Ask HN: What can you do in one language that can't be done as well in others? - <AUTHOR> I'd prefer we talk about programming languages, but I suppose literary languages could be interesting, too. <comment><USER2> Erlang - Actor-based software design and its inherit benefits are trivial to implement compared to (most) other languages. By design, almost trivial distribution across many nodes without resorting to specialized APIs (that aren't common across all platforms) or separate coordination languages.

Ada - The type system and the manner in which it can be used to constrain your software (in a positive way) makes ensuring certain safety/reliability much easier. Compare in C, an int is an int. If I make a "temperature_t" it's just a double or something that's aliased. Where as "kelvin_t" in Ada can be made to be only the positive real numbers.

Lisps - I'll include Common Lisp, Emacs Lisp, Scheme, Racket, clojure, etc. The meta programming (ruby has this too, actually) makes it much easier to develop large programs almost automatically. The meta programming nature allows you to, within the same language as the primary program you're aiming for, extend your language and program. This reduces the friction of the meta programming tasks, consider C. You _can_ use meta programming, but it requires at least one other language.

Plenty of others, three (languages and families) off the top of my head.

<comment><USER2> Re inconclusive:

Erlang's language is concise, well-designed, and oriented around the concurrency model. Try tacking it onto C and it won't work well [0]. Take that concurrency model and put it into Python or Lisp or Smalltalk, and it could work fine. Those are expressive languages that are sufficiently malleable to bring in foreign concepts in a native looking fashion.

[0] It won't look as clean. It'll work, but it won't be clean. We actually use a very similar model in a project at work. But there's so much bookkeeping because it's C that Erlang hides from you. Other expressive languages would be able to absorb that bookkeeping and hide it from you as well, but C isn't expressive. It's precise. It does what you tell it to do. But it's not able to hide things cleanly behind abstractions that the language itself isn't already built to handle.

<comment><USER3> I agree with Lisp (and it has even been done by key Erlang people), I am willing to believe SmallTalk (though it would be tempting to put the process boundary around every instance), but Python? Have you watched the early talks about why Erlang is designed the way that it is? Python is way way too imperitive in nature, having a syntax that makes functional subsets extremely limited and awkward.

<comment><USER2> In my limited experience I feel my intuition is correct that you could make something that looks and mostly acts like erlang's concurrency stuffs in python. But it's not my main language by a long shot so I could well be wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Idris and Coq which have more advanced type systems allowing you to create proofs for you software. There are not many languages that allow this.

And Shen which has a Turing complete type system meaning it is very flexible but type checking may never halt in certain conditions. I do not know of another language with these properties.

Haxe allows you to target absolutely anything and if you miss some exotic it is trivial to allow generation for it. It is also quite mature language with a macro system. Again, maybe MonkeyX compares somewhat but has far less backends and making a backend is not so straightforward.

K and Q and their parent APL which allow you to write the most terse code you will ever see (some make a sport of it).

Forth you can implement in a few hours on any platform and yet is a very powerful language which makes it easy, once you get used to it, to write terse but easy to understand code. This one I would say is, compared to other languages including Lisp, easier to implement naively while still keeping solid perf. There are also lists of minimal instruction Forths which show you how powerful and easy the basic constructs are and how rapidly you can make a toy language.

</comment><comment><USER5> I know PHP isn't very popular here, but it's awesome for string manipulation, parsing files.

One-line that reads the file, splits multiple lines into an array:

        <?php
            $l = explode("\n", file_get_contents("in.txt"));

Want to sort them alphabetically? Add

        sort($l);

Trim them?

        $trimmed = array_map(trim, $l);

Remove duplicates?

        $unique = array_unique($trimmed);

<comment><USER6> Most languages have these type of functions, once you've read the file into an array its just array/list manipulation. I haven't compile checked this but here's the same as a C# one liner:

List<string> lines = File.ReadAllLines("/file.txt").Distinct().ToList().Select(l => l.Trim()).Sort();

<comment><USER7> And in Python:

with open("foo.txt.") as f: foo = sorted(list(set(line.strip() for line in f])))

with is a context manager that will automatically close the file once it's out of scope, not required but it's much cleaner and safer. Should the code change you don't have to worry about the call to close the file getting lost. The call to set() could be replaced with a set comprehension, {i for i in sequence}, but for clarity I used set().

It's certainly not the most efficient way to do it but it's simple and clear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Haskell and Scala are pretty awesome at embedded DSLs, because of do-blocks. You can use them to bind some value to a symbol (i.e. assign a variable) _inside_ the eDSL, which isn't possible in most languages. (Contrast this to, say, eDSLs in Java, which are limited to fancy builder patterns).

</comment><comment><USER9> Elixir's concurrency primitives & actor system make some concurrent and parallel jobs much easier than I'm used to in other languages.

<comment><USER10> Wouldn't you be able to do the exact same things in erlang?

<comment><USER9> Sure. I mentioned Elixir because I'm familiar with it, but not Erlang.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In Python you can code an MMO, manipulate a database, set off a Hadoop job processing petabyes of big data in parallel on a thousand servers, conduct statistical analysis on the result set, generate beautiful and meaningful data visualizations, run a web server to make your program accessible to the world, stick an API onto it, and give artificial intelligence to a robot. As Heinlein wrote, "Specialization is for insects."

</comment><comment><USER12> Not sure how many other languages support this, but I was pleasantly surprised when I used it in typescript. My first exposure to Intersection types:

T Extends Foo | Bar

T Extends Foo & Bar

</comment><comment><USER13> You can easily create domain specific languages in Scala using operator overloading and implicits.

</comment><comment><USER14> Bash shell script: using pipes → « cat MonFichier | while read LaLigne ; do echo $LaLigne ; done »

<comment><USER15> It's also one of the coolest features in Elixir IMO.

[http://elixir-lang.org/getting-started/enumerables-and- strea...](http://elixir-lang.org/getting-started/enumerables-and- streams.html#the-pipe-operator)

<comment><USER16> Awesome. Is Elixir prevalent in production yet? Will it be?

I think I want to learn either OCaml or Elixir next.

<comment><USER15> It's probably more prevalent than OCaml at this point despite it's young age. It builds on top of Erlang/OTP which is quite battle tested and used by several major companies. The community behind it is quite strong as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Gallina (The programming language used in Coq) -> Theorem proving assistance</comment>


Show HN: Distributed BogoSort - <AUTHOR> http://pivotfinland.com/bogosort/

<comment><USER2> ... thus proving once and for all that distributed computing is not the solution to all the world's ills. :-)

By the way, the site's clock seems to think it's February 15.</comment>


How To Break Your Daily Caffeine Habit And Use Coffee Strategically - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/1773202/how-to-break-your-daily-caffeine-habit-then-use-it-strategically <comment><USER2> I cut caffeine out of my life completely when I went to see a psychiatrist about my anxiety problems and she told me one cup of coffee was enough to trigger a panic attack. A year later and I still don't consume it. I sleep better, go to bed and wake up on time, and have much more manageable energy levels throughout the day.

Just because it's socially accepted doesn't mean it isn't one hell of a drug.

(If you want a citation for caffeine's anxiogenic effects: [http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/5/6...](http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/5/632))

<comment><USER3> I've noticed a similar effect. Its not particularly powerful, but if one is prone to tense up then it can be just enough to push on over the edge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My two thoughts:

1) Before you attempt to deal with a 'caffeine addiction', look at whether you have sugar addiction - which is far more dangerous for your health and more complicated to address.

