Ask HN: HN-like site for climate change discussion? - <AUTHOR> Many on HN are interested in climate change, but at some point the amount of climate-related submissions might grow so large that it'll be filtered more strongly.<p>There are some communities on the web that I've run across that talk about climate change, but I haven't found any yet that have the same kind of thought/industry leader participation, deep technical knowledge, and ability for participants to debate constructively. <comment><USER2> Is your goal to facilitate discussion on efforts to solve climate issues or to participate in the development of technologies to solve climate issues? You could be working on a project that is focused and could use Hacker News to gain attention to the issue. You could also be looking to participate in a project, which means a thread could show up here to grab your attention or you could find a project somewhere else on the net to sink your time into. Either way, a focused communication app is great, but I guess my suggestion is to find a community and aim to improve it, or find a project and use sites like HN to achieve your goals.

<comment><USER2> If you created a HN-like site to facilitate communication on a broad range of subjects, your goal would be to get the right sort of people to actively participate in constructive discussions. You'd end up casting a pretty wide net and I'm not sure how much good could come from a bunch of people talking and not doing.

However, when you focus on a specific project, knowing that it's much more reasonable to assume you'd be getting more done in terms of actually solving climate related issues, then discussion that is needed can happen a lot easier, with your team and with the smaller net you cast when needing specific feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> best to go and just follow a bunch of cool people on twitter. Know this is not optimal, but better than dead community</comment>


Why Twitter No Longer Cares About Developers - <AUTHOR> http://colbyaley.com/why-twitter-doesnt-care-about-developers

<comment><USER2> People ought to realize that Twitter, Facebook, were created to provide a product, a service, an experience that was not meant to be a platform. Facebook is a social network. Twitter is a microblog. Everything that they do and create thereafter ultimately must enhance and strengthen their core true selves. This includes what is supposed to be "platforms" for developers to create Facebook, Twitter addons. Facebook/Twitter isn't supposed to be a platform for developing social apps. The platforms that have existed are simply meant to strengthen their core values. So once, such platforms no longer serve their core values, they cease to exist.</comment>


Concurrency is a Myth in Ruby (and Python) - <AUTHOR> http://www.igvita.com/2008/11/13/concurrency-is-a-myth-in-ruby/

<comment><USER2> The title is trollish: _concurrency_ is not a "myth" in either Ruby or Python -- you just need to use the appropriate techniques (process-level parallelism, non-blocking I/O, etc.) to achieve it. The existence of the GIL is well-known.

</comment><comment><USER3> GvR gave an interesting answer on Google's "Ask an Engineer" app, to a question about adapting Python to multi-core architectures:

[http://moderator.appspot.com/#15/e=c9&t=ff&q=2f40...](http://moderator.appspot.com/#15/e=c9&t=ff&q=2f40&v=4)

His answer: threading is not worth it, and something Actor-like built on top of the new multiprocessing module should be written eventually. (Pythonic, no?)

</comment><comment><USER4> Concurrent programming in Python: <http://docs.python.org/library/multiprocessing.html>

<comment><USER5> I have had less than stellar success with multiprocessing in non-trivial applications. There seems to be a lot of undesired "magic" going on, such as workers having access to global imports which causes all sorts of issues. If I want a worker to have access to a module, I should have to import it in that worker. The irony in trying to make a multi-processing module _stop_ sharing state isn't lost on me.

I didn't actually read this article because it basically sounds like "this is a myth because of the GIL" which is just downright moronic. I completely disagree with the idea that concurrency is a "myth," I do however believe that it can be more trouble to successfully implement than in other languages designed for concurrency, even if (theoretically) all the tools are there.

<comment><USER6> RE: multiprocessing - Did you file any bugs on it? I agree that there is slightly too much magic, and I'm looking at reducing it - but bug reports and/or patches help me. Right now, my focus is on fixing the docs for 2.6.1 and 3.0 final and further expanding the tests.

<comment><USER5> I didn't file a bug report because I'm not entirely sure what I would file it as; "Excessive use of magic?".

What happened in my case is that when using multiprocessing with Django, if a database connection is opened by the main process to make a query that connection is kept open and workers end up using it instead of spawning their own. If I manually close the connection, they all make their own. This isn't sufficient, however, because global imports related to transaction support still manage to step on each other when queries are run concurrently. This turns out to be a pretty rare race condition, but it does happen.

