Klong: a Simple Array Language - <AUTHOR> http://t3x.org/klong/ <comment><USER2> I read the Klong book [0] and for me it "clicked" in a way that J/K never had. The author did a really nice job paring down the language and cleaning up some of the ambiguities in a way that made it approachable. Also, after reading it I've found APL and J more approachable, which is encouraging.

If you'll forgive the style, I took a swing at implementing k-means clustering in Klong a few months ago [1]. While I did find a few slow-downs with a modestly sized data set (Fisher's iris data), I think Klong is built on a Forth-like VM using the core of a scheme implementation (all of which the author wrote!). It wasn't slow enough to really bother me, as I was more interested in learning about array languages and algorithms.

I'm a fan of Klong -- it's just fun.

[0]: [http://www.t3x.org/klong/book.html](http://www.t3x.org/klong/book.html)

[1]: [https://idle.nprescott.com/2019/k-means-clustering-in- klong....](https://idle.nprescott.com/2019/k-means-clustering-in-klong.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been using Q (built on K) for Advent of Code. It's an amazing language that has made me reconsider what a language and programming should be. I come from a FP background and have always considered abstraction the heart of powerful and expressive programming.

In Q, abstraction is wholly unnecessary. Libraries are unnecessary. I can fit the entire language in my head and all code in the language is built out of the fundamental building blocks of it. There's no layer after layer of abstraction, just a small base of operators and functions.

One might be tempted to compare it to other small languages, like Scheme. But for Scheme it's intended that you build higher and higher levels of abstractions. With Q it's both small and compact, and one rarely if ever feels the need to actually build a library of utility functions or anything really: it renders unnecessary the false prophet of code reuse.

I got interested in Q because some of my friends at other financial institutions were using it for HFT and research on historical tick data. I found it surprising at the time I that their software stacks could be so simple, essentially just a single small executable that entirely fit in the CPU cache that managed both the runtime and their entire database. At the time I thought this was impossible, but now I realize how possible and eminently reasonable this was. Instead of Kafka and Redis and SQL Dbs and Kubernetes and god knows what else, you just have Q. No DevOps bullshit, no containers, no complex shit to manage.

In the past 3 weeks I've had to rethink my philosophy of what software needs to be and have concluded that most of us are doing things very very wrong: we've created this unnecessary world of complexity that is tantamount to masturbation.

Now let's talk about the language itself. It may look complex, but it's actually quite simple. The only real data types are lists, dictionaries, symbols, and numbers. And surprisingly, that's enough. When programming in it I have no desire for classes or objects or trees or whatever, in fact, just using lists and dictionaries can usually solve the problem in a better way.

Also, while Q is interpreted, it's so goddamn fast. I've done some benchmarks against C and Q is about as fast, sometimes even faster. The optimizations the interpreter does are just insane. Not even joking, a single line of Q can accomplish somewhere between 100 to 1000 lines of what the equivalent C code would look like.

Another plus is that editor tooling is unnecessary, I have no need for autocomplete or inline docs because I can literally remember the entire thing. And since Q is so compact, I can view an entire program on a single screen, no scrolling, no jumping between files.

I've also noticed that I can remember the verbatim definition of my code. I can almost perfectly remember my exact code for each Advent of Code solution.

Anyways, good luck on Klong, I'm going to check it out. I don't like J and wish there was a good open source K/Q like language. I don't actually like K because the overloads on function arity creates a lot of complexity (Q does away with this), so Klong might be right up my alley!

For anyone who hasn't tried an array based language, I highly recommend it. Q has expanded my mind more than I thought possible at this point in my career. My last really mind expanded experience in programming was when I picked up Scheme and Haskell in high school. And now after using Q, those languages aren't that great anyways!

<comment><USER4> > Instead of Kafka and Redis and SQL Dbs and Kubernetes and god knows what > else, you just have Q. No DevOps bullshit, no containers, no complex shit to > manage.

What if you need to scale beyond what one machine can handle? Or if you need redundancy and failover? Transactional guarantees? Or need to talk to external systems?

Its easy to build a single-executable no-DB no-container no-devops application in most languages if you don't care about the finer details of building a high scale resilient system that can survive a machine going down or has to talk to third party external systems.

<comment><USER5> Please examine the specs and likely database performance of a Ryzen or Threadripper system with 128gb RAM and several NVME ssds.

You can literally run the database for a multimillion dollar company on one such server.

I don't know what transactional guarantees Q has though.

<comment><USER4> What about redundancy and failover? Serious question, as I am not familiar with KDB+/Q

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> From [https://t3x.org/klong/prime.html](https://t3x.org/klong/prime.html):

{&/x!:\2+!_x^1%2}

This is function that checks if the value given as first parameter x is a prime by running through the numbers 2 to square root of x and applying the function x modulus y, then it looks at the minimum of the resulting list and see if it is 1 or 0. If it is one then x is a prime.

Written in a language with c-style syntax it would be something like:

x -> min((2 .. sqrt(x)).map(y -> x % y)) == 1

Why is Klong simple?

Is it easier to implement, parse and interpretate?

Or is the syntax somehow simpler once you get used to it?

The former maybe; but it doesn't seem to be a part of the language's pitch.

The latter is surely in the eyes of the beholder. I find it counter-intuitive to have so many single character operators & ! : _ with uncommon meaning and precedence rules.

<comment><USER7> This is actually very standard syntax for array languages. Precedence rules may be uncommon, but extremely simple: right to left, that's all; and finding the meaning of each symbol just requires checking in a table. In your c-style example, you are actually using different precedence for each operation (is it (x -> ...) == 1 or x -> (... == 1)?), you have symbols like the dot which mean different things depending on context, a function of two arguments like % works totally different to another one (map), and so on.

The only reason you find the c-style version simpler is because that's what you are used to. But while you have been able to interpret the Klong expression with no experience at all, ask yourself if someone familiar with array languages (and only array languages) would be able to understand the c-style version in a few minutes without having to read an extensive tutorial.

I do not agree simplicity is in the eyes of the beholder. If a language can be totally specified by a few paragraphs and a table, it is simpler than a language that needs a long specification. However, this does not mean the simpler language is simpler to use. That, indeed, is a subjective matter.

<comment><USER8> > The only reason you find the c-style version simpler is because that's what > you are used to.

Well, yes. But we're taught infix notation early (x+y), and function application quite early too (y=f(x) - and in combiation (also note short-hand eliding multiplication): f(x) = 2x + 1).

I still find array languages to be too dense for me - but I do understand that they are simple from a certain point of view.

<comment><USER3> I did too, but just try them out for a week, you'll love it. Moreover array based language like Q do have infix notation.

f(x)=2x+1

In Q is

f:{1+2*x}

You could call it with: f 5 or f[5]. It's really not any different.

<comment><USER8> Hm, I could see myself playing with it - but I'm not quite seeing how I'd fit it into my day job. I do occasionally work with some simple aggregation and filtering - but usually in an sql db - and barring embedding an array language, I'd have to fetch all the data into eg: klong first, then process. It's hard to imagine a scenario where that would make sense.

Otoh, I'm still considering working through advent of code - such domains should be well suited, I guess.

<comment><USER3> If you're writing business logic, I'm not sure how helpful array-based languages are. The code would look very similar to a normal language, but without the classes or methods or objects.

For advent of code, it really shines though. Read in some big chunk of data, do a bunch of matrix and list operations to get the answer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is the right to left order common to all array language? It sure doesn't help onboarding..

<comment><USER10> It is for APL and derived languages (APL, J, K, A, A+, Klong)

And .. well, if you want C or Java, use C or Java.

Quickly, which is higher precedence, "&" or ">" ? You may have memorized them, but many people get it wrong often enough. APL has a very simple and consistent rule: There is no precedence in an expression except paranthese, and you go right to left.

And it may seem to not help with onboarding if you skim, but if you take the time it clicks quickly for most people, especially if you consider that "right to left" is actually "left of right", e.g. (note, a|b is the maximum of a and b, not the bitwise or)

        1 + 2 * 3 + 4 | 5

is read and understood as:

        (1 + ...) applied to ((2 * ...) applied to ((3 + ...) applied to (4 | 5)))

read another way (note: using python syntax)

        def f(x): return 1+x
        def g(x): return 2*x
        def h(x): return 3+x

It is equivalent to

        f(g(h(max(4,5)))

But one argument K/APL functions need no parentheses, so you would have written it

        f g h 4|5

But with "f", "g" and "h" inlined you get the original expression back.

It is different - but it is simple and consistent without any arbitrary precedence and associativity rules.

Also, it's not a new idea; APL predates every other programming language still in use except, perhaps, Fortran, Lisp and COBOL -- of which only Fortran uses operator precedence and associativity in the modern C/Algol sense. Lisp is also consistent (though with a different route than APL took). And I'm afraid to describe COBOL in fear that cthulu will rise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is there something like kdb for klong? How does it preform vis-a-vis the better known array languages?