2) Many of us don't get the amount of sleep we really need to function. Unless you sort that problem out first, you will just end up feeling sluggish and unproductive without the caffeine.

<comment><USER5> Thank you. I'm a habitual soda drinker, and I realized that after giving up caffeine (several times) it's really the taste of soda that brings me back; aka, getting my sugar fix throughout the day. I'm working on addressing this now even as I continue drinking caffeine, simply so I don't deplete myself of any self control.

Do you have any relevant articles on addressing sugar addiction? I'm not sure any grand strategies besides cold turkey.

<comment><USER6> I've had a lot of success at slowly phasing sugar out. I spent a while consciously trying to put less into my coffees (it was a struggle sometimes), and now I drink it without suger.

Likewise I mix my on soft-drinks from cordial + soda water (seltzer) and i've scaled it back to the point where I often prefer the water plain.

The great thing about it is I use the sugar as a hit for its own sake now if I'm feeling tired/whatever. It doesn't last long, but it can be a great way to get yourself going.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I tried for years to give up an 8+ cup a day habit. The first few times after a few days of no coffee I would be literally falling asleep at my desk at work.

Recently I went on a long vacation, and though I was drinking coffee, it was no where near as much as usual, and even that trickled off completely during the last week. At that point I thought I may as well try stopping completely - it was hard, but it's been about a month now, and I definitely feel the better for it.

The main benefit is just being able to wake up easily in the morning - previously I would wake up and feel groggy for 30 minutes or so. I'd feel normal after 30 minutes whether I had a coffee or not, but it still made waking up unpleasant. Now, as soon as my alarm goes off (and usually 10 minutes before) I'm wide awake and feeling alert. It's seriously life changing - no more hitting snooze 17 times in a row...

The downside is, I miss the taste of coffee. There's some cereal drinks that make a passable drink, but they're like a watered down, bad tasting substitute for the real thing =/

<comment><USER8> > The downside is, I miss the taste of coffee.

You can always put it in your mouth, and then spit it out.

<comment><USER9> I don't think anybody would seriously consider doing that; it wouldn't be enjoyable at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Genotype & Coffee:

"Coffee, I Must Have Coffee…"

[http://spittoon.23andme.com/2011/04/18/coffee-i-must-have- co...](http://spittoon.23andme.com/2011/04/18/coffee-i-must-have-coffee/)

\--

"Caffeine Consumption "

<https://www.23andme.com/health/caffeine-consumption/>

\--

"Caffeine Metabolism"

<https://www.23andme.com/health/Caffeine-Metabolism/>

 _"Some people get jumpy after drinking a single cup of coffee, while others can gulp down a Venti Americano without feeling a thing. Part of that variability is due to the development of tolerance by regular coffee drinkers; but there are genetic differences in how people metabolize caffeine as well."_

\---

<http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Caffeine>

</comment><comment><USER11> Cold turkey from caffeine is hard, often involving lethargy and headaches for a few days.

But you can taper off. In my experience, _tolerance_ / _dependence_ can be reduced by acclimating to lower dosages without triggering the full withdrawal symptoms.

So when quitting, I've found it useful to progressively:

• substitute smaller coffees for larger

• mix in decaf grounds in growing proportion over several days

• substitute tea for coffee

• avoid caffeine between meals and have only one caffeinated drink at full meals

• get to just one drink in the morning and one to nurse all afternoon

• get to just one drink (usually tea) to nurse all day

After progressively less each day for a week or so, and reaching just a single cup-of-tea a day dosage, then cutting it off entirely becomes much easier, and no day of the process is like the worst day of cold turkey.

</comment><comment> X-Istence I have been off caffeine for 6 or so months now. I stopped cold-turkey before and went a whole year before joining my new job and free soda was too big to pass up.

I have found that being with caffeine has actually helped me tremendously, I don't feel jittery anymore, I am more alert, I am able to stay awake longer (that one was weird to me as well), I was less likely to feel mentally tired at the end of the day, and my sleep has never been better (although I still have a delayed sleep phase ... luckily my work lets me work on my own terms =))

I also kicked the soda habit, about 3 months after I kicked the caffeine habit, and it has also changed me. I drink a LOT of water now, and overall don't mind the taste. I stay away from most everything that contains high fructose corn syrup, and have found that I have less energy dips throughout my day, and since I can keep my blood sugar pretty constant throughout the day I don't have any major dips where I feel like I am crashing.

I used to be at the point where I would roll out of bed, drink a liter of Mountain Dew, then half a pot of coffee when I got to work, and at least another can or two of coke or something along those lines before lunch to try to kick-start my day. At some point I figured that I was dependent on caffeine much like a drug addict and that I did not like the fact that a chemical I was knowingly putting into my body was directing how I lived my life and what I bought for food.

<comment><USER12> > I stopped cold-turkey before and went a whole year before joining my new job > and free soda was too big to pass up.

Free soda at work?? Do they really not care about their employees health at all?

Caffeine is one thing but having your employees guzzle HFCS throughout the day ... does the job come with a healthcare plan? That covers diabetes? :)

<comment><USER13> Diet soda?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anti-caffeine bloggers are so annoying. There is nothing wrong with caffeine, it pretty much drives the modern world. Caffeine is a highly successful and safe nootropic and I'm convinced that people who tell you to stop it are the same people who would tell you to stop masturbating, or to take cold showers, or to sleep without a mattress.

There is no good reason to stop caffeine. If you want an extra boost, just drink more! Duh!

<comment><USER13> Masturbation changes your testostron levels, so I some cases that might be beneficial. Cold showers influence your metabolic rate, so they can help with weightloss.

Sleeping on the floor may be better for your back, but honestly I don't know.

<comment><USER14> If you want to speak "honestly" . . . everything you just said was pulled out of your ass.

Cold showers may influence metabolic rate but their most pronounced effect is that they make you want to avoid taking a shower, resulting in stinky, anxious, unhappy people.

Masturbating is so much fun than any health benefits or detriments are irrelevant. It increases quality of life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sure, you could use coffee strategically. But what do you have to give up to do it? [Decaf isn't really an option, whatever the author says at the end of the post].

I think there'd have to be a serious health negative to maintaining my coffee addiction before I feel it'd be worth skipping my morning latte.

Oh, and a sugar hit can have a very similar effect in my opinion.

<comment><USER15> Really? See, I drink mostly decaf espresso, and I'm pretty picky about my coffee, grind my own beans, etc. I can't tell a difference. If it's good coffee, it's good. If not, it's not, no matter decaf or regular. Am I the only one?

<comment><USER6> Really, that's interesting. Maybe I need to give it another try.

<comment><USER15> I mean, I have no doubt in your statement, I don't know many people who can't tell the difference, I just never have been able to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> ryan-allen I've got a headache just thinking about trying to go cold turkey.

I drink 6-8+ cups a day and I have pretty severe sleeping problems.

I love the taste as well, but I certainly don't get a 'buzz' out of it anymore. I just.. drink it.

The advantages seemingly to give it up as a daily habit is the ability to sleep better, and to actually get a kick when you drink it.

Maybe I'll give kicking it it a try, ugh!

</comment><comment><USER16> This article is not about how to break a caffeine habit. It's about the benefits of only taking caffeine occasionally.

<comment><USER17> I agree. I was never even encouraged to do so. I'd still continue my avid coffee drinking habit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I got off alcohol, can live without Red Bull but coffee always seems to find a way back into my life. The quality of sleep after being caffeine free for a week is amazing. But unless you set your own hours, that coffee becomes tempting when you're running low on sleep. I think I'll give it another go though.