You can read more at the comment here, including my workarounds: [http://ericholscher.com/blog/2008/nov/10/announcing- django-c...](http://ericholscher.com/blog/2008/nov/10/announcing-django- crawler-test-utils/#c211)

<comment><USER6> Fair enough :) I'm going to make it a task to document, clean up and possibly remove some of the magic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There's other options beyond using JRuby for doing true multi-threading in a dynamic language. Perl has had true threading support (perldoc threads, perldoc perlthrtut) for a while now.

I agree that for most cases non-blocking I/O and select()/epoll() makes more sense, but there are cases where true concurrency (threading or multiple processes) is needed and either memory needs to be explicitly shared (IPC is too costly/complex or memory requirement is high) or the cost of spawning a new process is prohibitive (you're dealing with an SLA).

</comment><comment><USER8> I actually think this is a good thing.

Writing (correct) multi-threaded programs is actually really hard to do. The underlying philosophy of both Ruby and Python is that the programmer's time is more important than the computer's. Using multiple processes instead of threads may require slightly more memory and computation time, but the programmer will spend less time debugging.

<comment><USER2> Neither Ruby nor Python makes it impossible write threaded programs, with all the ensuing dangers -- their standard implementations just don't implement threading very well. I think it's a stretch to say that this constitutes an intentional judgement about the downsides of using threads. For all their disadvantages, threads can sometimes be the most effective way to structure a concurrent program.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Stackless Python?

<comment><USER10> The right way to do concurrency for most applications is the CSP style. Look at Bell Labs' Limbo or Alef which have channels. And Stackless has picked up on this in some ways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Concurrency in javascript: <http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/scopes.html>

</comment><comment><USER12> At least in Python, most C coded modules release the lock so asynchronous I/O is possible.</comment>


Too much fun with implantable brain electrodes - <AUTHOR> https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1905240 <comment><USER2> Didn't know the NEJM needed clickbait too. Paper title is "Fornix-Region Deep Brain Stimulation–Induced Memory Flashbacks in Alzheimer's Disease".</comment>


Tetris for TS100 soldering iron - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/joric/ts100tris <comment><USER2> _Each time you lose the game the soldering iron tip temperature increases by 10 degrees._

Yikes!

<comment><USER3> There's a predecessor to this: The Painstation.

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

<comment><USER4> James Bond - Never say never again - Missile Command (1983)

[http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/ccManager/clips/FF_Bo...](http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/ccManager/clips/FF_Bond_Octopussy_VideogameH264.mp4/view)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For what it's worth, I somewhat hesitantly bought one of these soldering irons a few months ago off Ali Express. After having used it a lot since then I can now highly recommend it as a fantastic bit of kit - I've almost become emotionally attached to the thing! It heats up quickly, holds a consistent temperature, solders very well, plus has lots of features and configuration options. For example it can be set to cool down to different temperatures depending on how long it had been stationary (thanks to its build in accelerometer). The open source firmware is the icing on the cake.

<comment><USER6> I really don't understand how that can actually be a good iron in any way, shape or form. I've been doing hobby and production soldering for about 25 years.

What you need is an iron that will stay at 700oF whatever you throw at it tip or workpiece related. That means power, lots of it. That doesn't come from USB.

Considering my current iron is a 50W Weller TCP, that can switch between soldering 0805 packages immediately followed by large tag terminal capacitors and ground planes without have to do anything, change any settings etc. You don't even have to change tip with the chisel.

Soldering irons also take a heavy battering when you use them as well. The above Weller is 20 years old and looks and works good as new. I really can't see that working for very long.

I just don't understand why the product exists really. If I was in the market you can pick up a whole Weller TCP station for less cash second hand. This is just a flashy toy.

<comment><USER7> > That doesn't come from USB.

No, it comes from the 12-24V power supply you plug into the back of it. It's a ~65W iron.

No apologies for sounding snotty here. You don't know _what_ it is, haven't seen one, haven't used one but you're already ready to crap all over it. Try one. It's full of silly novelties that I'm sure you'll hate but it doesn't take much to improve the usability of a dumb thermocontrolled soldering station and I —along with much of the internet— believe the TS100 does enough to be better. It's also dirt cheap to buy and run.