<comment><AUTHOR> If you need performance, klong probably isn't for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Besides the discussion about the GDPR which is offtopic (and in my opinion it's not handy to be openly political if you want uptake of your product as it's not related to your product but it does taint it (as can be seen here); maybe in the 'about' or 'privacy' it would fit, but that is a matter of opinion), great work on Klong and I'll buy your book to read over xmas.

I have been playing (quite a lot; to the extend my wife got me a t-shirt with some k on it for my birthday :) with Shakti(k7) for a few months now and been working through the Dyalog tutorials.

Keep up (that part) of the good work!

Edit: bought the book and started reading

<comment> nils-m-holm Thanks! Enjoy the book!

<comment><USER11> Can I mail you feedback if I have any?

<comment> nils-m-holm I would appreciate it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> At this point Python/Numpy is really the array processing language I prefer to use. You can even use libraries like Cupy to switch the backend from BLAS/LAPACK to Nvidia CUDA libraries, which makes it lightning fast, often improving performance by 100x. And the requirement for arcane runes in Numpy is much less than APL or J.

Also the various libraries and functionalities that plug into Numpy is countless and extremely powerful.

There's also [https://futhark-lang.org/](https://futhark-lang.org/) which might be an improvement in writing array processing kernels.

<comment><USER13> > arcane runes

What does that mean?

<comment><USER14> APL (and I assume J) uses a large range of special graphic symbols as part of its syntax, which can be difficult to internalize for folks coming from other languages. It can be easily construed as mysterious or magical lettering (arcane rune). My favorite video to illustrate this is Conway's Game of Life written in APL: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9xAKttWgP4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9xAKttWgP4)

<comment><USER10> J and K stick to Ascii (though recent K seems to accept a unicode "sqrt" sign, and "pi" character with the expected meaning).

I do find some J choices questionable - e.g. '}' and '{' are used as individual operators, rather than a parenthetical pair - which confuses editors without a special J mode, and humans who switch between languages often - but if you use it enough, it's easy to get used to; Also, K keeps () {} and [] as parenthetical pairs, like they are in C/Java/Python etc

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Found this disclaimer sad and reminiscent of the endless and useless cookie prompts in the EU

 _Note: This text used to be interactive, but is no longer, thanks to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which makes it virtually impossible for small, non-commercal sites to "process user data" (like your input) without contacting a lawyer first._

<comment><USER16> You could make a statement like that about any law.

Eg many EU countries also have laws against hate speech, but I saw nobody take down their hobby hacks because of those.

<comment> nils-m-holm > You could make a statement like that about any law.

If you can, you should. There are too many totally bogus laws!</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Learning PHP Suggest Book - <AUTHOR>

I am learning PHP. This is practically my first programming language but I am not a newbie at programming. I have done C programming during graduation. Please suggest a good book. I purchased Programming PHP 3rd Edition O'Reilly. The book is crap and does nothing for clarifying core concepts of PHP. The book looks to me nothing more than an edited version of online PHP manual.<p>Please suggest a book which clarifies core fundamentals and concepts. <comment><USER2> I fond the first part of Programming PHP good as it went over the commands really well and gave some nice examples of use.

I started with Visual Quickstart Guide to PHP (current ed: [http://www.amazon.com/PHP-Web-Visual-QuickStart- Edition/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/PHP-Web-Visual-QuickStart- Edition/dp/0321733452/ref=sr_1_1) ) It covers a lot of ground on the basics, and was very happy with it.

Once you get going php.net's on-line manual is a super reference, has the command, how to use it and a followup discussion that usually well covers any bugs, alternatives and gotchas. I usually search in it via google.

I guess the main thing is like most languages there are many many ways to do the same thing... So, one book showing building a sample bookstore app may do it one way and an other book will do it completely different. When you get to that type of tutorial you just got to check the sample sections on each one till you find a method you're comfortable with.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't have a good book to recommend but I've always thought that PHP has some of the best online documentation of any languages/frameworks that I work with.

PHP Manual: <http://www.php.net/manual/en/index.php>

[Edit] Derp I just noticed that you mention the manual at the end of your initial post.

<comment><USER4> One of the nice things about php is how convenient it is to find function details and examples: [http://php.net/<function_name>](http://php.net/<function_name>);

The left-hand sidebar also lists all related functions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> When I learnt PHP I didn't really needed a book. What I put on my pipeline was like 'build a small blog cms'. I then figured out how to do it, applying also my previous C language knowledge and digging the manual for syntax and functions specs.

After having it working in a very "procedural" way I started to make it OOO compliant (it was PHP4) and then I refined it for some times.

I have a question, btw... How could it be that you are not a newbie to programming but PHP is your FIRST programming language?

<comment><USER6> That last part made me laugh out loud

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://www.amazon.com/dp/0672329166>

This is "the" php book that everybody uses to learn php and mysql. It's also the book I used years ago. It covers both php and mysql, which is good because both are consistently used together.

</comment><comment><USER7> I liked the looks of <http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596804381.do> when I browsed it in a bookstore. But I got my start with the book citizenkeys recommends, and largely I get by with the on-line documentation.

</comment><comment><USER8> I had a php book from apress and all it did is confuse me. To tell you the truth I learned php from lynda.com (structure of a small project ) and from php.net (the most amazing documentation) the rest comes when you work on real life projects</comment>


Vulnerability That Allowed Hackers to Take Over WhatsApp and Telegram Accounts - <AUTHOR> http://blog.checkpoint.com/2017/03/15/check-point-discloses-vulnerability-whatsapp-telegram/ <comment><USER2> This applies to the web versions of these apps.

While this is painful advice, if you need the security protections of WhatsApp or Signal, don't use those apps on the desktop. The web/desktop versions are only as secure as the OS and browser underneath them. Instead, use them on a late-model iPhone or iPad (with a bluetooth keyboard if screen keyboards drive you nuts).

Don't use Telegram at all.

<comment><USER3> > Don't use Telegram at all.

Care to elaborate on that?

<comment><USER2> Telegram uses a custom protocol that makes professional cryptographers like Matthew Green tweet things like this: [https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/72642891296898252...](https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/726428912968982529?lang=en)

WhatsApp and Signal use the Signal protocol, which has a good reputation among working cryptographers (who I hope we'll hear from in this thread).

<comment><USER4> The greatest problem with the Telegram encryption is that nobody I know uses it. Why?

1\. It's not default.

2\. Encrypted chats don't sync between devices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> When you boil it down, these are both just moderately complex stored XSS attacks, right? Construct a weird video or image, get it stored on the Telegram/WhatsApp servers, and if the user is using the web interface, they could trigger the malicious code by clicking on the image or opening the video in a new tab.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, this is literally just stored XSS. The fact that they don't even mention XSS in the article just amplifies its click-baitiness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting that this post references the CIA Wikileaks publication, but does not explicitly say that the exploit was found via those leaks.

It would be very big news if that were the case. Major news outlets such as the New York Times[0] have slammed Wikileaks for using "misleading" language to describe the leaks, specifically in reference to WhatsApp.

I hope the author will clarify how they came across this exploit.

From the NYT article:

> In their haste to post articles about the release, almost all the leading > news organizations took the WikiLeaks tweets at face value. Their initial > accounts mentioned Signal, WhatsApp and other encrypted apps by name, and > described them as "bypassed" or otherwise compromised by the C.I.A.'s > cyberspying tools.

> Yet on closer inspection, this turned out to be misleading. Neither Signal > nor WhatsApp, for example, appears by name in any of the alleged C.I.A. > files in the cache.

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/opinion/the-truth- about-t...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/opinion/the-truth-about-the- wikileaks-cia-cache.html)

<comment><USER8> >I hope the author will clarify how they came across this exploit.

These bugs didn't come from wikileaks.

>Major news outlets such as the New York Times[0] have slammed Wikileaks for using "misleading" language to describe the leaks, specifically in reference to WhatsApp.

Still wouldn't explain their claims about Signal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is only if you use the web client? The article almost goes out of its way to implicate mobile clients, but my understanding is they're not affected?

<comment><USER10> That is my understanding as well. It's written like a media prop -- I mean, look at this:

> bypass Telegram's upload policy and upload a malicious HTML document with a > mime type of a video file "video/mp4". Then, they were able to send it to > the victim side in an encrypted channel through telegram servers.

It's only missing the words "cyber" and "darknet" to make it complete, but they just upload html with javascript (malicious or not) and it happens to be over https.

So it's a bit obfuscated, but yeah it seems to only affect the web clients.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Can someone more involved with security than me describe what the authors mean when they say files will now be "validated" by WhatsApp and Telegram before being sent?

<comment><USER12> In very basic terms it means that some level of sophisticated file type and content-type verification will be performed in a manner that is theoretically secure. For example, Whatsapp shouldn't have allowed HTML to be uploaded if it's disguised as an image thumbnail. That's pulling a page right out of 2002.

