed to languages like Go, Rust, JavaScript, etc. which are very popular right now, but completely unsuitable for writing the control software of a fighter jet.

<comment><USER29>
      Well, that may be true, but what advantages does Ada offer over C++?

[http://extranet.eu.adacore.com/articles/Ada%20Cpp.pdf](http://extranet.eu.adacore.com/articles/Ada%20Cpp.pdf)

I had a longer section here, but then came across this. Check out the section on the type system to get a clearer version of what I wanted to post. I really think that the type system alone is (for a lot of the embedded systems I've seen/worked on) a good enough reason to switch. The rest of the language is simple enough to learn in an afternoon if you're just wanting to replace C. I don't know how many bugs I've seen that were caused by everything being an int. Even using typedefs in C, they don't restrict the range of values or give significant compile/runtime guarantees when one type is stored into another and they both happen to be ints or chars or something.

      I understand it may be one of the (very few) workable alternatives
      for this kind of systems, but I can imagine has many disadvantages
      over C++. Where do you find enough developers with Ada expertise,
      for example?

Perhaps the greatest problem for Ada, I don't know. There are some colleges that use Ada in introductory courses. There are others with strong ties to the defense/aerospace industry that happen to offer Ada courses as electives. The rest is going to be recruiting from curious individuals or companies that happened to recognize its value or that got stuck with a substantial Ada codebase from the 80s/90s.

      How current (up-to-date) are Ada toolchains?

      How many commercial vendors can provide and support Ada toolchains?

Very, it's an actively developed language. Ada 2012 [1] is the most recent version, though given that I'm really encouraging this for embedded use you'd be using a subset of that. AdaCore is the primary developers of GNAT, which is current through Ada 2012. Green Hills and Wind River also support through Ada 2012.

      Can you expect weird incompatibilities linking between internally
      developed Ada code, and externally provided C++ code?

Not sure, FFI is not something that would've been used in any of the embedded systems I'd have recommended using Ada for. The language reference does specify how calling to C/C++, Fortran and Cobol code should function or be exposed within an Ada implementation. See the above PDF, it speaks a bit about FFI with C.

[1] [http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/ada12.html](http://www.ada- auth.org/standards/ada12.html)

\</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

A couple years ago I could've probably written up a better response, I've all but given up on Ada in my workplace.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

EDIT: I should probably also confess a bit of an infatuation with good type systems and formal verification tools/processes. I've seen what results when these are absent, I've quit jobs because these were absent and the culture prevented any improvements. I'm not working on safety critical systems anymore, but if I ever end up back in those projects I will insist on using the right tools/processes.

I don't want to wake up one day, turn on the news and read about a crash or malfunction that was caused or should have been prevented by my systems. Poor processes and tools enable these failures, and we should have zero tolerance for them. We have certifications/licensing for engineers (mechanical, civil, aerospace, electrical, etc.). If they sign off on a system/design that fails catastrophically and the failure should have been detected (via models or industry standards or whatever), they are held liable. Software developers in the safety/critical systems space have too cavalier an attitude, we're too well insulated from the aftermath of our defects. That attitude may never be changed, but a change in tools/processes to ones that contain, minimize or eliminate large classes of failures is certainly worth the effort.</comment>


OpenAI plays DOTA against former professionals in an hour - <AUTHOR> https://www.twitch.tv/openai <comment><USER2> Where and when will the match against Vancouver Dota World Championship team be played later this month, anyone know? Can public watch in Vancouver without a Dota pass?

<comment><USER3> When the TI took place in Seattle, there was a big screen in the park behind Key Arena where public could hang out and sit without buying any ticket. You can also always just watch online for free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Other Thread:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17693169](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17693169)

</comment><comment><USER5> Humans lost. Would anyone care to comment on the conceptional design of the AI in play?

A comment from one of the OpenAI members: "The neural network in place is comparable to an ant brain". How would you quantify this, and what are the parameters?

<comment><USER6> That game was just a warm-up with random audience members on the human team, up next is the best-of-three set with 99.95% skill percentile humans.

<comment><USER7> Pro game against OpenAI starting in 2 minutes.

<comment><USER8> It's not a pro game, those are still amateur players (some of them ex-pros).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> With the typical reddit style: H.Y.P.E.D.!</comment>


Nvidias recent face generation deep neural network (keep refreshing) - <AUTHOR> https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is just to raise awareness for how powerful the generative models have become with the recently open sourced [https://github.com/NVlabs/stylegan](https://github.com/NVlabs/stylegan)

Based on work from [https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.04948](https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.04948)</comment>


A dive into the making of a 64K Intro - <AUTHOR> http://www.ctrl-alt-test.fr/2018/a-dive-into-the-making-of-immersion/ <comment><USER2> Really well done. It's a bummer that source code are rarely released for demos.

For me one of the best of all times is Second Life [1], by Future Crew. Developed in 1993 nonetheless, it was a big breakthrough at the time, with almost 10 minutes of animation, and in early x86 hardware. Source code available [2].

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFv7mHTf0nA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFv7mHTf0nA)

[2] [http://fabiensanglard.net/second_reality/index.php](http://fabiensanglard.net/second_reality/index.php)

<comment><USER3> Demo source code is not often released, but there are many exceptions. For example, if you're interested in 4kB intros, look at this: [https://github.com/in4k](https://github.com/in4k) Since 4kB intros are typically done in a shader, you can also look at [https://www.shadertoy.com](https://www.shadertoy.com)

For Ctrl-Alt-Test specifically, we put our source code on GitHub (but not the most recent productions)[1]. The tool to minify shaders is also on GitHub[2].

So I think you can get a pretty good idea of how we did it. If you have any question, feel free to ask. I can give more details here, or it can be part of a future blog post.

[1] [https://github.com/laurentlb/Ctrl-Alt- Test](https://github.com/laurentlb/Ctrl-Alt-Test) [2] [https://github.com/laurentlb/Shader_Minifier](https://github.com/laurentlb/Shader_Minifier)

<comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing! Your _F – Felix's Workshop_ [1] is pretty impressive, and specially for the 64KB category. Thanks for publishing the source code[2] as well.