<comment><USER6> Fair point about the power. Retracted.

Reading reviews, the handle is slippery, a lot of them arrive with defective temperature control, the tip isn't grounded with Y2 leakage from mains on it.

Its still junk.

<comment><USER7> I've had no issue with temperature or the handling. It's near-impossible for either of us to quantitatively assess how frequent these issues are so I won't dispute whether or not you've seen a "lot" of complaints.

The power supply _is_ junk. A nasty, unearthed, noisy switch-mode PSU, like every other low-output, low-cost PSU out there. There is a grounding pin on the iron itself but it's not ideal to rely on.

But many remedies do exist. I suspect you have a grounded, linear bench power supply right next to your existing soldering station. That'll do. Even a cheap earthed PSU would do better. And many people use battery packs to great effect.

<comment><USER8> i use mine the field to perform repairs on my racing drone. it is 100x's better than any normal soldering iron in this situation because i can 1) fit it in my bag at about the size of a pencil 2) power it off an existing lipo i already have with me.

the best camera is the one that you have with you. same goes for irons. how this dweeb can rate something as junk without having ever used it is beyond me. i've been pleasantly surprised at how capable it is ever since purchase.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Love this sort of thing.

I did a Tetris game for a led-matrix clock I got from Banggood: [https://github.com/hollobon/jy- mcu-3208-tetris](https://github.com/hollobon/jy-mcu-3208-tetris)

</comment><comment><USER10> > STM32F103T8U6 (ARM Cortex M3, clock frequency 72 MHz)

That's one powerful chip for a soldering iron.

<comment><USER11> Needed for those smooth animations in the UI. Yes, animations.

Seriously, this iron got style.

<comment><USER10> Back in my day we did animations in 8 MHz and we liked it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Next up... can anyone get DooM running on this thing? If you can get the end of it to light up like a Tesla coil to play the chip music, I'll give you extra bonus points. :-P

</comment><comment><USER13> Author's here [https://github.com/joric/ts100tris/commit/5214f7ef9fbcdac8d0...](https://github.com/joric/ts100tris/commit/5214f7ef9fbcdac8d05a3af7a0868ba71a69ee06)

</comment><comment> gene-h The question we should be asking as more ubiquitous devices are built with comparatively large amounts of computational power is not what will run tetris, but what won't run tetris?

<comment><USER14> Tetris is a good start, but someone needs to port Doom to it next.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Very cool :) Is the STM32F103T8U6 chip, also regulating the temperature of the iron via a PID algorithm or.., or is that handled elsewhere?

Edit:

Looks like the PID algorithm, is here:

[https://github.com/joric/ts100tris/blob/master/S100App/Src/C...](https://github.com/joric/ts100tris/blob/master/S100App/Src/CTRL.c)

Nice!

</comment><comment><USER16> While I greatly approve of this implementation, I'd also like to see doom tried out, or maybe hatris(1) for faster warmup times :)

1) [https://qntm.org/files/hatetris/hatetris.html](https://qntm.org/files/hatetris/hatetris.html)

</comment><comment><USER17> Can you hold it at the tip and does it increase temperature with increasing number of lines?

</comment><comment><USER18> But will it run Doom?

</comment><comment><USER19> For a moment I misread the title as "Tetris for the TIS-100 soldering iron", and had a very rube-goldberg vision indeed.

</comment><comment><USER20> I wonder when they will release Skyrim for the TS100</comment>


Iowa Caucus App Developer Was Deeply Embedded in Democratic Establishment - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2020/02/04/iowa-caucus-app-shadow-acronym/ <comment><USER2> That's a much a tracer for incompetence as it is for ill intent.

<comment><USER3> Lol this explanation for when something potentially remarkable fizzles out -- especially one which could damage the American ruling class -- is starting to wear a bit thin.

<comment><USER2> So you're saying that the Democratic leadership isn't incompetent, it's just that they're like the losers in a pro wrestling match?