</comment><comment><USER19> I used to be addicted to caffeine. If I didn't have some before lunch I'd get a terrible headache. So I used caffeine pills to control my dosage and step off gradually.

One big benefit, I find that my hands are much steadier now. Helps tremendously when soldering.

</comment><comment><USER20> I used to not drink coffee until a friend of mine introduced me to good coffee (i.e. not Maxwell House or Folgers). I normally only drink about 3 cups a week, usually in the afternoons, on busy days when I'm feeling sluggish. If I drink much more than that, I do notice that it loses its effect of waking me up, while simultaneously making it harder for me to sleep. It's kind of a shame, because I really enjoy the taste of good coffee now that I've found it. Making the perfect cup of coffee is a kind of art.

</comment><comment><USER21> I quit caffeine cold turkey about 6 weeks ago. I was drinking one cup a day in the morning, and the odd afternoon cup.

My energy level skyrocketed about a week after I quit. I was waking up an hour earlier on average with no alarm clock, and wasn't groggy like I normally was.

Then Yesterday AM I had a cup in the morning to see what it was like, and I was a productivity madman. Definitely wont be going back to the daily cup, but I think once every couple weeks to get some crazy work done will be a great little trick up my sleeve!

</comment><comment><USER22> The same benefits could probably be achieved by maintaing your current habits and then increasing sharply your caffeine intake at times when you need a boost. It's all relative, right?

<comment><USER23> Caffeine's main effect (though not the only one) is as an adenosine reuptake antagonist. That means that it makes it harder for your body to re-absorb adenosine in your bloodstream. Wikipedia has more detail, but effectively, your body will adapt to regular caffeine intake by increasing the number of adenosine receptor sites. So in the morning, when there is very little adenosine in your blood to begin with, more or less caffeine will not have much effect. But after you've been awake for a long time and there's more adenosine in your blood, increasing the amount of caffeine will not have as much effect because your body already has a lot more receptor sites, it's got some resistance to the effects. But decreasing the amount of caffeine will cause a "crash" where your body starts taking up lots of adenosine all at once.

So, keeping a baseline level of caffeine in your system causes your body to become resistant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> A good practice in general is to rotate your receptors. In this case would mean alternating between coffee, tea, and maté, because each has different analogs in different proportions.

<comment><USER25> Citation needed...

<comment><USER24> I'm not sure if it's ever been tested scientifically. Apparently the advice comes from Jonathan Ott though, in case that gives it any extra credibility.

In general though plant-based medicines have tons of different compounds, so it's important to change the strain every so often or else it A) stops being as effective and B) is more likely to cause side effects. E.g. if you keep smoking the same strain of weed then eventually it is more likely to cause anxiety then if you use a different strain each time. Essentially you want to prevent your receptors (and neural network) from adapting to what you're doing to them, and the best way to do that is to not do the same thing repeatedly.

N.b. this is not the same thing is polypharming, which is generally something to be avoided.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> But I do like the taste of the thing.

</comment><comment><USER27> "Drink coffee and then take a 15 minute nap.". Advice like this makes it hard to take this article seriously. It's also a little thin on the data. Sure, it's an article on caffeine, so it'll rank on the geek sites, but do you feel richer or empowered after reading it?

I used to drink about 5 cups of coffee a day. I stopped cold turkey and life didn't seem worth living. So I scaled back to one cup of really really FUCKING good coffee every day. Jamaican Blue Mountain roasted beans, $40 a pound. That's right bitches. The only thing more expensive has passed through the asshole of a small cat-like creature. You already know what it's called because you're a geek and you're smart. Hey, I like pussy, but that's taking it a little too far.

So I take my one cup of blue mountain black, no sugar, milk or other evil pollutants. Fresh ground, French pressed. And then it's tea for the rest of the day to segway from my morning caffeine kick in the ass to a righteous l-theanine zen buzz.

Drugs are good. Smart drug use is better.

<comment><USER24> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_nap#The_caffeine_nap>

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> If you're breaking a caffeine habit doesn't that imply that you are no longer drinking coffee? That's sort of like saying you are giving up on nicotine but will only have a smoke every now and then. My thinking is you either embrace you vice or avoid it — no?

<comment><USER29> Abstinence is not the opposite of habit.

<comment><USER28> But it's a good start -- no?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Going through withdrawal effects right now. The effects of coffee are great, but they comes at a huge cost for me. Coffee and auto-immune diseases are a recipe for disaster (joint pains).

</comment><comment><USER30> 21 days cold turkey here.

</comment><comment><USER31> I love the comments here. Screw the fact that it's a stimulant drug, it's "just caffeine". How many among the caffiene abusing crowd also go out of their way to demonize other, possibly less legal, drugs with similar or safer effects? Even ones with considerably lower lethal doses.

"How to Break Your Daily Meth Habit And Use Meth Strategically". (edit, I'm not saying meth is an example of a drug "safer" than caffeine), but seriously, meth is used like coffee in many other parts of the world, especially those in migrant jobs or need to maximize their hours when a job is available. (I'm not, for the record, advocating that anyone even so much as try meth).

<comment><USER6> Really? Meth is similar or safer in it's effects?

<comment><USER31> No. Sorry, I should have been more clear. There are other drugs often demonized that have much less stressful effects than caffeine on the body and have lower lethal doses. While there is a lot of scare-mongering about meth as well, obviously meth is not an example of one of those drugs. I apologize that I didn't make that distinction clearer.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, fair enough. Caffeine does tend to get off relatively easily, although I would argue there is good reason for that, when you compare it to alcohol and nicotine for instance...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> You can use your mind to control your adrenal glands, the most productive years of my life were the years I spent not drinking one cup of coffee. Coffee is a drug.

If you are drinking more than one cup of coffee a day, you need to get some help.</comment>


Radiohead video developed using a Velodyne HD Lidar - <AUTHOR> http://www.aaronkoblin.com/work/rh/index.html

<comment><USER2> I've actually done some work with this data. Everything is available on Google Code.

<http://code.google.com/creative/radiohead/>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Note the video is interactive and can be manipulated with your mouse pointer and the menu at the bottom of the video. I recommend checking out some of Koblin's other projects as well. Hope you enjoy! :-)

</comment><comment><USER3> Somewhat related: [http://blog.thejit.org/2008/11/27/using-ocaml-to- visualize-r...](http://blog.thejit.org/2008/11/27/using-ocaml-to-visualize- radioheads-hoc-music-video-part-1/)</comment>


Understanding and Hardening Linux Containers [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.nccgroup.trust/globalassets/our-research/us/whitepapers/2016/april/ncc_group_understanding_hardening_linux_containers-10pdf <comment><USER2> Obviously the author put a lot of effort into this paper. Hard work shows throughout. Kudos to you sir!

Granted I realize the title is "Understanding and Hardening _Linux_ Containers".

However, personally, this just illustrates my frustration and the frustration of others with the Linux world.

They exist in their own little echo chamber. Linux was not the first to create "containers" that are secure. There is no inclusion of other solutions outside Linux.

The reason other solutions do not have these problems is because the authors actually thought about the problem. And if the Linux camp would simply look outside their echo chamber long enough to see how others solved these problems before them this paper might not have been written.

It's just simply frustrating to watch Linux reinvent some wheels, poorly, time after time.

Flame on!