[1] [http://www.ctrl-alt-test.fr/productions/f-felixs- workshop/](http://www.ctrl-alt-test.fr/productions/f-felixs-workshop/)

[2] [https://github.com/laurentlb/Ctrl-Alt- Test/tree/master/F](https://github.com/laurentlb/Ctrl-Alt-Test/tree/master/F)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A note on the architecture from the demo:

The vast majority of ancient buildings follows quite simple procedural methods that only very recently got reverse engineered:

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francisco_Javier_Roldan...](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francisco_Javier_Roldan- Medina/publication/283490185_Unraveling_the_Classic_Proportions_Through_the_Anthropometric_Analysis_of_the_Architectural_Heritage_The_Case_of_the_Pantheon/links/563a4dd908ae405111a5841f/Unraveling- the-Classic-Proportions-Through-the-Anthropometric-Analysis-of-the- Architectural-Heritage-The-Case-of-the-Pantheon.pdf)

(I suspect this method also permits approximating the plastic number [ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_number) ], but so far it seems nobody has figured out a way to do so yet. I mention this due to the architectural relevance of the plastic number.)

I speculate that leveraging this fact could likely permit even more complex architecture in demos. (And, to mention an off topic point, it likely has some relevance for automating UI layouting.)

<comment><USER5> So many issues. First, that paper doesn't claim what you say it does. Second, it's just not a great paper. Even if we accept the sketchy premise, it fails to distinguish overfitting from a successful test. Numbers of the form (a+b*sqrt(2) can approximate almost any number to within 0.03 units, yet there's no discussion of fitting errors to address it.

You should not take papers like these as fact.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I used to do a lot of demoscene stuff as well [1]. I've been trying to get back into it but I've found that all of the software engineering I've done in the meantime has kind of driven the "just get it working" mindset away somewhat.

I used to just write code that "happened" to work, more or less. Nowadays I would want to get unit tests in place, make it cross-platform if at all possible and get a nice GUI going for easy tweaking. It's made it impossible for me to get anything done in the limited free time I have :) ideally I'd write it in Rust, but there, too, I am waiting for tooling to catch up. I get the feeling that I'm not so much waiting for the tooling, but I'm using the waiting as a sneaky way of procrastinating and fooling myself...

[1] [http://www.pouet.net/groups.php?which=65](http://www.pouet.net/groups.php?which=65)

<comment><USER7> The tooling for Rust is slowly becoming quite good. Intellij + The Rust Plugin is a really good development environment. Other editors with RLS are not as advanced yet though. So if you need an IDE environment for Rust, then Intellij is really good already.

<comment><USER6> Yes, it's getting to a point where it's not really an obstacle anymore. I can even debug on Windows using the latest version of clion, what is the world coming to?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A previous discussion of the source code of a 4K demo, 'Elevated', by Rgba, with a link to a really good dive into it by Iñigo Quilez, who worked on it:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11848097](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11848097)

</comment><comment><USER9> Deep respect for this. Also humbled looking at my 1 page Vue + Webpack SPA clocking in at about 1mb

<comment><USER10> What we get for being 3+ layers removed from the hardware used.

<comment><USER11> hell yeah, just looking at the length of a stacktrace under our good old Java EE makes me sick (and I'm not even counting the additional calls to query the database)

(I understand there's a trade off between productivity and performance, but nonetheless, it's scary)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is the kind of stuff I grew up on, so when I'm critical of the software and the implementations here, the bloat, the unnecessary dependencies, the slowness... this is the standard I judge them against. The mentality and the techniques in the article are applicable to any kind of software. When applied correctly, they make any software small and fast.

<comment><USER13> Well it's for profit software vs hobby just for the love of it. Different goals.

<comment><USER14> If your getting paid to work on a 8/16 bit mcu(or low SRAM ARM) same stuff still applies.

<comment><USER15> Sure, but that's a very small fraction of people vs those that don't really face those constraints (not that there isn't value in "thinking small and efficient")

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Another great writeup of making of a 64k: [http://www.lofibucket.com/articles/64k_intro.html](http://www.lofibucket.com/articles/64k_intro.html)

</comment><comment><USER17> Well the first optimization would be to roll my own libc (not that hard at all :) ) where i would load api calls by ordinal and only those that i really need (ok, for the sake of compatibility, i would dig them from IAT table based on 16bit hash (folding fnv32) of API name + dll name). Same for all other libraries, everything compiled with agressive optimization (at least /O2). Next step would be to take compiler that is minimizing the bloat, tinyc ([https://bellard.org/tcc/](https://bellard.org/tcc/)), compiling 32 bit binaries just to save some space. Maybe even go for .com to avoid PE header bloat. At the end compress everything with something like upx, but probably i would roll my own PE compressor. Instead of using functions, the macros would be used, absolutely no classes, #pragma pack(1) all structures (i never tryed what tinyc does :D). Also merging PE sections will save some bytes.

Size optimizing is fun and you can learn a lot but it is dying art, probably 99.9999% of todays developers dont understand what I have written in first part (today, you are learning the programming, but very indequately what the OS does, actually typical today programer understands the programing but is clueless what his code does on low level) ... but +1 for anyone that goes into that direction, my boss at my first job was saying that good software fits to one 1.44 floppy but this is today violated by HHLL. Well business wise no need for that unless you are making malware, but still cool.

<comment><USER18> On Windows a common approch is just to use Win32 directly, no libc APIs at all.

Oh and link them by ordinal.

<comment><USER19> Most demoparties forbid linking by ordinal these days, since ordinals tend to change between Windows versions. Importing by hash is the go-to method now.

[https://in4k.github.io/wiki/import-by- hash](https://in4k.github.io/wiki/import-by-hash)

<comment><USER17> >> ok, for the sake of compatibility, i would dig them from IAT table based on 16bit hash (folding fnv32) of API name + dll name

;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've always been impressed by the demo scene but never tried my hand at one because of the insane programming chops needed.

What are your top 3 favorite intros that you would recommend watching?