This is very easy to do 80% of the way, and difficult to do with the remaining 20%. The last mile of file validation is extremely fickle because it requires an understanding of what the uploading library is doing under the hood. You can minimize your risk by carefully choosing files to accept, understanding how they're parsed by your libraries and correctly disallowing everything else.

Practically speaking, you should at a minimum:

1\. Whitelist acceptable file types,

2\. Perform server-side, not client-side validation,

3\. Validate the file types not only by extension, but by contents,

4\. Disallow filenames from being set by user input, and ideally hash them before presenting them back,

5\. Store the files on a separate host/CDN,

6\. Only allow the uploader to retrieve files uploaded by the user, and not from local or remote resources. If you must allow local directories, maintain strict permissions, and do not allow loopback resources.

That's a great start. To go further, you should investigate which library to use carefully and consider how legitimate files you are choosing to whitelist can still be dangerous. For example, you can trigger an XSS with a valid SVG. You can attack system memory with fraudulent JPG sizes. You can trigger server-side request forgery by uploading 127.0.0.1, etc.

<comment><USER13> For simple image types, you can avoid a lot of this machinery by always resizing and converting images serverside, so that attackers simply don't have control over the bits of any image they upload. This used to be the recommended countermeasure back when GIFARs were a thing.

Obviously, a trickier problem when those images are encrypted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Statement from @durov - [http://telegra.ph/Checkpoint-Confusion- NEWS?1](http://telegra.ph/Checkpoint-Confusion-NEWS?1)

Because both are Web versions, I'd rate Whatsapp one as 6/10 severity and (due to how hard it is to trick the user) Telegram as 3/10.

Don't have stats but given how inconvenient Web versions are, I don't think they are widely used.

<comment><USER15> I would say more people use WhatsApp Web than Telegram (percent, not absolute numbers). Telegram does have a desktop client, while WhatsApp Web is the only choice if you want to reply to something from your desktop (taken third- parties aside).

<comment><USER16> WhatsApp does actually have a desktop client. It's nothing spectacular, but works well enough.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So basically, you can upload HTML and have users of the web client run the code on the Telgram/Whatsapp domain by sending it with another MIME type such as mp4?

I use Telegram Desktop but this should have showed up in any security test, which they apparently didn't do. As a pen tester, maybe I should take it upon myself to audit stuff that I use now and then...

<comment><USER17> it's very easy to say "wow they should have tested for that" in retrospect with any vulnerability

<comment><USER10> Definitely, which is why I said: any security audit would have found this, so I'm guessing they never had any.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> LOL, these are literally just XSS attacks, the sky is not falling. This is such clickbait. Posts like this make the security community look bad IMO. Report it and move on.

<comment><USER18> OLOL LITERALLY!?! What's your problem dude? A single XSS vulnerability can have severe impacts up to a compromise of a system when sensitive data from authorized users are stolen.

<comment><USER6> XSS is the most common bug on the internet, and there is nothing interesting or novel about this that warrants an article in my opinion. My problem is that this article makes people scared in a way that I do not think is productive. Kudos to whoever found the bug for finding it and making everyone safer, but I thought the article was needlessly clickbaitey. I agree I should probably be less cavalier-sounding though, sorry.

<comment><USER18> No offense. The widespread of XSS makes it not less harmful. Although attacks with XSS vulnerabilities requires further actions by the attacked users, these are often easily provoked. IMHO a vulnerability shouldn't be rated by its trivialness but by its impact.

Still I think checkpoint is doing clickbaiting, regarding to their description of the vulnerability and Telegrams reply.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Life artifically created in a lab - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/science?type=scienceNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B80EKKDZW7XjzuNGrifTUKY&src=blogBurst_scienceNews&bbPostId=B4Hj78ZQkrFHCz48ED92G5hvRBABS3ODDbJWYB3Y76CKpfMQk&bbParentWidgetId=B80EKKDZW7XjzuNGrifTUKY <comment><USER2> It's not a cell and it definitely isn't life; it's just DNA and few enzymes trapped in a lipid vesicle. People have been doing this for years.

</comment><comment><USER3> I suppose that depends on your definition of life.

Not to downplay the results, as they are impressive, but replicating existing DNA does not qualify as "creating life" in my books.

</comment><comment><USER4> Potentially an important contribution to synthetic biology but quite frankly the article/blog post is appallingly written and very unclear on the scientific detail, so it's hard to assess the findings. I'm surprised Reuteurs published this, even if they do accompany it with a disclaimer distancing themselves from it. Very poor.

</comment><comment><USER5> If it's true - good! Next up, artificial consciousness. But we need to learn to detect it first.

</comment><comment><USER6> God, news agencies are so gullible these days! First it was BBC swallowing the story about the magically-regrown finger via "pixie dust" hook, line, and sinker and now we have Reuters equating DNA to life........

<comment><USER7> "The following blog post is from an independent writer and is not connected with Reuters News. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not endorsed by Reuters.com."

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is it just me or do the 'references' bear little relevance to the post? I think I'll wait for more details to be released in a peer reviewed journal before I get excited.

</comment><comment><USER8> To sat the title to this submission is a stretch is kind. Interesting article, nevertheless.</comment>


The ACME Protocol is an IETF Standard - <AUTHOR> https://letsencrypt.org/2019/03/11/acme-protocol-ietf-standard.html <comment><USER2> What will Wile E. Coyote say?</comment>


Five Technologies Tim O'Reilly Says Point Past Web 2.0 - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/five_applications_tim_oreilly_says_point_past_web20.php

<comment><USER2> > 2\. Gracenote's CDDB

Gracenote. Probably the first community-sourced data store (take that, Wikipedia)

Also, Tim O'Reilly fails to mention (or maybe deems it not important) that Gracenote ripped off the work of thousands of dedicated users who manually typed in song information by selling it to Sony et al.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps "ripping off the work of thousands of dedicated users" needs to be included in definition of Web 3.0 ?

<comment><USER4> Nah, that's still a part of 2.0.</comment></comment></comment>


Assange needs to take care of his cat, or it'll be given away, Ecuador says - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/10/16/17984140/julian-assange-wikileaks-ecuador-london-embassy-cat <comment><USER2> Outside the embassy there is some volunteer beaming in 4g WiFi hotspot with no password nearly every day for assange to connect to (with a vpn obviously) if he so wishes.

He uses it pretty regularly (according to people who packet sniff it), but still doesn't post on twitter.</comment>


How to Avoid Work: A 1949 Guide to Doing What You Love (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.brainpickings.org/2012/12/14/how-to-avoid-work/

<comment><USER2> I respect Maria Popova a lot but this is a rather insipid collection of motivational quotes and vintage photos. Instead of reading it as a piece of self-help, look at it as a continuation of the Protestant work ethic: that our good works in the world put us in a state of grace with God. It's just a modern twist on the idea that what you do is who you are, which I personally have always found a little reductionist, even classist.

<comment><USER3> > classist

Apparently, you're not alone in that sentiment:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/01/...](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/01/do_what_you_love_love_what_you_do_an_omnipresent_mantra_that_s_bad_for_work.html)

HN discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7084381](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7084381)

Odd coincidence: both authors seem to have studied at U. Penn (possibly at the same time).

<comment><USER2> The greatest quote in that Slate article: "Job creation goes both ways." Who can do what they love without the labor of those who can't?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I thought the Hunter S. Thompson article linked from the sidebar offered far more interesting advice regarding finding direction and life's fulfillment:

[http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/11/04/hunter- s-t...](http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/11/04/hunter-s-thomspon- letters-of-note-advice/)

<comment><USER5> I agree. It was pretty powerfull stuff:

 _I'm not trying to send you out "on the road" in search of Valhalla, but merely pointing out that it is not necessary to accept the choices handed down to you by life as you know it. There is more to it than that — no one HAS to do something he doesn't want to do for the rest of his life._</comment></comment>


The Science Behind 'Brain Training' - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/the-science-behind-brain-training/283634/

<comment><USER2> I work for a company that combines wearable technology with iOS brain training games (with neurofeedback and cognitive techniques) and which has yielded similar results in high performance athletics. Like Cogmed, clinical trials will take years to validate - but our early stage adopters, organizations like Red Bull and sports franchises like the Seattle Seahawks, continue to see meaningful results and are very upbeat.

[http://www.senselabs.com](http://www.senselabs.com)

<comment><USER3> Does your Chief Science Officer really have a PhD from Capella University?

<comment><USER4> according to his linkedin, he has 2 PhDs from Capella, first in Psychology, then a respecialization in Sports Psychology

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In this same vein, people here might be interested in Lumosity[0]. I've been using it for a few months, on and off (I'm terrible about not doing it consistently each day), and it's interesting enough that I'd probably recommend at least trying it to most anyone.

It's hard to say whether I'm just getting better at the games themselves through repetition, rather than improving the underlying skills necessary to play them, but I definitely have improved significantly over time.