<comment><USER3> Totally agree with you. I fail to see the point of attempting to harden Linux "containers" (Linux actually does not have container technology, since cgroups are not containers). Why bother with that, when illumos, and SmartOS on top of it, provide free, open source Solaris zones technology? Not even installation is required, since the thing runs from random access memory, and can run Linux at the speed of bare metal?

Everybody is just flapping on Linux containers. Meanwhile illumos and SmartOS are eating Linux's lunch with techology which has been working reliably in Swiss banks since 2006, and it is free open source software. What's not to love?

There are T-shirts which say "Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script." Now it's "Go away or I will virtualize your Linux inside of SmartOS." The damn thing runs like a bandit, while Linux containers keep on flapping trying to find a working solution with papers like these. Why bother, the problem has already been solved, go run SmartOS and enjoy a working solution!

<comment><USER4> SmartOS if very nice in theory. I tried to get SmartOS working on a new Supermicro server and failed, even though I got a lot of help from their awesome community and people at Joyent.

Then I tried Linux (Ubuntu) and everything just worked! It was also very easy to find guides on the web for most things Linux.

<comment><USER3> If you want the JustWorks(SM), you have to get hardware which is on the Joyent engineering bill of materials' list, or research and buy hardware which illumos has drivers for.

[http://eng.joyent.com/manufacturing/bom.html](http://eng.joyent.com/manufacturing/bom.html)

SmartOS being descended from Solaris has detailed manual pages built into the operating system, because when one runs a real UNIX, one is entitled to comprehensive documentation with lots of examples.

A lot of the Oracle Solaris documentation, which is also very comprehensive, applies to and can be used on illumos derivatives. The SmartOS wiki and the smartos-discuss mailing list are good sources of SmartOS specific enhancements. Did I mention the built-in man pages yet?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This..... this is the thing every architect attempting to roll containers out to production needs to read and re read

Complexity at scale: Orchestration frameworks (Rancher, MESOS/Aurora, Docker Swarm, LXD, OpenStack Containers, Kubernetes/Borg, etc) are only recently catching up to the container craze, there are too many competing models to list. Many have questionable or unaudited security or leave major requirements out, such as secret management. While containers may be easy to get working within a workstation or a few servers, scaling them up to production deployment is another challenge altogether, even assuming your application stack can be properly ``containerized''

<comment><USER6> _The opinions stated here are my own, not necessarily those of Google._

From my understanding Google was one of the main contributors of the core features that have allowed containers on Linux. Specifically cgroups and LXC. And they have have been running containers for 10 years: [https://research.google.com/pubs/pub43438.html](https://research.google.com/pubs/pub43438.html)

I'm not sure what you consider new, but it's definitely not super new to Google. I'm guessing your issue is that it's fairly new to being used in production across many companies, so security researchers are just starting to work on finding holes in it.

<comment><USER7> This is true but containers for mortals have lagged behind. Especially in management tools. There was cloudvz. Then cgmanage that couldn't run au pid 1 which has security concerns of its own. It wasn't until systemd that a small team could stand up containers with any type of scale. Basically everything before, more or less, took a proprietary config management setup.

<comment><USER8> We stood up containers, on very large scale, in a PaaS, with a very small team, in 2012 (long before systemd, or Docker for that matter, became a major force).

This was made possible by the work done by Serge Hallyn, Stephane Graber, and others at Canonical. They delivered LXC and its integration with AppArmor, which in turn stood on top of the cgroups/namespaces work that Google contributed to the kernel. Ubuntu 12.04 was the release where the ability to securely run containers at scale became available to mere mortals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Exposing /dev/random in containers does not put the system entropy pool at risk. That claim is repeated twice in the paper, and is false.

<comment> josh-wrale Could you link to supporting reference? Is there some smarts in the kernel to namespace, block or limit draining?

<comment><USER10> I assume the original author meant to say: draining /dev/random does not affect the cryptographic quality of the random numbers produced by both devices.

But yes, since there's only one entropy pool, attackers can drain /dev/random, causing other programs that rely on /dev/random to block.

All I can say is: on newer kernels, attackers can still drain the pool by using the getrandom syscall, so unless you block that syscall, not mounting /dev/random does not increase the security.

<comment><USER11> Hi author here.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say. I'll clarify it in a future version.

That's a good point, I'll include that! Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > and a number of other systems such as Mirage OS (a reimplementation of > Solaris Zones).

I'd say that's not entirely correct. At all.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, there are a number of statements about unikernels that are ... somewhat inaccurate.

<comment><USER11> Hi author here. I expected some folks who know a lot more about unikernels might have some feedback. I wanted to cover them because I think they're an interesting from a security perspective/they relate to containers but will admit I don't have much experiance with them. If you have time, I'm happy to fix the inaccuracies, feel free to DM me on twitter / email me? (firstname.lastname@example.com) or (twitter.com/@dyn___). Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> @ 100+ pages, it would be great to get this in mobi or epub format.

</comment><comment><USER15> "Containers are great. It's a shame Linux doesn't have any."

</comment><comment><USER16> _" While Linux Container systems (LXC, Docker, CoreOS Rocket, etc) have undergone fast deployment and development, security knowledge has lagged behind. The number of people focused on container security...seems disproportionately small"_

I agree with this part. Most containers aren't running as an unprivileged user. Those environments that do support it only support it in a very limited set of os/kernel/whatever versions. Somewhat concerning since containers are getting traction almost everywhere.

<comment><USER17> Oddly enough, quite a few people in the runC community (including myself) are working on implementing the ability to start containers without root. If we can get this to work, it will be brought to Docker and you'll be able to start containers without even needing a daemon running as root (although you'd lose some functionality due to deficiencies in some of the kernel interactions with user namespaces -- but it should be more secure than it is now). It does bother me that the Linux kernel community entirely ignored other container implementations.

<comment><USER16> Yes, I've been following the progress, and I see the disconnects across the space. Like this issue: [https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/321](https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/321)

Appreciate your efforts. It is good to know that there are people pushing to get this working.

<comment><USER17> If you're interested, I've got a WIP branch of runC that actually implements working rootless containers. This is really exciting. I'll be writing a blog post soon.

[https://github.com/opencontainers/runc/pull/774](https://github.com/opencontainers/runc/pull/774)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Harden _this_ container!

[http://regex.info/i/pic/2005-09-06_16:03.28__00002.jpg](http://regex.info/i/pic/2005-09-06_16:03.28__00002.jpg)

Ideas: Cross-linked polymer? Switch to glass? Too heavy. Carbon fiber, epoxy resin composite?

<comment><USER19> A unix hacker would wrap it tightly in plastic wrap. Once you're done with the application you can re-use the wrapper.

<comment><USER18> I'm with you: plus the plastic wrap is a small self-contained tool that sort of does one job half-well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Has there been a writeup of the history of Container technology? How did these features find their way into the Linux kernel in the first place? What was the original motivation? (Sandboxing, I would guess.) Who were the stakeholders who pushed those features, and why?

It's weird and wonderful that such technology infrastructure arose and such innovation happens. I'm curious how.

</comment><comment><USER21> The article contains the best explanation of Linux capabilities that I have seen.

Too bad that Docker and other container solutions defaults to rather broad set of capabilities requiring to use things like

        --cap-drop=ALL --cap-add=NET_BIND_SERVICE ...

with typical container invocations to minimize a chance of container escape.

</comment><comment><USER22> And now I wait for a poor soul to summarize those 100 pages in a paragraph or two.