<comment><USER19> These two 64K intros by Conspiracy are essential viewing:

[http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=67106](http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=67106) / [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRVTI2y0BBg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRVTI2y0BBg)

[http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=75713](http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=75713) / [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE6SZeAhZdM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE6SZeAhZdM)

Elysian by Logicoma is a favorite too, it's not as visually spectacular but the music makes up for it :)

[http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=68375](http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=68375) / [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWwNgVwQG1A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWwNgVwQG1A)

<comment><USER21> The music part of Elysian is really cool since they wrote a synthesizer and a tool allowing them to make music in Ableton Live (a very popular music production application) and convert it back to code for their demos. Ferris (the guy who wrote most of it) has a video on YouTube explaining how it works and I was absolutely blown away by it.

<comment><USER22> [https://countercomplex.blogspot.com/2011/10/algorithmic- symp...](https://countercomplex.blogspot.com/2011/10/algorithmic-symphonies- from-one-line-of.html)

[http://4klang.untergrund.net/](http://4klang.untergrund.net/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If someone is interested in small demoes, I recommend "A Mind is Born", a 256 Byte Demo. It runs for about 3 minutes (IIRC).

[ [https://linusakesson.net/scene/a-mind-is- born/](https://linusakesson.net/scene/a-mind-is-born/) ]

</comment><comment><USER24> I still play [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWblpsLZ-O8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWblpsLZ-O8) over and over, just for the song, not only because it is 256 bytes, but because it is a compelling song too.

</comment><comment><USER25> Awesome. Thanks for sharing</comment>


SAT/SMT by Example - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/DennisYurichev/SAT_SMT_by_example/ <comment><USER2> Discussion from last time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19075599](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19075599)</comment>


A function that represents all primes - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_for_primes#A_function_that_represents_all_primes <comment><USER2> Doesn't this just encode a list of all the primes in a real number, then define a function which extracts each subsequent value? This seems exactly equivalent to defining an array of primes and a function which indexes that array, and passing that off as a function representing all primes. That we can multiplex datagrams into a stream isn't particularly novel.

<comment><USER3> Representing an arbitrary sequence of bits, digits, etc. using a real number is the basis for arithmetic coding. As such, it's an approach that has been productive historically, and arithmetic coding continues to be widely used. So the basic idea of encoding whatever you want to encode in a single real number (obviously represented to just enough precision) isn't fruitless and boring. In this case it is a number that is easy to calculate using the formula given, which doesn't at first glance resemble a prime sieve.

<comment><USER2> It is exactly like arithmetic coding. The formula given allows you to improve the precision of the constant given by encoding more primes, and it equally well lets you encode integers that are not prime. It doesn't resemble a prime sieve because it's not one; you just construct approximations with existing knowledge of what the primes are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> In a sense, this function isn't that interesting; It's just a way of encoding the prime numbers into a real number.

However, one interesting aspect is how efficiently this particular function works for the prime numbers. The function doesn't work for Fibonacci numbers, for example.

Still, it takes 113 bits to encode the primes up to 100, which can trivially be encoded with 100 bits so...

</comment><comment><USER5> I was somewhat disappointed to not find Riemann's hypothesis, the Zeta function or even complex numbers involved...

[https://theconversation.com/has-one-of-maths-greatest- myster...](https://theconversation.com/has-one-of-maths-greatest-mysteries- the-riemann-hypothesis-finally-been-solved-103974)

[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/skepticism- surrounds...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/skepticism-surrounds- renowned-mathematician-s-attempted-proof-160-year-old-hypothesis)</comment>


It's Official: 2013 Was the Busiest Year Yet for Cyber Criminals - <AUTHOR> http://recode.net/2014/04/21/its-official-2013-was-the-busiest-year-yet-for-cyber-criminals/

<comment><USER2> Thank you dmca.</comment>


Diagnosis: Insufficient Outrage - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/opinion/diagnosis-insufficient-outrage.html <comment><USER2> This rings so true. When I had graduated college I was in a 3 week lull between graduation and a job around January when I was struck with a kidney stone. No health insurance.

I took a trip to the ER around 10pm one evening in agonizing pain and was treated like a drug addict. I wasn't even triaged for over 2 hours (peak flu season) and everyone acted like I was just trying to score pain meds. Finally, after 3.5 hours, I was sent for a CT and only after the CT confirmed a stone was I given non-narcotic pain meds (Ketorolac) and send home to wait it out. Total time in the actual ER was ~1.5 hours (of a >5 hour trip) for a hospital administered dose of an NSAID only after a CT scan.

$4800.

Took me over 2 years to pay all of it off. It pretty much wrecked my personal finances (threats from collection agencies finally forced me to put it all on my credit card). I've been jaded about hospitals ever since.

I've also had another stone in the years since and was diagnosed with a ~$100 sonogram. And I used acetaminophen and ibuprofen to manage the pain for a couple weeks.

I'm still shocked that I had to wait so long and go through such a costly imaging procedure to justify a short prescription of a non-narcotic pain reliever.

I could go on another rant on an intelligent adult not being allowed to order a simple blood panel for self quantification.

<comment><USER3> I broke my knee this spring but didn't go to a hospital on my families request because the last time I broke a bone I reset it myself and the hospital still charged $8k.

I still have blood in the joint, but I can't get it drained because no doctor will stick a needle in without an x-ray, but those are expensive. So I'm waiting till I move out and get a full time position in a bigger city to get health care to have it fixed.

Probably going to have arthritis at 40....

<comment><USER4> If you know that arthritis is coming, adjust now and move to Germany (or another similar place). Waiting times for specialists might be a little longer, but you (=everybody) will be treated for treatable diseases and injuries. What you have to do, of course, is to move here legally (work visum?).

<comment><USER5> How easy is it to move to Germany as an experienced software developer and get a job there? I know Berlin has a large startup community, but is it large enough to absorb as many software developers that show up there like it is in Silicon Valley?

Do you already have to know German or can you get by with learning the language after making the move?

<comment><USER4> Although Berlin has more of a reputation, I'd recommend to also consider other places within Germany. Berlin, while having a lot of startups, is not the center of the "real" software industry. I recommend taking a serious look at companies in the Rhein-Main-Neckar region. This region has a cluster of big software firms, such as SAP, SoftwareAG and the companies working on software for the financial industry (Frankfurt), as well as Technical Universities (these are the ones that produce CS graduates).