[0] [http://lumosity.com](http://lumosity.com)

<comment><USER6> I did Lumosity for some time. It's quite evident you get better at some of the games through learning the game mechanics and optimizing around that. It's not clear why that would necessarily transfer to general cognitive abilities. I had some pretty good scores so it made me feel smarter ;-) (I wonder if everyone has good scores?)

For a software developer, wouldn't it make more sense to practice something closer to home? Learn a new programming language? Solve some programming problem? You'd think that if your cognitive abilities can improve through challenge (the "brain as a muscle theory") this would stimulate that and it would almost certainly also be a benefit because it is more specific (so even if your overall cognitive abilities don't improve your programming skills almost certainly would).

<comment> B-Con I used Lumosity for about a year. I did it fairly consistently about every other day and my wife did it with me about every third day.

Personally, I thought it helped. I'm obviously a very biased source and a good number of biases come into play if I try to evaluate it's effectiveness on me. But for what it's worth, after doing it consistently I felt like I was a little more mentally alert in areas of life that I had been weaker. And so was my wife. Without going into the details, I think we both boosted some of our weak points a little.

If nothing else it was a fun way to warm up my brain in the morning.

<comment><USER6> I have a little anecdote there... My wife started playing some of the games on my account and that really impacted my engagement because the scores were now a mix of both of us. Just shows the importance of gamification and how it can be messed with...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Dual-N-Back is a simple, brutal way to stress your working memory, and there are a lot of studies behind it.

[http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ](http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ)</comment>


China Tries Its Hand at Pre-Crime - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-03/china-tries-its-hand-at-pre-crime <comment><USER2> Alot of people here are somehow turning this into a USA/NSA bashing but thats a straw man. The fact of the matter is you can't be imprisoned in the US for a crime you haven't committed or at least that judge and jury haven't deliberated on. Can you say the Chinese have the same safeguards ...probably not? Yes, governments have and always will have the vested interest to retain their power but that's why we must have our rights and legal system. I feel like the Chinese don't share this luxury as much as we do.

<comment><USER3> >The fact of the matter is you can't be imprisoned in the US for a crime you haven't committed or at least that judge and jury haven't deliberated on.

Kevin Mitnick spent 4.5 years in jail waiting for trial.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick#Arrest.2C_convic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick#Arrest.2C_conviction.2C_and_incarceration)

<comment><USER4> Look at Julian Assange's situation. He has prominent academics, human rights lawyers and the UNHCHR on his side, and Sweden/UK/US have still basically imprisoned him with no trial in exchange for never breaking a law. China is definitely no worse. I feel safer here in China than in the US with its overbearing corrupt police gangs and litigious gun culture, by far.

<comment><USER5> Whatever you think of Julian Assange, "imprisonment without trial" has been his choice. If he were to leave the embassy, he fairly certainly would receive a trial.

<comment><USER4> How can you believe that when they literally forced down diplomatic planes over Europe for just _some_ of the leaks the US are out to get him for? When the whole Swedish bar association is up in arms at the abuse of process and Swedish image related to the farcical charges? When the documents about his police statements there were all leaked and clearly show his innocence from the allegations? To me, your thought process just seems naive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why is it framed as totalitarian and unfair when China do what the US has been doing since 2001?

<comment><USER7> Yup. From the article -- "The bottom line: A top Chinese military contractor is building a data analytics platform to help authorities identify terrorists before they strike." So.... excactly what NSA does (alone and with private commercial ventures). I thought there was going to be an aspect of identifying potential for crimes and rounding people up who haven't done anything yet (which would be a step beyond what NSA and company have done. But nope, It's exactly what we've done for over a decade.

A few other things from the article: "The government revealed last year that it was also building a nationwide database that would score citizens on their trustworthiness." ... I doubt we do this. It seems like NSA data collection is broad and encompassing, but not detailed analysis on every single US citizen. Sounds inefficient if the goal is to stop terrorism.

Also FTA -- "New antiterror laws that went into effect on Jan. 1 allow authorities to gain access to bank accounts, telecommunications, and a national network of surveillance cameras called Skynet."

Skynet?! Really?! Come on China. It was a movie not a playbook!

<comment><USER8> No one would confuse NSA data collection as effective at stopping potential criminal attacks. If the government was truly worried about US deaths, it would be looking at drunk driving, lung cancer, and heart disease in earnest, some half million deaths a year.

No, both the NSA and Chinese efforts are aimed at identifying and suppressing dissent. We're not that different.

<comment><USER9> _If the government was truly worried about US deaths, it would be looking at drunk driving, lung cancer, and heart disease in earnest, some half million deaths a year._

This is a silly statement. Fighting terror is more than just preventing deaths. It's preventing the destabilization of a society, of markets, etc.

Not all deaths have an equal impact.

<comment><USER8> The only impact terrorism has had on our society has been to open the door for a security versus rights discussion. The power grabbing government is destabilizing society, not the terrorists.

<comment><USER10> The families of the 3000 dead on 9/11 might disagree with you.

Look, I agree with you in general. We over-reacted, and it has hurt us. But to say that terrorism has had no impact is overstating your case.

<comment><USER11> I grew up right outside DC (a few blocks from NIH) and while I didn't lose anyone on 9/11, I came pretty close and know plenty of people who did.

The freedom we lost on 9/11 make the lives we lost pale in comparison. People grieve but get over the loss of their loved ones. Death is a normal part of life, however horrific, and people can cope with it.

The things I've seen since 9/11, some of them I find harder to cope with. Police carrying submachine guns on street corners; every government building sprouting snipers and anti-tank barricades and razor wire; oblique-angled antennae-sprouting APCs and god knows what else carrying legions of power- armored riot police at every protest. America looks scarier now. It's hard to feel safe in an environment like this, where you feel besieged by an invisible enemy.

Of course, this is exactly the intention of the people carrying out these policies, and ironically, also the intention of the terrorists. Politics make strange bedfellows indeed -- it's not hard to see how the Pentagon has seized on terrorism as a way to increase its own power, and conversely, as the Pentagon acts against "global terror," "global terror" is able to ratchet up the propaganda and recruit even more jihadists to the cause.

Terrorism has had an impact because people in the United States wanted it to.

<comment><USER12> Invisible enemy?

I probably wouldn't be able to spot a genuine terrorist if it leaped out from behind a bush and shouted "boo!" But I have noticed how cops and bureaucrats and securibots have become more paranoid and fearful over the last 15 years.

It has even created some kind of bizarre psychological feedback loop, wherein some cops use widespread belief in a mythical "war on cops" to cover up anything from honest mistakes to outright corruption, and the stories they make up reinforce the myth. Then formerly normal and expected behavior, such as protesters hurling verbal abuse or criminal suspects committing violence to evade capture, is recruited into the myth, becoming part of a coordinated conspiracy instead of just normal behavior. At some point, when the cops have thoroughly convinced themselves that someone is out to get them, and armed and trained themselves for war, another hand rises up to meet the one that was clapping, and the mythical war begins recruiting soldiers into the de facto opposing army. Treat people like your enemy for long enough, and they may oblige you by becoming one in fact.

This is exactly the same phenomenon I have seen in foil-hatted crackpots. Once you get it in your head that lizard people are ruling the Earth, confirmation bias takes over, and you start seeing evidence of lizard people everywhere. If you stand up in the local city council meeting and accuse one of the members of being a lizard in disguise, you get thrown out of the meeting for being a disruptive lunatic, but in your mind it is because they don't want you blowing their cover. If you get a speeding ticket, it's because the lizard people have targeted you for retributive harassment. If your milk spoils before the sell- by date, it's because they're sneaking into your house and tampering with your food when you're away.

You just cannot combat that kind of contagious insanity with facts and logic.

The tiresome, paranoiac behavior of government officials just makes us all less tolerant of their ordinary, everyday bullshit. And that makes the marginal individuals, like the Ammon Bundy "Y'allQaeda" sit-in group at Malheur NWR, act out. And that winds the government officials up tighter. And that encourages the next group to blow their lids. And that winds the government officials up tighter....

Someone will eventually have to realize that government is manufacturing its own dissent, by acting like a bunch of dangerous lunatics. If it would just take a deep breath and do a little bit of introspection, it will become obvious just who needs to be fired in order to halt the spreading madness, and who needs to be promoted in their stead to reverse it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > "We don't call it a big data platform but a united information environment." > —Wu Manqing, China Electronics Technology

Sounds familiar:

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

<comment><USER14> i wonder whether the "united information environment" can be a result of to_English(to_Chinese("intelligence fusion"))

[https://www.dhs.gov/state-and-major-urban-area-fusion- center...](https://www.dhs.gov/state-and-major-urban-area-fusion-centers)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I was expecting preemptive street policing, like the software this company provides (and is used by several police forces around the US): [http://www.predpol.com/about/](http://www.predpol.com/about/)

</comment><comment><USER16> What amazes me is that dang'an system is even functional.