<comment><USER23> TL;DR: Pay attention to arcane details or don't use containers for security related stuff. Also grsecurity.

Honest question: Are illumos zones or FreeBSD jails better designed or is just nobody looking for kernel bugs there? From a usability perspective both win (IMHO) against this Linux mess.

This document is really great through.

<comment><USER11> Author of the paper here. Thanks. As for Jails and Illumos, I would be willing to bet it's people not looking, but I haven't looked, so I can't really say. I agree it's kind of a mess, but it's getting better!

<comment><USER3> You would lose that bet so fast your head would be both spinning and smoking: zones have been hardened and worked on for enterprises since 2006, and in ten years have had three known vulnerabilities, the last two having already been fixed in illumos (and not exploitable without being able to be explicitly run by a user inside of a hypervisor).

As Bryan Catrill has said in one of his talks:

"we walked the trail if tears since our customers were very large companies; if they had a problem, we had a problem!"

The illumos and smartos mailing lists are hyperactive, with bugs being fixed, and new functionality added, which even Oracle Solaris doesn't have -- just subscribe to those two mailing lists and see for yourself. I warn you in advance: be prepared to be buried under the vortex of e-mails.

<comment><USER24> Invoking the Trail of Tears to describe development hardship is, I think, inappropriate. Wish that guy would be a bit more cautious with his metaphors.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How Private Equity Destroys Businesses and Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/business/2009-private-equity/index.html

<comment><USER2> Private Equity is neither private nor equity. It used to be called LBO and then it was re-branded.

It is perfectly legitimate to take on leverage to exploit some opportunity. That's what every startup funded by a loan does. It is a bit more difficult to fund such opportunities in established businesses.

It's would be rare that the parts are greater then the whole or that management is provably so bad you're almost certain to gain a return on investment simply by changing management.

It happens, but it is quite unusual for the markets not to exploit situations like that very quickly, long before it gets to PE or LBO.

So that why are LBOs and PE so common?

For one debt is a multiplier, invest 10, get 12, profit 2. Invest 100, 10 of those equity, 90 leveraged, get 120, pay back 100, profit 10. 10 is way better then 2.

But that's not all. There's also regulation, regulation gives lenders seniority in the bankruptcy process. First common shares are wiped out, then senior shares, then debt, then senior debt. In other words, all the share holders could be wiped out, but the debt holders can still get their money back.

And then there's taxes, debt is often favored in taxed.

So why wouldn't you prefer debt over equity? Debt is almost always better, except when you lose. If you invest 10 and you lose half, you have 5 left. If you borrow 90 invest 100, lose half, you're wiped out and then some.

To improve things, perhaps we shouldn't treat debt so much better then equity when it comes to taxation, and other regulation.

We definitely should have real bankruptcy, not tax payer bailouts.

And we definitely should keep an eye out for situations when the people in charge don't have their own wealth on the line. If they win - big bonuses, if they lose - at worst no bonuses. That's not the correct incentive system, that's a guarantee for disaster.

<comment><USER3> Yes, but the "people in charge" would logically be the stock holders through the board of directors, not the top management in any case. In many ways, the situation where management has enough equity to control the company is the worst, since they can essentially siphon the rest of the company's equity off in bonuses covering this up by inflating the value of the company - indeed, one might well argue that the class of investors has already completely dispossessed by a class manager/"investors" through exactly this process.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Concerning LBOs, the most interesting thing is not that the target firms investors may get hosed, but that these deals are profitable because they exploit the absurd vagaries in the US tax code. The fact that companies have to spend an enormous amount of time and money aligning their capital structure with business needs _and tax constraints_ is not great.

Incentivized debt may be a problem in a country that seems to have problems with debt.

</comment><comment><USER5> Link goes to video. Article (including video) on one page: [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)

starts out rather polemic but really quite interesting, not to mention disturbing. A cautionary tale for mid-size firms that decide to seek private equity rather than an IPO.

 _THL was hardly alone in undertaking this sort of financial engineering, known as a dividend recapitalization._ From 2003 to 2007, 188 companies controlled by private equity firms issued more than $75 billion in debt that was used to pay dividends to the buyout firms. _Asked whether the 2007 dividend was too much for Simmons, Mr. Schoen of THL defended the deal. "That debt financing, which clearly spelled out to the market the use of the proceeds, was extremely well received. The securities were heavily oversubscribed," Mr. Schoen said. "Not only did we think it was appropriate, but the market did as well," he added._

:-|

</comment><comment><USER6> I am afraid this is the predictable consequence of the Fed orchestrated monster credit bubble. These private equity players, through investment banking and other financial intermediaries are able to borrow close to the low Fed-orchestrated rate, while the companies they buy could not access the same cheap money, without which there is no basis for these deals. It was the "Age of the Financier" and every such age ended in mass misery. There is a reason all major religions prohibit usury, and in most traditional societies, making money on money is viewed with discomfort. After all, as the biblical story has it, Jesus chased the money changers from the temple.

The past 25+ years have been a mass redistribution of wealth towards the financial class, discouraging real capital accumulation in favor of playing games with money. This is _not_ a free market at work, as some of these fraudulent "Wall Street Capitalists" would have you believe. Without an ever- accommodating Fed, , they would have been wiped out a long time ago.

</comment><comment><USER7> That was an amazingly annoying interface for watching a video. There is a better link though: [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons.html?_r=1)

It has text too!

Anyway, it's all about how great power and no responsibility is a bad combination.</comment>


The Big Takeover - <AUTHOR> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print

<comment><USER2> I don't get this:

 _the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950. The relevant section, 31 USC 714(b), dictated that congressional audits of the Federal Reserve may not include "deliberations, decisions and actions on monetary policy matters." The exemption, as Foss notes, "basically includes everything."_

Does congress not have the power to change that act?

(please note that I'm not from the US)

<comment><USER3> I have been taught the U.S. Constitution mandates ALL spending must be initiated through Congress. If this is correct, then the above cited Act is not constitutional.

There are many that argue the Fed has long been exercising powers it does not have. We shall see how much longer this behavior continues.

<comment><USER4> (1) Creating money isn't spending. And, technically congress merely controls govt spending and the fed, so the argument goes, isn't really govt.

(2) "The Fed is unconsitutional" argument was lost long ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can anyone supply a link to an article that actually explains the stuff that this article purports to be about? The test of "actually explains" being "explains how to prevent."

<comment><AUTHOR> Matt Tiabbi does write with a certain muckraker-type style, and because it's only an article, it can only go so deep in the story. Having said that, as far as I can tell what he says is pretty much spot on and very much factually correct.

One example: He spends a few sentences explaining how banks created CDOs: take some good loans, take some bad loans, put them together and using some math convince regulators and investors that these things are AAA rated. Wired wrote an article (itself not that detailed) explaining the formula that allowed them to do this: <http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant>

I don't think there _can_ be an article that explains this stuff. Some years from now, someone who is both smart and an excellent writer will be able to look back and write a book that explains everything, but until then this stuff will be about as good as it gets.

Details on "how to prevent" are even harder, and you'll probably have to look at the upcoming G20 summit in April where the Europeans will try to at least start talking about some kind of regulatory framework, while the Americans will just want everyone to throw more money at the same people that fucked things up.

<comment><USER4> > One example: He spends a few sentences explaining how banks created CDOs: > take some good loans, take some bad loans, put them together and using some > math convince regulators and investors that these things are AAA rated.