Be warned, however, that you won't find anything comparable to SV in Germany. And I have to admit that there is also a problem regarding startups: The largest cluster of startups is in Berlin, but most of the money in the software biz is in West Germany. Btw, please don't get scammed by the Samwers.

Experience is definitely a plus, but probably more with the more "traditional" software companies than with the startups. Many German startups live off fresh degrees and high hopes (in the sense that they are founded by people out of the University), with all the positive and negative side-effects that this brings.

With regards to language, I'd say English and a willingness to learn German should suffice. Most of the software people already know enough English to work with them, and some corporations that operate internationally even mandate some degree of English usage. A few more rules of thumb: If the company is big or works in an innovative field, English should be all you need. If, on the other hand, it is located in a rural place or in East Germany, there might be problems.

These are of course generalizations. In any case, learning German will be helpful, even if it is only to facilitate the interactions with your surroundings outside work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yes, if prices are skyrocketing it must be a "Crime" caused by all the dirty capitalists enriching themselves. There could be no possible explanation for it. Unless, of course, you want to consider:

1) The stifling HIPAA regime that makes it almost impossible for small, potentially competitive practices to stay open without insane amounts of overhead, explaining their sellouts to larger at-scale healthcare corporations 2) The necessity to offset insanely low negotiated and subsidized Medicare/Medicaid rates with bills on the uninsured, thus bifurcating healthcare recipients into "pays too little" and "pays too much" categories with no in-between 3) The employer-provided insurance scheme--another government-subsidized program--which hides prices from consumers and incentivizes providers to hike up prices 4) Let's not forget about the inability for insurance companies to hedge risk and lower costs by selling insurance across state lines 5) Obamacare destroying any potentially new avenues for innovation by forcing the uninsured to buy into a broken system

What would happen if a doctor or hospital today started practicing medicine at affordable prices, competitively? What's stopping that from happening? If you look for what isn't there instead of what is there, you'd see how we've completely eviscerated any hope of competition, innovation or lower prices in our system.

The "moral outrage" we should have as Americans is not toward the doctors who --as even this article grudgingly acknowledges--are good people working in a bad system. The outrage we should have is toward the captured healthcare- industrial complex that has a stranglehold on our Congress and President, using its influence to send more profits its own way at the expense of patients.

High prices are not a crime. Bad policy is.

<comment><USER7>
      | The necessity to offset insanely low negotiated
      | and subsidized Medicare/Medicaid rates

My understanding is that insurance companies often get rates lower than Medicare. It goes something like this:

1) Government mandates the rates for procedure X to make sure that the government is getting the 'best' deal.

2) Hospitals charge insurance companies using these rates (they aren't allowed to be lower, or it wouldn't be the 'best' deal).

3) Insurance companies trim the difference between the Medicare rate and the _real_ rate from the bill with newspeak like, "charge beyond negotiated rates," or, "over-charge of contractual limits."

It basically amounts to the hospital charging the 'correct' rate, the insurance company refusing to pay that rate, and the hospital not pushing it any further since this is all laid out in their formal agreements.

So, I'm not sure if Medicare can be said to have 'insanely low' rates, if the insurance companies end up with even lower rates. (I'd love for someone to correct me if my understanding is wrong, though)

<comment><USER8> As it was explained to me by the CFO of a major hospital, you are incorrect.

Hospitals would be out of of business if their average revenue per procedure was equal to the Medicare rates per procedure. But that's not to say that hospitals are "losing money" on every Medicare patient, it's much more complicated.

Running a hospital is like running an airline, there are extraordinary fixed costs just to open the doors, regardless if any patients (aka customers) show up. When you have high fixed and low variable cost, if you are operating below capacity then the marginal cost to serve 'just one more patient' is low, and so providing the service at Medicare rates results in net income, all else equal.

Of course the money for the fixed costs eventually has to come from somewhere. Right now, that comes largely from private donations, and rate shifting (higher rates for the privately insured and uninsured).

Simply put it comes down to buying power. No one buys more than Medicare, so it's not surprising that they get the best rates.

<comment><USER3> > No one buys more than Medicare, so it's not surprising that they get the > best rates.

It is almost as if a public option might be economically efficient.

<comment><USER6> Not at all, because when you have monopsony pricing you end up below market price, which drives marginal producers out of business and ends up reducing supply. It's the same reason the argument for the government buying up all the food and distributing it doesn't work: because no one would go into a business where they are guaranteed to make a loss.

<comment><USER9> Except this isn't the international experience.

In Aus we have a mixed public private system- everyone is treated free but if you want an elective procedure or to see a doctor of your own choice you can pay to do so. I have private health insurance and it costs me $1,500 a year (get dental and optical rebates etc, if I was to require serious treatment it would cover anything under the sun to be done my way) We have public hospital elective surgery waiting lists but the upside is people with no money can actually get the medical treatment they deserve in order to live functional lives.

I have been involved (as a medical student) in the us system- I know a little about it- and the creation of 'the medical poor' \- there are probably better terms for it but basically those unable to get the treatment they need and thus unable to live their lives as functionally as possible - strikes me as sad and unjust.

BTW any comment along the lines of 'but doctors don't get paid for their services so less people will be willing to do it' \- next year I will be practicing, in 4 years I can expect to be earning $150,000 and in 10-15 I will expect to be earning $350,000 inflation adjusted. More than enough for a comfortable life in my chosen specialty

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have seen all of my doctors office swallowed up by hospitals in the last year. In Southwestern Ohio Mercy Health Systems and TriHealth are buying them up. They are following the lead of Christ Hospital who started this years ago at an alarming rate.

As far as my rates go, I did notice almost everything, even items done at the local office, was an outpatient procedure billed by the mother hospital, at least in part. Also something I have noticed in the increase in lab work.

I am a chronic patient, I have a heart implant, feeding tube and an infusion pump that puts baclofen directly in the spinal area.