<comment><USER3> kayfabe baby. There are certainly a lot of people in the Democratic establishment who have more to lose from a Bernie Sanders presidency than a Trump one.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Using Bitrise CI for Android Apps - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/using-bitrise-ci-for-android-apps-fa9c48e301d8 <comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing, Khoa</comment>


The Good, Bad and Ugly: Apache Spark for Data Science Work - <AUTHOR> https://thenewstack.io/the-good-bad-and-ugly-apache-spark-for-data-science-work/ <comment><AUTHOR> The Pivotal Data Science team has been working with Spark in a variety of environments for a variety of use cases for close to two years. Here's what we like and what's been difficult. This post gives a broad overview, and in subsequent posts we will dive deeper into the pros, cons, and how to make the most of Spark. We hope you enjoy!</comment>


A short introduction to the MVVM-C design pattern - <AUTHOR> http://tech.trivago.com/2016/08/26/mvvm-c-a-simple-way-to-navigate/ <comment><USER3> This article addresses some interesting, real-world problems with the MVC pattern, problems I've run into myself. When writing iOS applications I also usually end up with something that is better described as M-VC than MVC, where the view and the controller are tightly coupled and usually implemented by the same class. This is not how the MVC pattern was intended.

From a cursory read I like the architecture improvements they propose to 'fix' this situations. That said, I can't escape the feeling that for the majority of applications, this is way over-designed/over-engineered, and putting the cart before the horse. Your application should not be written to better suit the MVC (or MVVM-C) pattern, it should be the other way around. Often a merged VC class gets the job done just fine and keeps things simple and concise.

In my experience, my own applications end up with a single class that's both the view and the controller, for the simple fact that there is no reason to decouple them. I'm usually not interested in having multiple user-interfaces on top of the same model, so there is no incentive to re-use the controller. Note that IMO there is a clear distinction between decoupling the model from the view and/or controller (which is almost always desirable to separate data and presentation), and decoupling the view from the controller (which have a lot of overlapping resposibilities)

To be fair, I haven't written any applications that hat different UI for e.g. iPhone and iPad, and I haven't written any applications that also have a desktop counterpart. But even in those situations, I'm wondering how much there is to be gained from re-using controllers for different user interfaces...

<comment><USER4> There are essentially two problems with combining the view and the controller:

a) Writing tests for the combined class is incredibly hard. Since you are relying on the UI framework to call your code you have very little control over when something happens (and what side effects it will cause).

b) Changing your code becomes a lot more time consuming. In an agile environment you want to be able to quickly change behavior and looks (sometimes even on the fly) which gets harder the stronger your coupling is.

The goal of MVVM is essentially to have extremely 'dumb' views that do nothing but relay data between model/logic and the UI.

<comment><USER5> a) Your controller should be relatively simple. If it is buggy/broken it should be immediately obvious when the app is run. So, not being able to unit test it separately is not a big a deal, I think[0].

b) I don't think having the view and controller coupled makes this a big deal in a lot of cases[0] as long as the controller doesn't have behavior creep.

[0] There are exceptions to everything.

<comment><USER6> Isn't the controller where your bussines rules are encoded? It is probably the more complex part of your app, and it's complexity is driven by business decisions and not technical ones. Unless you mean something different by controller(very possible, it _is_ a very overloaded term), I don't think your premises are very sound.

<comment><USER5> I see the controller as an objects whose purpose is to shuttle data back and forth between the view and the model. The business rules should be in the model. the controller can do some very minor formatting type things, handle events, etc. but no business rules.

Basically, the View is presentation, the Controller is interaction and the Model is logic and data.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, in that case I agree with you. Under that definition M-VC just means to separate your business rules from your UI, which is always a wise move. I do think the interesting part that is missing is how you organize everything that isn't UI, but I guess that's a topic for another discusion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This whole debate about mvc vs mvvm vs i don't know what really start to read like a joke.

Here's the truth : your app probably has more than three major components, and the GUI isn't the most important aspect of it. Build your app as if it was to be accessed through a command line or a repl, then add a GUI on top in the end.

You'll have reusable, business centric components, and your controllers ( or whatever you call it) won't be bloated.

<comment><USER8> Yes, exactly. In ASP.NET MVC land, our our general convention is to have a service layer that does all of the business logic, and the actual MVC web layer only handles UI concerns.

In theory, you set your service layer (just a class assembly) up so that it can handle requests from multiple UI layers (a web MVC layer, a phone app, or even one case, a command line prompt).

MVVM-C seems overly complicated.