You write that like it's wrong or in error.

As Google has demonstrated, you can create something that it is more reliable than its parts.

A bundle of somewhat independent things has less variance than the pieces.

<comment><USER6> "somewhat independent" is the crux of the problem. In a crash the only things going up are the correlations. The modelling behind mortgage securities assumed that defaults were uncorrelated based on the short time period they based them on. Now we know better.

<comment><USER4> Misunderstanding correlations among defaults was part of it but the other big surprise was that different asset classes which less independent than thought.

For example, no one expected an increase in mortage defaults to be accomplied by problems in stocks.

In fact, its likely that these two things fed each other, that the unexpected correlation in defaults is at least partly due to the unforseen correlation across asset classes and the unforseen correlation across asset classes is at least partly due to the unexpected correlation in defaults.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> For anyone who still doesn't understand whats going on. Check out <http://crisisofcredit.com/> (already been posted).

</comment><comment><USER8> So why isn't Cassano sitting in jail with Bernie Madoff?

<comment><AUTHOR> Why would he? It's not like he did anything illegal, and if you tried to say what he was doing should be illegal, or at the very least regulated and in the open, then you would have been called a loser socialist who's jealous of financial innovation.

Let's not forget what the prevailing attitude was just a few years ago, and you can still see lots of it left over today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> _No one ever asked you to stay up all night eight days a week trying to get filthy rich shorting what's left of the American auto industry or selling $600 billion in toxic, irredeemable mortgages to ex-strippers on work release and Taco Bell clerks._

Someone did ask for the latter: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act>

<comment><USER10> Facilities like CRA and TIF did not contribute to the housing crisis in the manner you postulate.

They contributed by giving real estate developers political and, more importantly, financial cover for redeveloping inner city areas. The areas redeveloped were full of impoverished people, BUT the areas were not redeveloped FOR the impoverished people. Generally, those people were moved out to section 8 housing, (rentals), and new people would come in. People who were decidedly non poor. Then, of course, those people started to default on their mortgages and the rest is history. Witness the downtown condo boom that happened across the US. Then witness the downtown condo bust that is happening presently. Been to Chicago or Miami lately?

So, in short, the developers never sold their condos to "ex-strippers on work release and Taco Bell clerks". They sold them to retirees, empty-nesters, and a crapload of yuppies and speculators. Now the data coming in right now, at least the data for the developer that I worked for, seems to indicate that selling to yuppies and speculators was a mistake. But the gentrification of those neighborhoods was not a mistake, in my own opinion. I know others may think differently.

<comment><USER11> I have to ask you if you even know what the CRA _is_ , because your description of its effects appear to be based on not knowing. It is a requirement that banks load to people who couldn't afford a mortgage on their own merits because of the politically-oriented belief that the reason why these people couldn't get mortgages was not that they couldn't repay them, but because the bankers are racist.

It is impossible for the CRA to have had any involvement in the creation of an area for "retirees, empty-nesters, and a crapload of yuppies and speculators", because those people would not have qualified under the CRA, what with being relatively rich and all. (Excepting the last one; one of the saddest outcomes in my opinion of this whole mess are those who use the CRA to speculate. Oops.)

The CRA's entire, explicit purpose was the creation of a large number of toxic mortgages, a function it continues to perform. (It is of course impossible that a law so noble, so totally full of those glorious _good intentions_ could be a bad idea, and the idea that it should be repealed is of course racist.) So, as my parenthetical sarcastically points out, that's not how the politicians see it, but it is an accurate description of the act in terms of what it actually does in practice. You can argue about the extent of responsibility it bears, but it is inarguable that it created toxic mortgages to some extent; for the CRA, that is _working as designed_.

<comment><USER10> One of the major issues in this debate is the disconnect in how things like CRA are perceived, and how they are implemented.

If you check the CRA what you will discover is that it is intended to increase lending in 'disadvantaged communities'. That's right, the loans are based on neighborhood, not individual disadvantages. For instance, an impoverished person from inner city Chicago finds a great deal on a house in Evanston, a suburb. CRA does NOT cover this situation, as you imply, because Evanston is not a 'disadvantaged community'. Same guy wants to buy a house in inner city Chicago and CRA DOES cover his situation.

That's where the fun starts!

It's at that point that people like me were helping large development firms come in and buy up property in the 'disadvantaged communities'. You keep just enough poor people to keep the disadvantaged designation and you build condos that sell like hot cakes. Usually you set aside a few units in every building for 'disadvantaged' people to buy. But here's the beauty of it. Most municipalities classify 'economically disadvantaged' as 'at or below the median income' for that municipality.

By way of example, in Madison, WI, at the time, I believe it was $50000 per year that made you 'economically disadvantaged'. Make below $50000 per year, and you would qualify for one of the set aside units. The developer still made a killing, the cities looked like they were helping regular folks, and crime in the downtown areas dropped dramatically.

Of course, now we see the mortgage crisis and the unintended consequences, but it all seemed like a good idea at the time. And parts of it were a good idea.

Now, I don't know who explained CRA to you. But I can tell you unequivocally that for developers tools like this were VITAL. TIF as well. Downtown redevelopment rarely works without them.

IF it is the case that politicians wanted to help these people, then they should have written the law so that it centered on the people and not the neighborhoods. My own opinion is that the real estate development industry probably lobbied hard to have CRA center on the idea of disadvantaged neighborhood. Because the whole thing was just too easy to not have been planned.

In summary, take my word for it, I am VERY well versed with urban real estate development. CRA was not, indeed cannot, be used in the fashion you intimate. If someone told you that CRA obliged a bank to loan to people who could not afford it, then I'm afraid you've been misinformed. CRA obliges banks to lend in NEIGHBORHOODS that are disadvantaged.

It is not by accident that many luxury condo developments are in formerly sketch areas. Nor is it a happenstance that the 'downtown condo' rose to prominence with the expansion of CRA. Go to any major city in the US and find a long time resident to walk around downtown with you. The story s/he will tell you will go something like this:

"Boy, I can remember when this was a really dangerous area. But they really have fixed it up haven't they! When my kid goes off to college, we're thinking of moving down here!"

And finally, as always, don't take my word for it. That was your mistake before, when you took the word of someone else that CRA obliged banks to lend to people who could not afford it. What I would encourage you to do is read through the act your self. Start here, <http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/>. You will see that 'communities' and 'neighborhoods' are the units of interest.

Always get the data on your own kid. There are a lot of people out there trying to manipulate right now. Left wing socialists, right wing corporatists. Trust no one! Go read it for yourself.

<comment><USER12> The problem with CRA is not that it "obliges" banks to lend to people who can't afford it. The problem is that if you don't lend enough money to minorities (who disproportionately can't afford it), the federal bank regulators can block you from acquiring/being acquired by other banks.

For data on default rates see [http://www.huduser.org/publications/affhsg/FHASingleFamily.h...](http://www.huduser.org/publications/affhsg/FHASingleFamily.html)

For data on CRA dollars committed see [http://www.community- wealth.org/_pdfs/articles-publications/...](http://www.community- wealth.org/_pdfs/articles-publications/cdfis/report-ncrc.pdf) (4.2 TRILLION between '92 and '05)

<comment><USER10> Again, CRA is centered around the concept of NEIGHBORHOOD investment. Not investment in minorities. When you say:

<<"The problem is that if you don't lend enough money to minorities (who disproportionately can't afford it), the federal bank regulators can block you from acquiring/being acquired by other banks.">>

I'm confused as to which part of the act you are speaking about. Perhaps you could post the link to the relevant statute, and we can discuss this based on the data.