As for pre-crime crime forecasting has been part of policing for at least as long as I have been alive. The Rand report from 2013 title _Predictive Policing_ being the latest report I know of - [http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/R...](http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR233/RAND_RR233.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER17> Watchbird[1] incoming?

[1]. [https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29579](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29579)

</comment><comment><USER18> "In China, once a suspect is targeted, police can freeze bank accounts and compel companies to hand over records of his communications."

Can we expect them to strongarm companies like Apple that offer secure communications channels, such as imessage? It will be interesting to watch how Apple navigates those waters.

<comment><USER19> One can watch this playing out in the US for a precursor. The weird NY Times comment and its retraction that Snowden commented on is relevant here. [https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/700073024373047297](https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/700073024373047297)

Edit: Thinking more, where in the world is does police targeting not cause problems. Here in New Zealand there have been several recent cases of massive overreach that resulted in no charges or just a huge clustersf*&k. Dotcom, the Nicky Sagar searches etc. There are recent cases in the US and UK that come to mind fast too, often with reporters being targeted.

<comment><USER20> They expanded it into a full article a couple days later: [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/technology/apple-sees- valu...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/technology/apple-sees-value-in- privacy-vow.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Another day, another China-bashing propaganda piece from Bloomberg... Seriously, it's become too obvious.

<comment><USER22> While we're bashing that site, the webpage spontaneously reloaded itself _three times_ while I was reading that article, each time sending me back to the top of the page. A bit annoying, to say the least.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> US drones already do lots of pre-crime targeting [1]

1\. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone- st...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone- strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff)

</comment><comment><USER24> One step closer to our Psycho-Pass future.</comment>


Virtualmin - YC startup in Venturebeat - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2007/07/17/virtualmin-better-sysadmin-for-your-growing-web-site/#more-21173

<comment><USER2> Great piece by venture beat, the one liner that started off the piece was perfect. Throwing in the Webmin bit will definitely garner a few phone calls from Sand Hill. Much success to Joe and Jamie!

</comment><comment><USER3> VA is the most promising startup of all YC companies I've heard of, if you ask me. Under-hyped and over-delivering.

</comment><comment><USER4> thanks.

got a story? reach me at email@example.com.

if you've emailed and haven't heard back, could you do so again?

</comment><comment><USER5> It's funny cause I could barely finish the article with all those cash registers ringing in my ears.

Seems like ycombinator did it again.

</comment><comment><USER6> Congrats! As a long-time user of webmin I can easily see you being very successful.

</comment><comment><USER7> congrats guys. looks like you're poised for success.</comment>


PlayStation 3 Firmware 3.50 Jailbreaked Using X3 Max Dongle [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.shoutpedia.com/jailbreak-ps3-firmware-3.50-x3-max-7162/

<comment><USER2> Is this dongle a future-proof way to keep up with firmware upgrades?

Scenario: new upgrade comes, x3 dongle guys distribute a patch automatically after a few days/weeks</comment>


Michel Foucault's lessons for business - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/business/2018/06/23/michel-foucaults-lessons-for-business <comment><USER2> This is like 3 Foucault quotes and the rest is an overview of Alphabet, AWS, and other tech firms. It would've been interesting to hear about how his other theories relate to the business world. Not that the article isn't correct in some sense, but the connection to the man's writings is pretty barebones. Low new information density here.

<comment><USER3> While I dislike most postmodern philosophy and a good chunk of Foucault's, the core of the article is based on the concept that if you can define how pieces of an industry are named and grouped, you will hold power over how that industry developes.

That is aligned to how Foucault deals with taxonomy: if you have the power to name things, you have power over how people perceive things.

So you shouldn't focus just on your own business when naming and segmenting your company, but also on the lasting impact that such actions will take on competitors, partners and customers.

Edit:

And you can extend and link this to Dawkins' Meme concept. "Discourse", as used by Foucault, carries a similar (but distinct) concept as the Meme, with the key difference that while Meme talks about an idea (communicated or not), discourse references the communication of such an idea.

So building up on the meme-gene comparison, if a meme is a cultural equivalent of a gene, then discourse is the cultural equivalent of the procreation, or dissemination, of an idea.

So, if you can control discourse, you're controlling the creation and dissemination of ideas, you can control how others perceive your company.

<comment><USER2> > While I dislike most postmodern philosophy and a good chunk of Foucault's, > the core of the article is based on the concept that if you can define how > pieces of an industry are named and grouped, you will hold power over how > that industry developes.

I'd say there's plenty about postmodern philosophy to dislike outside of this, but I also don't think that this take from Foucault is inherently postmodern. The concept of the "true name" in Abrahamic mysticism is humorously really closely related to Foucault's taxonomy - if you know the true name of a spirit or demon, you can control it in the same way that you can control the image of your business through taxonomy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One of the interesting aspects of Foucault's take on power was that it was constitutive.

To put it another way, the company that reclassifies what it does, or uses a new taxonomy may actually be trying to change itself by doing so and may succeed.

The big difference between the taxonomy a company constructs, and the kind that historians construct, of course is that companies have a real measurable output -- profit -- that they have to achieve.

<comment><USER5> According to Foucault, there is no such difference as the one you posit, only a relative difference in time-scale.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This whole article seems borderline nonsensical. It's taking outlier companies and shoehorning them in to fitting a cursory take on Foucault's work for the sake of entertainment.

It's not a lesson or meaningful or helpful in any way, which was ultimately a huge disappointment for me as the reader.

</comment><comment><USER7> SEC plays a role in asking companies to disclose more information on business segment revenue

[https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sec-tell-us-more-about- all...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sec-tell-us-more-about-all-this- money-2018-04-19)

</comment><comment><USER8> > Mr Bezos changed its taxonomy by "breaking out" AWS, its cloud-hosting > business

So this is revisionist fluff. How meta.

</comment><comment><USER9> Tech has enough word salad already, no need for Foucault.

</comment><comment><USER10> Yes, let's conflate Foucault's postmodernism with modern tech capitalism.

</comment><comment><USER11> To understand the folly of using long-dead social theorist Foucault for the reading of economic tea leaves, let's turn the tables. "Doug McMillon's lessons for writing literary criticism." McMillon is the CEO of Wal-Mart. Each was equally qualified to write about the other.</comment>


Spain arrests and charges Mexican Governor with corruption - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/world/americas/a-former-mexican-governor-is-arrested-but-not-by-his-own-country.html <comment><USER2> I hope that this and FifaGate are just the start of trend. Corruption is destroying many institutions especially developing countries governments. In these countries the law is permeated by the corrupt, so the only way to get justice is with help of the justice system of other countries.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is dated Jan 21 (two days ago). Wikipedia adds ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberto_Moreira](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberto_Moreira)), "On January 22, 2016 Moreira was granted restricted release on a bail." The allegations seem to center on a possible link between Moreira and the Los Zetas criminal organization ([http://www.elespanol.com/espana/20160121/96240415_0.html](http://www.elespanol.com/espana/20160121/96240415_0.html)), which is known for its drug smuggling and its brutal human rights violations.

</comment><comment><USER4> Now, if Spain can only apply the same righteousness to their own politicians that they do to their former colonies...

Here's probably the first arrest that should happen:

[http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21613309-jordi- pujols-c...](http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21613309-jordi-pujols- confession-undermines-catalans-hopes-independence-scandal-catalonia)

But there is a long list of possibilities.

<comment><USER5> You got me there for a second.

I thought you would be talking about the current PM's undeclared payments, or how he removed financial aid for old and disabled people then made the country pay for his father's nurses; maybe about his party destroying evidence about undeclared payments likely to be bribes, the country's money spent on the pressure against Argentinian judges to not judge relevant figures from the Franco era or maybe about the sister of the current King stealing money from my fellow countrymen or even about Botín (now deceased Banco Santander's founder) and how we forgave him from declaring a couple of thousand million Euros.

Can't see under which reasoning that's the first arrest - it has to happen, doesn't matter the order, but it strikes me as an odd choice without formal accusation.

But anyway, it has been long since I've lost hope for a better Spain. We have what we deserve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I really don't like the implications of this. I hate corruption, but what is the next step? Going to prison in Saudi Arabia for being an open atheist in Denmark?

<comment><USER7> > Spanish prosecutors say that Mr. Moreira opened at least three bank accounts > in Spain that received transfers of almost 200,000 euros, or $217,000, from > two Mexican companies. Along with records of the transfers, the evidence > against Mr. Moreira includes police wiretaps, according to court documents.

No,he is not going to prison because his corruption in Mexico. He has been arrested for breaking the Spanish law in Spain

<comment><USER8> Sure... in the same way Pinochet was arrested for crimes involving Spanish citizens.

<comment><USER7> I was answering this

> Going to prison in Saudi Arabia for being an open atheist in Denmark?

So no, is not like going to prison in Saudi Arabia for being atheist in Denmark

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hopefully they'll have better luck with this guy then they did with Pinochet.