<comment><USER7> Yes indeed. Backend developpers have known "services" layer for a long time, but it seems to be completely unknown to frontend developpers (except maybe angular ones, which heavily promotes this pattern).

Model is basically a collection of types, and services are where the business happen and shit gets done. And only in the end should you care about presenting all that stuff in a good looking way.

But even this is a bit of a simplification once you get into low-level architectural decisions : is your app real time, does it handle data synchronization with a backend, can it work online and offline , does it need to make certain operations atomically ? Do you have n publisher - <USER2> subscribers types of communication between your components ? etc etc.

Those are the true questions you need to ask yourself first, and not think in terms of three or four big boxes where you have to put all your junk trying to find descent names.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you're using storyboards, another way of solving this is to let your segues set up the view models of the source and destination view controllers. You just need to create some segue subclasses for each source/destination combo you need.

Better than polluting prepareForSegue, and it totally decouples your UIViewControllers from each other. The coupling is in the segue, which is where it should be.

</comment><comment><USER10> A relevant previous HN discussion on Martin Fowler's "GUI Architectures" article ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9770362](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9770362))

</comment><comment><USER11> I work in an MVVM mode daily. The best MVVM frameworks help bootstrap the app shell, but require zero interfacing with the view afterwards, with the 'controller' just being a parent ViewModel. It's turtles all the way down.

</comment><comment><USER12> trivago standing by to answer your questions :-)

<comment><USER13> Is it ok if I ask about something totally unrelated to the article? I was wondering, for the hotel booking companies that Trivago collects data from, do you have an agreement with them about it? Do they pay anything to you, or you pay anything to them, or neither? Does Trivago make any money? If so, how?

<comment><USER12> Sure. We have agreements with our partners. Here's a pretty good explanation: [https://www.quora.com/How-do-metasearch-vertical-search- engi...](https://www.quora.com/How-do-metasearch-vertical-search-engines-like- Otalo-and-trivago-make-money-Why-would-companies-give-them-access-to-their- Apis-if-theyre-going-to-be-taking-a-percentage-off-the-top)

<comment><USER13> Thanks :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> s/Coordinator/Controller/g</comment>


It is possible to 'build' a monetary system from scratch. - <AUTHOR> http://project.cyclos.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=233&Itemid=236

<comment><USER2> It has happened in the past, at least by using an existing monetary framework as a starting point. See what Brazil did with the unidade real de valor (URV) in 1994.</comment>


Framework7 1.0.0 Released - <AUTHOR> http://www.idangero.us/framework7/#.VNVbWFOsXLg Framework7 is best mobile HTML framework for building iOS web and hybrid apps finally released to 1.0.0 with lot of new features and components <comment><USER2> Looks really cool, great job!</comment>


Xobni Discusses The Perfect Startup Office and They Still Suck My Ram - <AUTHOR> http://www.centernetworks.com/xobni-office-setup-and-ram-sucker <comment><USER2> "But it sure does suck ram. Anywhere between 5-20mb at any given time"

Not to be a contrarian here, as we _are_ in beta and working to improve, but seriously? Outlook: 220M, Firefox: 350M, Dropbox: 25M

Dude, if we hit 20, that's pretty much par for the course.

<comment><USER3> My thoughts exactly. I think anything under 50M is sensible for a resident app. If you're on a 256MB machine I suppose you won't agree, but then you really shouldn't be running Outlook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Could you rename the title to "still consumes my memory" or something like that please?</comment>


MetaLab Launches Flow, A Beautiful Tool For Task Management - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/22/metalab-launches-flow-a-beautiful-tool-for-task-management/

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://www.getflow.com/> The service is $9.99 a month and they offer a web client, free iPhone and iPad app, theres a beta app for mac os x also.

</comment><comment><USER2> It appears pretty complex from the screenshots but after giving it a spin its really quite a compelling offering. It may just open my wallet too.

</comment><comment><USER3> More discussion here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2356194>

</comment><comment><USER4> Wunderlist has a similar design to Things as has Flow. WunderList does crossplatform too using Titanium.