Regarding the links you provided, again, what is the relative default rate? This is the key piece of data we need. Even better, would be the absolute amounts of money that were defaulted on. That said, I would observe that it is interesting, wouldn't you say, that default rates on FHA HUD loans should be so public, and default rates on the Fannie and Freddy backed stuff so closed. Even more interesting that, as I said in response to your other post, Ginnie Mae should still be solvent considering Fannie and Freddy are basket cases.

Finally, I am uncertain as to how the links you provided support the assertion that CRA precludes banks who don't lend to minorities from acquiring or being acquired. If you would elaborate on the connection I could determine better whether or not I agree with you.

<comment><USER12> Have you actually read the CRA? I guess I'll spell it out for you.

From the NCRC pdf linked above, "Since the passage of CRA in 1977, lenders and community organizations have signed over 428 CRA agreements totaling more than $4.2 trillion in reinvestment dollars flowing to minority and lower income neighborhoods."

From the CRA (<http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-2515.html>)

802.a.1 - `"regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business;"`

803.3 - `the term "application for a deposit facility" means an application to the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency otherwise required under Federal law or regulations thereunder for--`

803.3.E `the merger or consolidation with, or the acquisition of the assets, or the assumption of the liabilities of a regulated financial institution requiring approval`

804.a `SEC. 804. (a) IN GENERAL.--In connection with its examination of a financial institution, the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency shall-- (1) assess the institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institution; and (2) take such record into account in its evaluation of an application for a deposit facility by such institution.`

See also this WSJ article (entered into the Senate record) <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r106:FLD001:S05028>

"Last week the Senate passed a bill over-hauling the regulation of banks, including a provision sponsored by Sen. Phil Gramm (R., Texas), chairman of the Banking Committee, to reform the Community Reinvestment Act. Mr. Gramm's provision has stirred controversy, to say the least. Last month hundreds of ``community activists'' descended on his house, where they pounded on the windows, trampled the landscaping and left the yard covered with garbage."

"The 20-year-old CRA requires banks to serve their entire community. Regulators take banks' CRA compliance into account when deciding whether to approve applications for mergers or expanded services. In the recent wave of bank consolidation, banks have made billions of dollars of loan commitments and signed agreements with numerous community organizations in order to be seen as complying with CRA."

<comment><USER10> I'm not trying to make you angry here, but intellectual honesty demands that I point out the fact that these clauses do not state that banks must lend to minorities. They state that banks must meet '...the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods..." A 'low- and moderate-income' neighborhood in the process of redevelopment has a surprisingly large credit need, though not much of it goes to the 'low- and moderate-income' people living there. I have already gone over the redevelopment thing above. Further, the clause goes on to state, '...consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institution;'. Which is the loop hole that most financial institutions use to get out of their CRA lending obligations when no redevelopment is happening in qualified neighborhoods. In short, banks don't have to lend if they think lending will affect their safe operation.

So you have submitted a set of clauses that say that banks must lend to economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. The clauses you reference do not say that banks must lend to economically disadvantaged people. This is my material point, and the pivot on which the majority of urban redevelopment turns.

Just as an aside, lending encompasses more than just mortgages. For example, I can also qualify for a lot of CRA, or TIF type help if I construct . . . say . . . a small business incubator in one of these economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. The only reason I say that is because I am starting to get the feeling that you believe the entire USD4.2 Trillion was given on mortgage loans for minorities.

<comment><USER13> I feel like I'm reading comments from a (smarter) alternate universe version of myself. I run a small real estate company in Atlanta and bilbo0s is nailing the CRA on the head.

Minorities could not walk into a bank and get a mortgage because they were a minority. That is patently false. However, in my neck of the woods, Atlanta, GA (in Fulton County one of the 35 worst), money was made by developers who "invested" in low income areas.

Areas like the West End and Lakewood saw tons of development during the real estate boom, and then developers disappeared, after they removed the equity from these homes. There are now streets in these neighborhoods where the average price of a home sold is under $35,000, but the foreclosed properties are listed at more than $300K.

@bilbo0s, I would LOVE to talk to you. I'm doing a foreclosure bus tour in a month, and I would love to be able to explain the CRA situation as eloquently as you did on this forum. You can email me at broderick at sktrealty dot com.

<comment><USER10> Thanks a lot to skrealty and tortilla. I don't do blogs, because I believe there are too many as it is. I try to encourage people to go to actual reliable data sources to get information. My thinking is that this will lead to a more informed discussion, and get at least a few more people in the habit of questioning and verifying news and information sources. I think we are all responsible for what Maria Montessori called, "...Creating that habit of hearts and minds necessary to the functioning of a great democracy..."

In this case however, I think I may have hit a nerve here, and that was not my intention. People seem to be getting really angry, so I thought it was best for me to stop commenting.

I'm out of real estate investing now, and currently do tech investing stuff. Mostly gaming like everyone else it seems, but it is keeping me very busy. I do wish you luck with the endeavor though.

Thanks again guys, it is good to know that there are at least a few people I did not offend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> FTA:"The latest bailout came as AIG admitted to having just posted the largest quarterly loss in American corporate history — some $61.7 billion. In the final three months of last year, the company lost more than $27 million every hour. That's $465,000 a minute, a yearly income for a median American household every six seconds, roughly $7,750 a second. And all this happened at the end of eight straight years that America devoted to frantically chasing the shadow of a terrorist threat to no avail, eight years spent stopping every citizen at every airport to search every purse, bag, crotch and briefcase for juice boxes and explosive tubes of toothpaste. Yet in the end, our government had no mechanism for searching the balance sheets of companies that held life- or-death power over our society and was unable to spot holes in the national economy the size of Libya (whose entire GDP last year was smaller than AIG's 2008 losses)."</comment>


Linode Network Issues in Fremont - <AUTHOR> http://status.linode.com/2012/12/fremont-connectivity-issues-1.html

<comment><USER2> The issues have been resolved as of 11:30am (EST) according to the post. Glad to know they were on top of it

</comment><comment><USER3> Heavy rains causing power outages all over the bay area,

</comment><comment><USER4> Fixed in 1.5 hours, I love linode.</comment>


It's not thanks to capitalism that we're living longer, but progressive politics - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/22/progressive-politics-capitalism-unions-healthcare-education <comment><USER2> "Democracy, unions, healthcare and education: these are the forces that matter"

True. But capitalism is the only reason any of these actually work.</comment>


Ask HN: Does Karma really matter? - <AUTHOR> When reading HN, I never look at the user who posted the content and never consider how much Karma that user had at the time of posting. So it's made me wonder, do these things have much influence at all on here? <comment><USER2> There are features that become available after a relatively small amount of karma has been accumulated (e.g. flagging, custom top color), but for story and comment ranking it's a level playing field.</comment>


Is there any Pinboard.in like 'SaaS startup case' you can recommend? - <AUTHOR> Pinboard story was so impressive - Solo founder, Niche product, interesting business model with great results (some stats -https://blog.pinboard.in/2016/07/pinboard_turns_seven/) <comment><USER2> builtwith.com is a solo founder too</comment>


Ask HN: Which (small, indep) programming blogs do you follow? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> not really 'small', but some of the Python related blogs I follow are:

\- [http://pycon.blogspot.in/](http://pycon.blogspot.in/)