With co-pays going out of this world under this new system, we have elected to do many things at home that used to be done at the office. Changing out my feeding tube used to cost a few hundred dollars and jumped to over $6000 last fall. My wife now changes it at home. I have my Baclofen pump refilled at home instead of the office by a third party. I elected to send my heart readings over the phone instead of going into the office, except twice a year. Finally, when I make all my appointments within days of each other when possible and make them share lab results. They don't like this but I can't afford all the extra charges out of pocket. Even the monthly b-12 shot had a significant rate increase. Once again, I choose a cheaper route. The local non-affiliated walk- in clinic for the b-12 shot.

It is nice to see this article. It explains alot. At 41 with a form of Parkinson's Plus, the nickle and diming has to stop. I don't know where the $$$ is going to come from.

<comment><USER11> NE Ohio is the same way. University Hospitals and Cleveland Clinic own everything. One of the last independant hospitals, Parma Regonal, was purchased by UH this past week.

<comment><USER12> My uncle works for a hospital system that's doing the same "buy up everything" plan. He says it's because once they own all of the medical providers in the county, then they will be able to dictate the price to the insurance, instead of the other way around. What can the insurance companies tell their customers? Go to the next county for healthcare?

Another relative of mine just merged his surgical practice into the hospital system's. The overhead on his practice was getting too high, in particular malpractice insurance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What if every clinic had to make a price list of procedures publicly available, and could not legally charge people different amounts for the same procedure (regardless of insurance status and so on)? That would solve at least some of the problems.

But I think it's obvious that almost no one actually wants to fix the broken system, because too many people are making too much money from it. (Doesn't that apply to almost everything in the United States nowadays? It's pathetic.) I'm happy to see the author pointing the finger at hospitals and doctors. It doesn't seem like that happens often enough. (When I say "doctors" I really mean specialists. I don't think that GPs are as much to blame.)

<comment><USER14> By "almost no one" you mean "probably most people, but some people who make lots of money from the current system are using part of that money to bribe politicians not to fix it, and we live under a government where that is tolerated."

<comment><USER13> I suppose I meant "almost no one" who actually has the power to do it. So yeah, what you said.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I was visiting the US (from India) a couple of months back. In the hurry to get to the airport, I forgot to get Medical Insurance. Unfortunately, I got pink eyes while I was there.

I haven't found America all that much more expensive than urban India. In fact, compared to cities in India, a few things might even be cheaper. But not medicine. An eye doctor's visit costs $180, for Pink eyes! A comparable facility here would have charged me about $8.

I totally get the different standards of living and associated expenses. But medical treatment stands out so much that I can't imagine how an uninsured person could afford hospitalization or even moderately complex treatment in the US.

<comment><USER11> I think most people just don't go to the doctor for pink eye (including me and 3 other people I know that got it in the past year).

<comment><USER15> I wasn't planning to either. But buying any medicine requires a prescription in the US, which may be fine depending on how you look at it.

What I was trying to say was that I found treatment 10x more expensive in the US; while other expenses are merely higher and generally affordable.

<comment><USER11> I'm agreeing with you.

We don't get medicine for things like pink eye, we just let it run it's course.

<comment><USER16> now that is silly. you don't know what kind of infection it is unless you go to the doctor.

You really need to get a health plan if you don't have one. If you're young it might only be $100/$200 a month, even if you're unemployed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't get how a cardiac stress test can cost 2000USD. You put someone on a home trainer, let them pedal for 20 minutes, and look at their EKG. It's usually performed by a nurse, and the doctor spends 30 seconds looking at the EKG (the analysis of the EKG is even partially automated).

If there was actual competition on the market, I'm sure a health service provider would find a way to perform the test for 75USD.

<comment><USER18> People who have stress tests administered often have underlying cardiac or pulmonary disorders that can be aggravated.

A not insignificant subset of people doing stress tests can enter into hypotensive shock or even cardiac arrest, the facility has to be prepared to deal with adverse effects as those reactions can be fatal.

<comment><USER19> Yes - it pays to have a big defib (not one of the 'press button now' mall variety), an experienced and qualified staff member or 5 with high level CPR training, and some good cardiac event type drugs, and a load of proper monitoring gear (heart rate, BP, etc). While these things aren't especially cheap, they would pay off fairly quickly at a decent clinic, and I was involved in the purchase of most this stuff for sub $10k US recently for a clinic (but got a mall style defib as our needs are different). Staff would be the greatest cost. That said, at 2k per test, most expenses for the year would be paid of in the first week or 3 at a busy clinic surely?

<comment><USER18> $2000 isn't that ridiculous depending on the circumstances, but $75 is impossibly low with America's system. In Canada they bill ~$200 +/\- 100 depending on the details. A comparable figure in the states (again factoring insurance non-payment issues and convenience factors, i.e. how soon you can get it, having facilities close by) would be reasonable at $800-$1500.

<comment><USER20> $2000 is utterly ridiculous for a stress test. I used to work as a neurology tech, mostly dealing with epilepsy. Our tests themselves could invoke seizures, and we frequently saw seizures anyway, which can be life threatening if not handled. We were a private department in a hospital - as techs, we knew enough first aid to keep the person alive and call for the crash cart.

$2000 might sound reasonable if every single patient required emergency attention, but in truth, far from it. Medical tests aren't meant to bring you to the brink of death, and are generally designed to keep you safe. It's not even worth pretending that $2k 'might' be worth it; it's just not. As for covering for insurance non-payment, isn't that chicken-and-egg? When a test costs ten times what it should? That would suggest that for each test that someone pays for, there are nine patients effectively getting it for free.

<comment><USER18> You're assuming the cost is $200. In Canada it can be up to 6 months (from my own experience) to get a stress test booking. In the states you can do it the next week. That gets a significant premium. Compare it to buying something on eBay from Hong Kong and waiting 5-8 weeks vs paying 4x and getting it right this second from Best Buy. At the end of the day you're going to get what you need either way but it's how long you're willing to wait.

$2000 is only for uninsured patients, and as has been demonstrated numerous times results in you getting shafted when it comes to pricing. A better problem to attack is reducing the amount of stress tests given, as they're often completely unnecessary. Ontario has recently decided to stop paying doctors who give unnecessary stress tests, resulting in ~5000 fewer tests given every year.