<comment><USER10> It doesn't seem that the case is relying on the "universal jurisdiction" the Pinochet case was based on (trying the dictator in Spain for crimes committed in Chile, without Chile's consent), but on money laundering that happened in Spain itself.</comment></comment>


Bay Area hackers, does anyone live a bit further out from the high cost areas? - <AUTHOR>

At this point I'm pretty strongly looking to move back to northern California. I'm originally from an area just north of what I guess I would call the "high cost zone", where housing prices are a lot more reasonable. I'd like to figure a way to make it work so I can move to northern California but not double my housing costs. I'm wondering if anyone else there has made this work, I'm thinking partial remote work could help with this or living  near enough to a Bart station to where I can commute there to get into SF easily, mainly what I want to avoid is long times spent in a car as I can at least use my time well if I'm on BART. Thanks for any advice <comment><USER2> You mostly cannot move to Northern California and not double your housing costs. SF and SJ are 2 and 3 for highest cost of living in the country. The nicer suburbs cost even more than living in the cities. Maybe you can find a cheap place in Fruitvale or Richmond. If those seem too scary check out what it would cost to live in Alameda and take the ferry. That said, I found everything in the east bay to be a major headache if you have to do any sort of dual duty between the valley and SF. I found that trading square footage for location was worth it, but your wife and pets may not agree.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, northern California is a large area, I've checked the area where I grew up (its along I-80, about 70 miles from SF but it would be an awful commute) and its only about 10-20% more to rent a house there than where I am now, but you're right, as far as I can tell, about the Bay Area proper doubling housing costs... and yeah, lol I've been through Richmond enough and know its not somewhere I'd feel comfortable living

<comment><USER2> Anything with a reasonable commute and a reasonable size will be in a dodgy neighborhood. If I had a flexible schedule and worked in SV I would choose to live down by Santa Cruz but that's not necessarily going to be cheap, either. If I was working in SF I would just live there and deal with the smaller space. You could also take a look at some of the unfashionable options like Daly City, Colma or South SF.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It looks like there are a decent amount of 1BR/Studio places in the <1000 category.

I would search craigslist apartments with the search term as 'bart' and putting in your price range for what you're looking for.

<comment><AUTHOR> The issue is that a 1BR or studio doesn't fit my lifestyle. Where I live now, out of state, I have a 3 bedroom house, a girlfriend and a bunch of pets so living in an apartment is most likely not going to work which is why I'm looking at other options, I think maybe I if I live within 30 min of a BART station that could work. I'm willing to compromise as much as I can, such as renting a townhouse, etc but it seems landlords there are very against pets so its hard to find anything but a house that allows dogs.</comment></comment>


Show HN: FCKFWD.us - A protest of the fwd.us Super PAC - <AUTHOR> http://www.fckfwd.us

<comment><AUTHOR> I hindsight I see Paul Graham is a founding member of fwd.us hahaha love it.</comment>


Asus Zenbook Prime UX32VD Review - Best thin&light laptop for IT - <AUTHOR> http://ultrabooksreview.com/reviews/asus-ultrabooks-zenbook-prime-ux31a-and-ux32a-ultrabooks-review/

<comment><USER2> Glad to see that if Apple locks down OSX and I'm forced to go back to Linux, there will be machines that basically copy Apple's aesthetic to run Linux on that don't look like ass.</comment>


China's Fertility Rate is Below Replacement - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/search?q=china+fertility&oq=china+fertility&aqs=chrome..69i57.3233j0j1&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=china+fertility+rate

<comment><USER2> I don't think this is news. Over half the countries listed here are below replacement...

[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/...](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html)

(Sorry for the double reply but I just stumbled across this yesterday)</comment>


Muonium – An encrypted cloud - <AUTHOR> https://muonium.ch <comment><USER2> I like that I can host the code on my own servers. Very nice!

They just need to make the installation easier.</comment>


Why HBO's president panned Internet streaming (and Forbes' linkbait) - <AUTHOR> http://dcurt.is/hbo-forbes-journalism

<comment><USER2> Their strategy is smart and reasonable if people perceived HBO as delivering great shows that are worth paying extra useless channels to get, which I don't think it is (but I'm french and not very exposed to their marketing ).

I fear that HBO is living in the Bubble of their Brand like so many companies, thinking they are the best thing ever and that customers should be grateful whatever way they accept to provide stuff. There is a trend toward simpler deals now where you pay for what you want, not for 3, 4 goodies you never asked.

<comment><USER3> I think that HBO is the best part of my TV subscription. They offer unlimited viewing of their content for flat rate (10EUR/month). Included is also web streaming (HBO GO), so that I can (and do) watch the movies on various computers in the house.

Compare this to various 'online movie rentals', where I'd have to pay 2EUR/movie.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, it costs that little if you're already paying through the nose for a cable plan. If you're not, you have to pay for a cable plan just to get HBO GO, so it works out to something like $120 a month. You'd have to watch a lot of movies to approach the actual cost of HBO.

<comment><USER3> But I'd have cable or iptv subscription in any case. HBO or not. Being without tv is a no-go scenario in our family.

Besides, the cost is nowhere near $120. I pay to my provider 35EUR for 20/20 internet access + 10EUR for iptv + 10EUR for HBO. So the tv part of my monthly bill is 20EUR.

<comment><USER5> I think the HBO situation is better in Europe, probably because they were not so hyped in Europe, and they and not that many people are using it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I just want to add that the other HN story title was completely incorrect linkbait as well: "HBO CEO: '...an internet-based model [for TV] is just a fad'".

It wasn't HBO's CEO, and he didn't use the word "fad." That word was from the Forbes writer. Also, it wasn't a direct quote.

</comment><comment><USER7> > What you don't want to do is to pursue a distribution channel over here [ed: > the internet], where you think, well, let's go around the affiliate and > we'll get a couple hundred thousand subs. But the promotional, and packaging > support we get over here [ed: the affiliate networks], which, by the way, is > the foundation of our 30 million subs

I'll believe they've done the market research to believe that "couple hundred thousand" number, but I have a harder time seeing that offering their own, independently subscribable[1] distribution channel will affect their core business model much more than piracy already is. From my perspective, they're just leaving money on the table for no clear gain.

[1]bear in mind that it's only whether or not you can subscribe to HBOgo independently of owning a tv and basic cable subscription that should be the issue, since they clearly believe offering streaming is good for both them and their customers.

<comment><USER8> Did you not read about the benefits the affiliate is bringing? HBO is good enough to sell cable subscriptions. There's a symbiotic relationship there.

Assuming that they profit per subscriber is the same either way, what you're trying to argue is that there is not a single person who would cut their cable in favor of an official HBO streaming service who hasn't already done so in favor of piracy. Well either that or you think they'll reclaim a lot of revenue from pirates, but that still screws the affiliate which has a significant downside that you're not accounting for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'll grant all that, but here's my 2 cents.

I love television as an art form. I appreciate good writing, good action, good direction, and all of the other skills that go into TV. I like specific shows, and I like the ability that television has to tell huge stories that spread out over years.

Between work, excercise, and other forms of entertainment, I don't have a lot of time to watch TV, so my idea of a "premium experience" is being able to watch shows I really value when I can fit them into my life.

I've got no interest in broadcast TV or cable. I remember doing a business trip that took me to NYC and LA and seeing both cities saturated with billboards for a new show. I thought heck, maybe I'll watch it. Well, I'm working like a dog in front of the computer and going to back-to-back meetings, so the only time I've got to go for a run out in Hollywood is late in the evening, so I miss the 10:00 start of the show and get back to my hotel at 10:10.

When I do watch cable, I'm always shocked at how hard it can be to find something entertaining. Sometimes it seems like nothing but Spongebob Square pants and reality shows about people who clip coupons and hang out at pawn shops.

There's no doubt at all that some great T.V. is being made today, but the conventional distribution system mostly shows junk that is subsidized by a system that doesn't let people speak with their dollar.

<comment><USER10> I am sure HBO would love to have people like you who don't have cable as subscribers. I don't have cable because I don't see anything there of value, since I can watch Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on Hulu and get movies on Netflix. A coworker also cut his cable. He couldn't justify almost $80 a month. He said the only thing he watched was HBO and another premium channel.

The CEO's point was it is difficult to target cable cord cutters because they have already have a business model that is profitable. The telephone salesman cannot say "You can take HBO with your $50 cable or you could just buy a $10 internet subscription plan for HBO, please buy cable anyway"

They cannot retool their business to compete with standalone Netflix. I would love for them to offer there shows on Netflix like AMD does, but oh well. I personally have pirated true blood last year, but I am now just going to wait 1 year to see the next season as I waited to see game of thrones when it comes on Netflix DVD. I guess it doesn't put much money in HBO's pocket, but I guess it's better than pirating. But I know people who gotta have their fix.

I appreciate this synopsis of the original article. The Forbes article really was linkbait.