\- [http://lucumr.pocoo.org/](http://lucumr.pocoo.org/)

\- [http://inventwithpython.com/blog/](http://inventwithpython.com/blog/)

\- [http://www.blog.pythonlibrary.org/](http://www.blog.pythonlibrary.org/)

\- [http://www.ianbicking.org/blog/](http://www.ianbicking.org/blog/)

\- [http://www.binarytides.com/](http://www.binarytides.com/)

\- [http://www.peterbe.com/](http://www.peterbe.com/)

\- [http://viksalgorithms.blogspot.com/](http://viksalgorithms.blogspot.com/)

\- [http://rz.scale-it.pl](http://rz.scale-it.pl)

\- [http://packetforger.wordpress.com/](http://packetforger.wordpress.com/)

\- [http://blog.pythonisito.com/](http://blog.pythonisito.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> A farily new on that I just discovered (yesterday from another HN post) is [http://blog.daviddworken.com/](http://blog.daviddworken.com/)

</comment><comment><USER4> [http://objc.io](http://objc.io) if you are into mobile development

</comment><comment><USER5> [https://scotch.io/](https://scotch.io/)</comment>


Partner start-up equity  - <AUTHOR>

I read this post (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=877589) and am looking for advice from the other end.
The company's founder has personally invested $15K and raised $50K for 7.5% equity.  He is offering me 15% vested over 3 years.  Also offered for me to invest my own money at the 7.5% rate even though we have $50K on call at 5%.  We are good friends so take that into consideration.
What do you think and what should I be looking out for? <comment><USER2> How much of the product is built? Any customers yet or other proof of the biz model? What value do you bring to the table? How many other founders are there or will there be? How much more funding do you expect?...helps to predict dilution.

The numbers you show don't seem low, but the above helps to shape the discussion more.</comment>


Ask HN: TED like sites/videos? - <AUTHOR>

Are there any other sites like ted.com?  Not looking for talks on any specific field, just a general collection of talks like TED on various topics, and hopefully not too technical. <comment><AUTHOR> wow, thanks for the links. These are the ones mentioned in the comments

<http://mixergy.com>

<http://lanyrd.com/video/>

<http://www.youtube.com/user/ideaCityOnline>

<https://www.youtube.com/atgoogletalks>

<http://longnow.org/seminars/>

<http://www.gelconference.com/videos/>

<http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/videos/>

<http://fora.tv/>

<http://www.sptnk.org>

[http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-collections-of- thoug...](http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-collections-of-thoughtful- online-videos)

<http://videolectures.net/>

<http://bigthink.com/>

<http://igniteshow.com/>

<http://www.dolectures.com/>

<http://academicearth.org/>

</comment><comment><USER2> I do deep, thoughtful interviews with entrepreneurs.

But mine are about 1 hour each.

<http://mixergy.com>

<comment><USER3> Andrew, you have the most interesting and in-depth interviews I've seen. I love that I can always expect enthusiasm coupled with exciting topics when I tune in to Mixergy. Keep up the good work, my friend!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> We collect videos of talks on Lanyrd, through crowdsourcing.

You can search through our full video collection here (1764 collected so far): <http://lanyrd.com/video/>

You can also browse by topic - for example, here are our videos about JavaScript:

<http://lanyrd.com/topics/javascript/video/>

And here's our collection of Ignite videos:

<http://lanyrd.com/topics/ignite/video/>

You can even view videos by particular speakers - for example, here's our page for John Resig:

<http://lanyrd.com/people/jeresig/video/>

Let us know what you think. We're plan to revamp our video listing pages pretty soon.

<comment><USER5> > We're plan to revamp our video listing pages pretty soon.

You should. It looks very "spammy" right now and quite confusing. Other than that, good job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Big Think: <http://bigthink.com/>

</comment><comment><USER7> Google talks are being moved to this dedicated channel: <https://www.youtube.com/atgoogletalks>

Currently 1000+ videos

</comment><comment><USER8> The Sputnik Observatory is filled with videos similar to TED, in a very innovative interface:

<http://www.sptnk.org>

The videos are shorter, but the site tries to link you to similarly interesting conversations, and hopefully expose you to something you weren't aware of. It's also growing rapidly, and will have a lot more video up in the next couple of months!

</comment><comment><USER9> Fora has some pretty sweet videos.

<http://fora.tv/>

</comment><comment><USER10> <http://www.sixtysymbols.com> has a great collection of physics and chemistry clips given by university professors. They're all 5-10 minute tidbits of trivia and general knowledge stuff.

</comment><comment><USER11> GEL Conference: <http://www.gelconference.com/videos/>

Talks by Sal Khan, the Gregory Brothers (they show off their a cappella chops) and others.

</comment><comment><USER12> Ignite puts on events in various locations. 5 min talks on interesting topics, slides advance automatically every 15 seconds. <http://igniteshow.com/>

</comment><comment><USER13> Don't forget the Khan Academy, Bill Gates recognized it as one of his favorite sites on the internet <http://www.khanacademy.org/>

</comment><comment><USER14> Hey,

If ur into audio, try <http://said.fm/>. The content is like a cross between TED and Fora.TV. Brilliant for on the go listening.

</comment><comment><USER15> Do Lectures [1]. Some of their content has been featured on the TED website in the past.

[1] <http://www.dolectures.com/>

</comment><comment><USER16> ontwik has some great talks

<http://ontwik.com/category/startup/>

<http://ontwik.com/category/creativity/>

I really love this talk by Obie Fernandez

[http://ontwik.com/rails/obie-fernandez-mastering-the-art- of-...](http://ontwik.com/rails/obie-fernandez-mastering-the-art-of- application-development/)

</comment><comment><USER17> <http://longnow.org/seminars/>

On average, better than TED, in my opinion, although quality is of course variable.

</comment><comment><USER18> If you are looking for inspirational videos or Interesting videos you can have a look at <http://www.lolzwow.com>

</comment><comment><USER19> Similar to Mixergy and the interviews done by The Startup Foundry.

<http://www.beyondthepedway.com/>

</comment><comment><USER20> I think this is appropriate here: <http://blog.ted.com/2007/08/03/100_websites_yo/>

</comment><comment><USER21> The closest analogy to TED talks is: <http://www.edge.org> Edge : Conversations on the edge of human knowledge

</comment><comment><USER22> Ted-like Conference in Toronto: <http://www.youtube.com/user/ideaCityOnline>

</comment><comment><USER23> It's strange that PopTech wasn't mentioned <http://poptech.org/>

</comment><comment><USER24> Academic Earth: <http://academicearth.org/>

</comment><comment><USER25> <http://www.dailybrink.com>

</comment><comment><USER26> <http://videolectures.net/>

<comment><USER18> videolectures.net videos are generally about technical topic. Mostly related to Machine learning these days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> there's a similar thread on Quora @ [http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good- collections-of-thoug...](http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-collections- of-thoughtful-online-videos)

</comment><comment><USER28> <http://igniteshow.com/>

</comment><comment><USER29> The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce in the UK does some very cool animations explaining stuff, somewhat similar to TED

<http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/videos/></comment>


The Second Realm:Crypto-Anarchy, Tradecraft, TAZ and Counterculture - <AUTHOR> http://anarplex.net/hosted/files/secondrealm/secondrealm.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Jeff Berwick, in Acapulco, Mexico, talks with Smuggler, the author of The Second Realm:

<http://anarchast.com/storage/podcasts/Anarchast_Ep.50.mp3></comment>