<comment><USER19> A good thing about socialised systems (don't get me wrong, there are plenty of problems too) is that they often have more protocol homogeneity. What this helps with is that best practice gets codified and protocols written. Then a clear pathway is made for clinicians to follow, with a review system to allow for improvements. Fragmented systems with owner operators (usually sub specialists) can have other motives ($) and little to zero feedback on care quality. Large systems with set protocols helps reduce unneeded tests. Getting the money saved put back into other parts of the system however, can be.... Tricky.

<comment><USER21> As someone living under a "socialist" system, let me tell you : "practice" is codified, yes. Best practice is not, unless some politician's kid or granddad has the disease/condition in question.

Someone I know needed a root canal treatment, and I found out that ... it's not covered - at all - under the national system. Nor is it covered under normal insurance except for a small token amount (< $250 equivalent, and yes it will cost $2k+ here too). And there is no way to get it done quickly, which makes no sense. We're talking about a root canal here. Delaying it at the point where it hurts will make things worse FAST. WTF ?

<comment><USER19> Hmm.. That's bad. I live in a country with socialised healthcare, and there is some dental care. Most isnt covered, but if its an accident or an emergency (such as bad pain), it will get done. Imperfect, yes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> On the proton therapy: As a particle physicist whose best friend just finished (photon) radiation therapy for brain cancer, I know a good chunk about this. First off, not all proton therapy is the same. It's heavily dependent on the linac and gantry a hospital has. UCSF has proton therapy in Davis or somewhere targeting glaucoma and stuff, which is completely different than the facilities at Loma Linda or Massachusetts General. Of higher energy proton therapy centers, there's only about 5 such facilities in the US. As far as general hadron therapy goes, there's none. So a proton therapy center in Washington isn't likely to serve just Washington and/or Baltimore, it's likely to service Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and even farther out possibly. On top of that, it's still heavily research based, and moving pretty quickly as we've moved towards modeling human tissue with GEANT4 and Monte Carlo simulations.

Anyway, while I don't know the specifics of the proton therapy centers mentioned, the assumption that a proton therapy center would just service Washington/Baltimore metropolitan areas is silly. After LLNL shut down their proton therapy center/experiment, we don't even have any proton therapy centers in the Bay Area.

</comment><comment><USER23> Well look past the hospitals and insurance companies when you want to assign blame then. The government creates the laws these entities operate under.

Congress knew damn well what would happen when they used the force of government to compel prices for Medicare/Medicade. Insurance companies got on the ride because of size. Yet it falls to Congress to be the one to look out for the little guy but that was not their concern. Their concern was to maintain the steady flow of campaign contributions.

The ACA was more of a payoff to insurance and hospital industries than looking out for the public. The reason why most members didn't read the bill is because its contents were not important, its effect on their position was what mattered.

For years Federal law has prevented people from shopping across state lines for medical insurance. For years it has been adding elective treatments and surgeries as requirements to even the simplest policies which in turn reduced their affordability.

The solution, try to put everyone in the pool by force of law and reap the rewards of insurance companies and hospitals suddenly with more business than they had means to process.

</comment><comment><USER18> A large portion of this cost is because some people don't pay, and they can run huge tabs. Meidicine is a business, and that cost has to be shifted to other patients to compensate.

In socialised systems, like Canada, physicians actually make more money because the government always pays so it's not a greed issue. The downside is that the government has limited funds, so the amount of beds, ORs, and advanced equipment is severely limited and wait lists are rediculous, ER times between 6-8 hours, chemotherapy wait lists of 8 months, surgeries 1 year + for the worst of surgeons. Alberta is the exception as they have rediculously deep pockets from oil revenue.

It's a trade off, this is a case of you get what you pay for. Free healthcare only works when the state has money to blow on quality care, I.e Texas with the Scottish Rite hospital.

You can't directly compare life expectancies with the US and places like France (which have free or near free healthcare) and conclude that it is just as good, if not better than America's. There are many confounding variables here (I.e their very short work weeks).

</comment><comment><USER24> Seriously, just copy the EU on healthcare. You might need to pay extra taxes, and take an extra insurance against hospitals fees. But it's all very affordable.

If it wasn't for A) getting the same answer for most of my ills: inflammations :p B) The doctor being very busy. C) Basic respect to not stress our medical system. One would go for the tiniest medical complain.

<comment><USER25> The EU is not a country. The EU has no single healthcare system.

Every country has it's own system, which range from anything between 100% government provided to mostly privatized. No system is the same. And it's not just the EU, it's the entire Western civilization outside the US.

This is extremely important, because the healthcare debate in the US is falsely framed as a choice for or against "socialized medicine", were in reality socialized medicine is a rarity amongst the various healthcare systems.

Whether or not to make quality healthcare accessible to everyone is not an ideological choice, the problem can be solved within the framework of any political ideology.

It's strictly a choice between decent healthcare for everyone or bigger profits for the healthcare industry.

<comment><USER26> As I understand it, there sort of is the same health care across the EU. There is an EU healthcare card which means any EU citizen gets treated in any EU country. The systems are different, but in the end we can all get healthcare free at the point of delivery. No absurd bill.

The details of how each country does it are different, but the result is the same. No insane bills to stay alive. No poor turned away or treated like second class citizens.

I have to say, of all the things I cant get my head round about the US, the health care system is the biggest jaw dropper for me. Not only is it not universal, but the people who run it make incredible profit out of it. Seems mad to me.

<comment><USER27> Health care and health care insurance approaches are not the same across the EU, but the EU does proscribe that residents of any EU (1) country insured in one country get medical treatment in any other country ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Health_Insurance_Card](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Health_Insurance_Card))

(1) as always, there are zillions of EUs to choose from. Reading the Wikipedia page, it actually isn't the real EU, but the EU plus (all?) members of the EFTA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> How much does the Affordable Care Act addresses this? I know insurance can't be denied to people with pre-existing conditions and there can't be any life- time expense caps. But is there any measure to address the high cost of health care in US?

<comment><USER3> Effective next year up to 400% of the poverty line is eligible for some fraction of their expenses covered under Medicaid. If you are beyond that threshold is the infamous "uninsured tax". Note that 400% of the poverty line is around $50k a year.