<comment><USER11> >The CEO's point was it is difficult to target cable cord cutters because they have already have a business model that is profitable. The telephone salesman cannot say "You can take HBO with your $50 cable or you could just buy a $10 internet subscription plan for HBO, please buy cable anyway"

I would agree with this, if HBO didn't already have the infrastructure to target cable cord cutters. If HBO had to develop their own streaming service, authentication, a pricing model, etc., then he'd have a point. It would take at least a year to get to that point, on both the technology and legal side. The argument could be made there that the investment isn't worth it, considering the current earnings.

The problem is that they have already done that. HBO Go. So it really doesn't make sense why they're not trying to get non-subscribers. I think that the fundamental problem with the HBO execs is that they've convinced themselves that the only market they should target is cable subscribers. But that market is shrinking, due mostly to services like Netflix and Hulu, especially in the demographics that they're targeting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> HBO's CEO is rational. When I read the excerpts though, it reminded of the time before ink jet printers were dominant. I believe Epson on top, and they were giving a lot of valid reasons for sticking with dot matrix production without a good plan to transition into ink jet printers. Well fast forward some years later, and you have HP eating their lunch.

</comment><comment><USER13> > It's not really HBO's fault that Game of Thrones is pirated so much. It's > the fault of the entire ecosystem.

It's the fault of the entire ecosystem that a company is targeted by pirates when it chooses to make a small number of high-quality TV shows with excellent production value and put them behind an expensive paywall only available to people with cable TV subscriptions?

I mean, I understand the rationale of HBO in accepting the cost of piracy in order to maintain a lucrative symbiosis with cable affiliates. But I'm sure they recognize that in doing so they cause a significant amount of piracy, and it harms everyone in the TV business, not just HBO.

There's basically two driving forces behind piracy. One is price, but there is a good argument to be made that people who pirate because they couldn't otherwise afford to pay otherwise don't actually affect the bottom line very much. The other is universality. Ten dollars a month to a usenet provider or VPN service will give access to every single major movie, TV show, and album within a few days of release. It comes in multiple DRM-free formats, and can be played basically anywhere.

So long as piracy has a distinct service and price advantage over HBO, they are encouraging piracy. And the worst part for TV producers is that there is a negative network effect: once someone spends the opportunity cost to pirate Game of Thrones, the marginal cost of pirating something else goes way down, and services that do compete favorably with piracy from a service perspective like Netflix and iTunes suffer as well.

<comment><USER14> _It's not really HBO's fault that Game of Thrones is pirated so much_

interestingly, Game of Thrones, Season Two, is available on iTunes here in Australia and follows only 10 days after US release. We pay rather more here than in the US, but at $28 for a season pass, it's cheaper than the cost of the DVDs when they come out

<comment><USER15> Interestingly, Game of Thrones season 2 is not available on iTunes in US. What's up with that? I wonder if it is relating to cannibalizing the US cable subscriber base as discussed in the article. I would definitely pay for it via itunes if it were available, even with 1-2 week delay.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've started using HBO GO, both on my iMac and especially on my iPad.

I must say that I do like it. I'm glad that there are still places where I can pay money and get content like Game of Thrones. I hope that doesn't go away; if it does, we all lose (yes, even the pirates).

I really don't get people bitching about the cost. I spend more on a date with my wife than the entire cable + HBO package, which we get to use all month. It's more than worth it, even if I never watched anything else but HBO.

<comment><USER15> Why are people bitching about the cost? Just think about it. There is one show I want to watch that I can't get watch on netflix/hulu/OTA, which is Game of Thrones. Can you really justify $80+/month for 4 episodes of a single show? If you really watch a lot of cable tv already, then sure, it is not a lot of money, but paying $10-$20 an episode is ridiculous.

<comment><USER16> For over 90% of the households in the US, it's not "80+/month", it's $15 – for four episodes a month.

Furthermore, HBO provides all of their Game of Thrones stuff on demand, you only need to get HBO for 1 month to actually watch everything, if you wait until the last month of the series.

HN people (at least in the US) are in a bubble when it comes to cable TV, and the economics thereof.

This comes to mind: <http://xkcd.com/793/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The author published a correction :

"Note: An earlier edition of this piece described comments made by Eric Kessler that described his views of cord-cutting as a fad or "temporary phenomenon." Kessler said that he viewed cord-cutting as "minimal" and a result of "macroeconomic conditions" indicating that should economic conditions improve cord-cutting will decrease. To me and others who have written about this, those words indicate that cord-cutting is a problem that will eventually go away as the economy improves – hence a fad or temporary phenomenon. It's important to note that Kessler himself did not say "fad" or "temporary phenomenon" but his words and sentiment in the video do imply that he thinks the problem of cord-cutting is small and will likely go away, and that targeting the cord-cutting audience doesn't make business sense. Apologies for the lack of clarity here."

</comment><comment><USER18> I could have sworn I heard this guy talking about how the TV model is great, because the whole distribution channel is outsourced through affiliates who are licensed the content... and then talk about how with the Internet, most content is licensed through distributors, but their advantage is that they don't license the content, so they own the entire experience.

I don't get why everyone is saying he is so rational/logical. Seems like he is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

<comment><USER19> They outsource costs, the advertizing affiliates do (through things like triple play) and support (nobody calls HBO when they can't get to the channel.) These are extra costs they would have to take on.

On the other hand, on the Internet, they have a relatively small library compared to their competitors, who have both a large library and scaled support. And much of the content is advertising-based, which doesn't work with HBO's model.

It seems to make sense to me.

<comment><USER18> > They outsource costs, the advertizing affiliates do (through things like > triple play) and support (nobody calls HBO when they can't get to the > channel.) These are extra costs they would have to take on.

The way it was phrased, I sure got the idea that he was saying HBO was at a net advantage with that model.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Prediction: within 2 years they will have a "subscribe now" on YouTube for HBO and other networks and in 3 years YouTube will be the biggest affiliate for them.</comment>


Communication Files: Interprocess IO Before Pipes [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~doug/DTSS/commfiles.pdf <comment><USER2> My reaction to this: Doug McIlroy is at Dartmouth!?! Cool. Worth figuring out how to visit there, just

</comment><comment><USER3> tl;dr: 3 years before Unix got pipes, a different OS (DTSS) got communication channels. The channels have a master end and a slave end, the slave end acts like a normal file descriptor, the master end is run by a process, much like a debugger that has breakpoints on open/close/read/write/lseek/close. Except that the syscalls on the slave side result in "breakpoints" on the master side so the master can do whatever it wants in response to the events.

Pretty neat idea but much more complex than Unix pipes.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Contemporary (2017) article by Doug McIllroy discussing a more capable IPC mechanism that predates the Unix pipes he championed.

</comment><comment><USER4> streams and unix sockets.</comment>


How can a disease with 1% mortality shut down the United States? - <AUTHOR> https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-disease-with-1-mortality-shut-down-the-United-States/answer/Franklin-Veaux?ch=1&share=d1dc67e6&srid=TVxR <comment><USER2> > Three million people dead would monkey wrench the economy no matter what.

Wouldn't that largely depend on the age of the victims? If the majority of victims are over retirement age, then this isn't likely to be true.

We've had nearly 1% of our population killed or wounded in a short period of time before, it's impact on the economy doesn't seem that obvious.

> 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives. > > 10 will have permanent lung damage.

The extent of these doesn't seem clear either, looking back to the previous SARS epidemic, there was significant ARDS recovery after diagnoses over a period of several years; however, with other certain pre-existing conditions the organ damage was permanent.

Even in those cases, the rates are significantly lower than this suggests. It seems like a lot of small sample size studies were used to generate these numbers. I don't doubt COVID is horrific and requires special care to address, but I don't see any benefit in exaggeration.. particularly if your goal is to address an already skeptical audience.

<comment><USER3> > We've had nearly 1% of our population killed or wounded in a short period of > time before

In fact, more than 1% of the population dies every single year.

<comment><USER4> It's actually a little less than 1% a year (~2.8 million out of ~329 million people).

[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Help me. I'm confused. Is the author saying that 1% of the people who are _diagnosed_ with it will die? (That's how I read it at first).

Or is he saying that 1% of everyone will die? Maybe that sounds like a dumb question, but I honestly don't know if everyone is using the term "mortality rate" the way I think of it (which for me, until recently, was the first option above).

I guess I don't even know if it makes a difference. Won't we all be exposed to it anyway, if we haven't already? Some of us may never know if we were, and others (sadly) will know straightaway.

If we can assume that nearly all of the USA (for instance) will be exposed and "catch" it, whether tested positive or not, then is the second version of "mortality rate", in effect, the same as the first?

I'm only asking because I honestly don't know and there is so much speculation and confusion out there. Hoping that someone on HN who is much experienced (and maybe in the world of medical stats) can clarify this for me.

<comment><USER6> There are two categories of ways this can resolve:

(1) We beat the coronavirus. People no longer regularly get infected.

(2) Coronavirus is here to stay. We'll all get it eventually just like we all eventually get colds and the flu.

I think it's pretty clear at this point that (1) isn't happening, at least absent a vaccine. If we do get a vaccine, it may be a polio/measles type situation where we can eliminate the disease, or it may be a flu-type situation where we all just get vaccinated every year.

So focusing on (2), where we all get the virus. We don't know the exact mortality rate for those infected. We don't know how the rate varies for re- infections.

We do know that the mortality rate is lower if the hospitals aren't full. So the shut downs may be logical in terms of keeping the infection rate low enough that the hospitals don't fill up, if we think it's worth it.

Whether the mortality rate benefits are worth the economic harms is another question, though.

<comment><USER7> Shutdowns also give the virus more time and incentive to evolve into more contagious variants with much milder symptoms. If we delay it long enough it can actually end up just being like the seasonal flu.

<comment><USER8> I know nothing about this, but from what you're saying it sounds like the more contagious a virus is, the milder it's symptoms are? Is this usually true for all viruses or did I just misread your comment

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > For every one person who dies:

> 19 more require hospitalization.

> 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives.

...

> One study published in March found that out of 416 _hospitalized_ Covid-19 > patients, 19% showed signs of heart damage.

How many other mistakes can you spot?

<comment><USER10> I just spent 5 minutes typing this up only to see your post.. thank you for also noticing. The other point made from this source (about permanent lung damage) is also wrong. I don't see sources for the other numbers.

I agree never closing the economy would've been a total disaster. But the math here is bad.

<comment><USER11> Writing from Ireland, >20 cases a day (as of writing). The lockdown here was a huge success.

But looking at the US numbers it seems that you got the worse outcome of lockdown/no-lockdown. Economical hit, plus number of cases are back on the rise due to people not isolating properly.

One could argue that for US lockdown was a mistake. Or at least very costly move to delay/prepare for peak infections.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > (out of a sample of 100 people) For every one person who dies: * 19 more > require hospitalization. * 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for > the rest of their lives.

> One study published in March found that out of 416 hospitalized Covid-19 > patients, 19% showed signs of heart damage.

Assuming 19 in 100 require hospitalization, according to the study: 19% of 19 will have heart damage or 3.61. Similar breakdown for other points.

Disclaimer: shutdown was the right call and the point is still valid with smaller numbers (they're still huge). Just pointing it out.

</comment><comment><USER9> What is the mortality rate of one of the more severe stains of the common cold or the flu? I'm sure we've had one of those that got to 0.5% or more in recent history?

Does that mean 0.5% is too low to shut everything down?

<comment><USER12> First, the flu doesn't have the other severe consequences outlined in the article.

Second, basically everyone except small children has had the flu, and has some immunity to it, while we're all "immunologically naive" vis-a-vis SARS-CoV-2.

<comment><USER9> Young people are basically at 0% mortality from covid

<comment><USER13> Yeah but children are getting that inflammatory syndrome.. Thats pretty devastating. A life ruined but still alive can basically be counted as a death.

<comment><USER9> Even if you count those it will still round to zero

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I find it useful and illuminating to just come up with some common large spaces and make a few estimates…

\- remember the last time you were at the movies? Three people dropped dead during your screening of Avengers.

\- two people dying per subway car on your morning rush hour commute into the city

\- seven of the kids in your child's high school graduating class die. he probably knew at least a couple by name.

… but the points this author makes about problems the survivors face even more striking, so, yeah.

<comment><USER15> Only about 1% of the people dying from covid are under 35. That's the big monkey wrench. If it was kids dying, I think the perception would be very different. There's other factors even more difficult to discuss than age.

The state is powerless to shape policy in a way that adequately fits the risk due to Western culture's focus on individual rights. It's up to us to shape our behavior. Are we adult enough to have that kind of conversation? I am doubtful.

<comment><USER8> Maybe this isn't an extremely mature question and is kind of a "gotcha!" question, but which one of your older relatives would you be willing to sacrifice for this?

Because if this is what we are talking about, then that question has to be thought of. It's might be easier when it's just "old people", but not when it actually affects your life

<comment><USER15> I explicitly supported protecting the high risk populations when I said it's up to us to shape our behaviors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> [https://www.frbatlanta.org/cqer/research/gdpnow](https://www.frbatlanta.org/cqer/research/gdpnow)

Fed GDP Now Latest estimate: -35.5 percent — July 9, 2020

</comment><comment><USER17> And how can 1% of the U.S. population shut down its wealth in their safes?

</comment><comment><USER18> previously: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23816640](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23816640)

</comment><comment><USER19> It's shut down most countries in the world, not just the U.S.

<comment><USER20> Yes, but the US is somewhat unique in having a widespread "so what if 1% of people die?" attitude.

<comment><USER9> Sweden didn't shut down much at all either.

<comment><USER19> Sweden and Japan were the major exceptions of the rule, I'm not sure who else didn't.

<comment><USER21> Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> crooked-v The tl;dr:

> So now all of a sudden, that "but it's only 1% fatal!" becomes:

> 3,282,000 people dead.

> 62,358,000 hospitalized.

> 59,076,000 people with permanent heart damage.

> 32,820,000 people with permanent lung damage.

> 9,846,000 people with strokes.

> 6,564,000 people with muscle weakness.

> 6,564,000 people with loss of cognitive function.

<comment><USER20> It becomes far worse than that, as our medical system can't handle 62M hospitalizations.

(Nor 60-70% of that, which is more realistic, as it's unlikely to hit 100% of the population.)

NYC's hospitals came close to the breaking point; Italy's exceeded it in spots.

<comment><USER22> The author addresses that:

> This model assumes that the question's hypothetical is correct and the > fatality rate is 1%. It also assumes for the sake of argument 100% > infection. (In reality, of course, neither of these is a perfect match to > reality. The infection rate will never hit 100%, but the fatality rate in a > widespread infection is likely to be greater than 1%, because health care > services will be overwhelmed.)

<comment><USER20> Yes; I felt it important enough to warrant inclusion in the TL;DR version.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> How can people consider anything else? 1% _excess_ mortality isn't acceptable. Hospitalising 5-10% is crippling hospitals. The ongoing health issues in 20% will haunt us for years after we have a vaccine and before we do, we face the prospect that post-exposure immunity might be measured in months.

Only idiots think this is worth ignoring.

Coincidentally, they're the same idiots that came in a day late and a dollar short when it was time to close borders and quarantine travelers. We could have stopped this.

</comment><comment><USER24> Can't believe people still question the shutdowns as if there would be a scenario without. The people in power could choose between enforced but somewhat controlled shutdowns or the chaos shutdown. No shutdown was never an option. Most people would have long done their own "shutdown" completely voluntary. It would just be more chaotic and less effective and it would have needed way more people to die first.

<comment><USER9> Several countries like Sweden and Japan and Korea proved that there are other options.

<comment><USER20> Sweden appears to bear out the parent comment's point, that the end result is still lockdown, just voluntary and less well organized:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden- economy-c...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy- coronavirus.html)

> This is what has happened: Not only have thousands more people died than in > neighboring countries that imposed lockdowns, but Sweden's economy has fared > little better. "They literally gained nothing," said Jacob F. Kirkegaard, a > senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in > Washington. "It's a self-inflicted wound, and they have no economic gains."</comment></comment></comment>


Older GPS devices are facing their own mini Y2K bug next month - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/8/18255847/gps-week-rollover-issue-2019-garmin-tomtom-devices-affected <comment><USER2> I actually have written code like this to deal with the Y2038 problem UNIX will have (for UNIX systems that still use a 32-bit time_t on January 19 2038, they will roll over and think they are in 1901) by seeing if time_t is 32-bit (my code uses 64-bit numbers for timestamps). If so, it will assume we're past 2038 and not before 2007 if time_t is a time before 2007. This moves the Y2038 problem to 2143, at which point hopefully there will no longer exist anything which uses a 32-bit time_t.

One bug caused by this is that embedded software developers sometimes started my daemon _before_ setting the system time, which caused issues because my code thought the year was 2106 (and not 1970). My answer was to tell the guy to always set the time before starting my daemon. I could also make the death date 2106 (instead of 2143) to stop developers from doing that, but I'm not getting paid enough to protect people making money from my volunteer work from their own stupidity, and adding 37 years before it stops working makes it that much more likely anything and everything using that code will be gone before there are issues.

<comment><USER3> Your use of parens in the first sentence made it difficult for me to parse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Probably not that many devices, at a guess. We've already had one GPS week number rollover and most GPS hardware now handles it by assuming the current date is after the firmware was released (so they'll mostly break 19 and a bit years after the last firmware release, not on the rollover).

Oh, and this also means that some devices have had rollover-related issues before the actual rollover date. Some of the early, out-of-support Trimble devices apparently haven't been able to get the right date since 2016 for example.

</comment><comment><USER5> So is the date info from GPS ambiguous because of the roll-over - a device cannot tell what the date is based solely on GPS without having some prior info (e.g. its own internal clock)?</comment>