<comment><USER29> I wonder where the 400% came from; that seems very... odd

<comment><USER3> The poverty line is a sliding scale based on household size, so for a 4 person household that threshold is 94,200. It is basically the "you make enough money that you can either get insurance through work or the flat rate we are forcing insurers to pay".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Here, in Russia, basic medical assistance is mostly free (or costs peanuts compared to US), but on the flip side you have to sit through enormous queues, talk to incompetent doctors and doctors themselves might extort you. Paid medicine is better and sometimes better qualified, and you get better service, but it's totally out of budget for anyone below middle class.

Good news is that you won't be charged bajillion dollars after you broke your hand, bad news is that you'll have to wait and suffer in horrible insanitary that is Russian polyclinic.

I have mixed feelings about our health care system. I believe, it will gradually disintegrate as doctors from soviet era get older and retire.

</comment><comment><USER31> Prescription: Free Market Competition

<comment><USER32> Why don't you elaborate instead of just yelling "free market!" and waving your hands? How might we encourage competition effectively?

<comment><USER33> No one can open a new, competing hospital without the permission of the lousy overpriced hospitals that its intended to compete with.

Yes, you need your _competitor 's permission_ to enter the market. Its the law.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need)</comment></comment></comment>


Commentary on Microsoft's stand that Tablets are a passing fad - <AUTHOR> http://www.mondaynote.com/2011/04/03/microsoft-tablets-are-a-passing-fad/

<comment><USER2> One explanation is that Microsoft is just trying to distract people. I'm not sure why they bother since it just draws attention to the fact they are struggling to keep up.

The other explanation is that not enough senior people have spent any time figuring out for themselves what potential the iPad has. _Maybe they genuinely don't get it._

I actually think the second explanation is more likely. It's also much worse for them. It's easy to take a first glance at the iPad and see it as a media player and games console with a browser built in - i.e. A big iPod touch.

Paradoxically this makes it easier for them to brush off. "We all know that iPods are successful. Hats off to Apple, the iPod company - the iPad is the new iPod." Which neatly rationalizes away the success of the iPad in a way that's not threatening to the PC business.

Analysts, always eager to sell people what they want, are colluding with this by calling the iPad a media tablet.

The one thing none of these people are doing (unlike iPad customers) is trying to use them for real work, and discovering where they are strong and where they are weak.

I now use my iPad 2 as my only computer at home. This means I often try to push it into doing real work. I've been surprised to find that for some tasks which are very important to me, it's _a lot better_ than a laptop.

Specifically, I now use the OmniGraffle on the iPad to do all my brainstorming, _and_ technical diagramming.

I'm a long time user of the desktop version and bought the iPad version when it first came out. The combination of the relatively slow iPad 1, and the immature OmniGraffle, made it little more than an expensive curiosity.

Over the course of the year, Omni have worked diligently at improving the UI, understanding how to make good use of multi-touch, and improving performance. It was getting pretty good even on the old iPad, but on the iPad 2 it flies.

For the first time in my life, I feel as though I have a computer that can really replace a paper notebook for capturing ideas. I can be in the middle of making breakfast, and suddenly a design solution will pop into my head, and I can instantly open OmniGraffle and make a diagram capturing the details - better than I could with paper.

It's so good that I'll pick up the iPad to do this even when I'm sitting in front of my top of the range iMac.

Anyway - raving about OmniGraffle is really just by way of example. The real point is that step by step, application authors will figure out how to make their iPad versions better than their desktop versions.

This process won't take long, and it will establish tablets as the primary computer.

I tried similar experiments with Tablet PC's over the years, including using Motion Computing tablet with separate keyboard (i.e. Like a big iPad). It just didn't work, because of the software and the stylus - simple as that.

<comment><USER3> I bought one for pair programming (which was a great idea and way better then a laptop), but have been amazed at how much I ended up using it for other things. The big thing I wasn't expecting was how much it took away from how much I use my iphone, which I use now just for phone/music/text messages, and which I used to use for _way_ more.

<comment><USER4> I'm curious about your use of the iPad for pair programming. Have you written that up anywhere?

<comment><USER3> Not really. I wrote a web app for navigating /searching the code base, and serving up syntax highlighted code. That with issh and safari give me everything I would want while pairing. On top of that, the form factor is very small, the viewing angle is excellent (which makes it simple to share what I find with my pair), battery life is great, and the one app at a time thing is actually a plus (I would probably be too distracted with a full laptop). Might be a YMMV thing, but for me it's pretty much the perfect pairing device

<comment><USER4> So this is the sort of thing that you could do with say Cloud 9?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Like any strong company, Microsoft needs to acknowledge and act upon new trends, not theorize and hope that markets will adjust and have a space open for their Oldies-but-goodies products. If Microsoft wants to stay relevant, they need to have an organized structure of market research, design, and innovation through all levels of the company. If Microsoft continues treading tech water, they will be nothing more than a giant software library, skittishly sucking up new ideas and hoping for the best. Innovation on a broad scale is not easy, but it would keep microsoft in the forefront of the tech industry and set it ahead of their trendy competitors. Acknowledgment of mediocrity is the big first step, and a culture of innovation and design will follow.

<comment><USER6> _Acknowledgment of mediocrity is the big first step, and a culture of innovation and design will follow._

That is an enormous first step for an organization whose most prominent trait is arrogance. I'd like to see them come around, though, and provide some competition.

<comment><USER4> I remember the halcyon days of Microsoft. Despite the odd anti-competitive dirty trick on their part, their real edge boiled down to being able to out- strategize and out-execute the competition.

Their current approach to extracting intellectual property rents via patent licensing isn't the Road Ahead, it's the Road to Obscurity!

<comment><USER7> It's less a road than a well...

Good riddance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _In 2007, we have Steve Ballmer's infamous "It's a passing fad" reply when asked about the iPhone._

 _Bill Gates himself made a lofty prediction: "The tablet takes cutting-edge PC technology and makes it available whenever you want it…It's a PC that is virtually without limits — and within five years I predict it will be the most popular form of PC sold in America."_

As much as people like to stretch the word "tablet", applying statements made about the "iPhone" to "tablets" is simply going too far. Yes: the article's title says "Microsoft: Tablets are a passing fad", but the article doesn't claim this is Microsoft's "stance" (you don't mean "stand"), so frankly this HN post comes off as link-bait.

<comment><USER6> You are stretching what the author wrote, rather than the author stretching the word "tablet".

If you read the essay, the author begins by describing IBM's strategies for responding to new competition, and how Microsoft learned from them. The prediction by Gates about the iPhone is a mere illustration of this. It could have been any example of similar posturing and have been relevant. That it is about the iPhone is incidental. This particular illustration was probably picked only for how it juxtaposes nicely against Mundie's similar posture about the iPad last week.

<comment><USER8> Again, I specifically am speaking of the HN post and the link-bait title. I did not make any moment on the article: you made that part up (like rbarooah).

<comment><USER6> I see. Your comment at the end about the link-bait title seemed out of place with the rest of your post. If that was your main point, then the irrelevant bit about the iPhone and the blurring with tablets really distracted from it.

Perhaps you thought the word 'fad' in the headline was drawn from the 2007 Bill Gates quotation? I didn't read it that way at all.

Rather, to me it came off as a shorter Mundie, and an entirely uncontroversial paraphrase of what he said. He was savvy enough to avoid the word 'fad' in his statement, but he casted enough doubt on the longevity of tablets to invoke the spectre of the 2007 quotation by Gates.

 _Edit: I like the distillation of your point below, and find it vote-worthy. +1_

<comment><USER8> The user who posted this to HN decided to use the title "Commentary on Microsoft's stand that Tablets are a passing fad"; this is an importantly different connotation than "Microsoft: Tablets are a passing fad", which was the actual title of the article being linked to.

The former's usage of the word "stance" is much more direct: it implies that Microsoft has officially made firm statements on this matter. Instead, you get to the article and read commentary (no matter how well informed or interesting; I do not wish to comment on that) about "mixed messages" from the guy who runs Microsoft Research.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I remember loving to read Jean-Louis back in the heady days of Be. He still has a gift:

 _Chef Jobs, in one stroke of his whisk, got the tablet mayonnaise to take, after three decades of clotted failures by the best and the brightest in the computer industry, Apple included._

</comment><comment><USER9> I think of Microsoft like a talking head on TV; they may be interesting or entertaining if I am bored, but they are just spewing opinions and are not directly involved in the topics they opine about. Microsoft has not taken actions proving that it knows anything about how to market a tablet, so its opinion has only entertainment value.

<comment><USER4> +1 All MS's rhetoric on this subject is a useless distraction. What matters is whether they are shipping competitive mobile products that consumers want to buy and developers want to develop for. By those benchmarks, they have failed and are continuing to fail.

The Nokia partnership is clearly a desperate attempt to resuscitate their mobile strategy. Given the ground that Nokia has ceded at the high end of the mobile market to Apple and Google it is far from certain, that this move will succeed.

What might be interesting is to leverage Nokia's production & distribution power to push WP7 into mid-range devices & featurephones. MicroNokia need to move fast though, the likes of ZTE are already targeting the mid-range with cheaper Android devices and are growing fast as a result.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Microsoft (Bill Gates specifically) also thought the internet was a fad.

<comment><USER11> And yet we find ourselves cribbing about how IE has dominated the browser market for a long time

<comment><USER7> When you consider all sorts of dirty tricks that were employed, along with the stupid - in retrospect - blunders the competition made, it becomes much less than a surprise.

I can be outnumbered 10 to 1 against a stupid enemy and still have a fighting chance. I can't say the same with I am outnumbered 100 to 1.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Come on... Microsoft is just a passing fad. ;-)

<comment><USER11> It has been taking quite a long while to pass :P

<comment><USER7> Boringly so. ;-)

OTOH, life is just a passing fad. Give the Universe a couple hundred billion years and it may be completely free of it.</comment></comment></comment>


Reading and writing are less symmetric than you (probably) think - <AUTHOR> https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/reading-and-writing-are-less-symmetric-than-you-probably-think/ <comment><USER2> It's about Unix read() and write(), not human linguistics as I thought when I clicked.

Very interesting nonetheless.

<comment><USER3> I think the same basic lessons apply. If you read something in a human language then when you're done, you know the information has been received, you know if there are any problems understanding it, etc. If you write something, you have no idea if anyone will actually read it, you don't really know if it will be understood or if there are problems with it, etc.

<comment><USER4> There's another potential asymmetry between the number of times you write something vs. how many people read it/how many times it is read.</comment></comment></comment>


How One Dairy Stock Became a Cash Cow - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-29/the-milk-you-ve-never-heard-of-that-s-rocking-the-dairy-world <comment><USER2> From their corporate powerpoint presentation[0]:

 _• The manufacture and sale of a2™ brand milk is protected by a comprehensive suite of global intellectual property (IP)

• Collectively this IP provides significant barriers, both legal and commercial, to third party production of any dairy product claiming to contain the protein content of a2™ brand milk

• This suite comprise registered patents, trade marks either registered or under application, proprietary processes and know-how_

Fortunately, their main business model seems to be FUD, and the patents on that have expired.

[0] [https://www.thea2milkcompany.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/04/...](https://www.thea2milkcompany.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/04/a2C-presentation-Apr-121.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Good to know. So, to summarize the article, "We've found a way to sell milk for more than double the price at no substantial increase in production costs,* and we're prepared to smother any competition in shady lawsuits. Give us some investment money and we'll cut you in!"

*"The point of difference is that a2 Milk products are sourced from dairy cows that produce only the A2 type of beta-casein protein, whereas most dairy contains both A2 and A1." There's no extra processing involved; they've just got different cows.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The company brings up research that says 25% of people that drink A1 milk feel discomfort, yet they don't have a number for their own a2 milk, just anecdotes. An experiment comparing the discomfort of a1 vs. A2 milk would be very cheap to run and potentially very valuable to the company. So I'd assume they've done that test and the fact they're not reporting positive results means the experiments don't show any benefit to A2 milk.

</comment><comment><USER5> History of A2 milk, and a bit of discussion as to what little science there is behind the difference in A1 protein inclusive milk and A2 only milk.</comment>