</comment><comment><USER5> Very nice design but how does this differentiate itself from Google to do widget?</comment>


Ask HN: Best tutorials for ES6? - <AUTHOR>

I've seen various tutorials and know there are libraries that allow you to use ES6 in current projects. Does anyone have experience with either? Any recommendations for someone who wants to catch up ahead of the changes in June? <comment><USER2> [https://babeljs.io/](https://babeljs.io/) gives a fairly good introduction to it, and allows you to use a lot of ES6 (and a couple of experimental ES7) features already. Has an in-browser repl to play around with it as well if you like.</comment>


The Problem with Miracle Cancer Cures - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/opinion/sunday/problem-miracle-cancer-cures.html <comment><USER2> Immunotherapy is a fantastic promise, and really I think research is not being fully supported by governments.

When my mom died of cancer, it always seemed the miracle cure was just a year away. Several years later, it still does.

I know that the clinical studies are critical to the advancement of cancer treatment, but the way studies are sold with an unspoken but really nonexistent chance of helping people that are going to die is a bit unseemly.

As is the standard by which Keytruda and Opdivo use to get their medicare $$$$: just add three months of life. The reward metric is skewed, and the goal is pathetic, given that immunotherapy fundamentally promises a cure, not just remission: the body hunts and kills the cancer on a level that even chemo cannot do.

Substantial progress on life extension cannot really be done without solving cancer as well.</comment>


ThePirateBay.se and PirateBay.se have been seized - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/key-pirate-bay-domains-must-be-seized-court-rules-150519/

<comment><USER2> My pirating days are behind me now, once you start trying to create content you realize how difficult that can be and appreciate much more that content creators deserve compensation for their efforts.

That being said, this is bloody hilarious to watch! The authorities will go through months of court cases and spend a tonne of money to seize one domain, and minutes later the service pops up with 6 new ones.

Now they are going to begin the painful, expensive, difficult process again, and in a few months we will read that __ThePirateBay.vg etc has been seized __, with the top comment being a link to the new one.

I'm enjoying the show!

<comment><USER3> Exactly. I feel for those authorities who work months to seize a domain and the site is back in about 5 minutes with a different domain. Imagine if they put this much effort in something good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A follow-up post: [https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-moves-to-gs-la-vg-am- mn-...](https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-moves-to-gs-la-vg-am-mn-and-gd- domains-150519/) The Pirate Bay has launched on 6 new domains, and thepiratebay.se is resolving to them in a round-robin fashion.

But how are they doing that if they don't control thepiratebay.se anymore?

<comment><USER5> They control thepiratebay.org, which redirects to whatever is the most current TLD domain.

<comment><USER4> Try it - thepiratebay.se redirects to one of those six new domains.

<comment><USER5> Interesting!

<comment><USER4> I guess the domain has not actually been seized. The order was written but not executed yet, and there may be an appeal etc before it takes effect.

<comment><USER5> Not sure why they haven't purchased thepiratebay.aw yet, I had thought Aruba had a trade dispute with the US that dictated (from the WTO) that Aruba could violate US copyrights: [https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds285_e...](https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds285_e.htm)

<comment><USER6> Antigua, not Aruba.

(technically the country of Antigua and Barbuda)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A lot of pirates tend to be slightly more tech-educated than most people, or are at least able to follow instructions.

Keep the bindings for the domain and get instructions out on how to change your host file. Continue under the same domain as an extra kick to the teeth showing that domain seizure doesn't _really_ prevent it from being used. It just hurts adoption rate.</comment>


My Recommendations for Ruby on Rails Hosting Services - <AUTHOR> http://antoniocangiano.com/the-best-ruby-on-rails-hosting-services/ <comment><USER2> I wonder how many of these recommendations are sponsorship-based. Linode is curiously missing in favor of Slicehost. Considering the recent discussion here regarding changes to Slicehost's pricing options, this seems like either a striking omission or an outright plug.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi retro, I tried to include companies that I had some experience with or that had been really recommended to me by people I trust. I use Slicehost for most of my sites, and I'm very happy with them, and that's why I included them. Some people say that Linode is just as good, or even better, but I haven't tried them first hand for anything Rails related. I actually mentioned Linode in the Slicehost paragraph, but didn't include them in the ordered list. Given the many mentions and recommendations (including Peter's below) I edited the post and included Linode along with Slicehost.

For full disclosure:

 _REFERRAL HOSTS_ (3):

HostGator

HostingRails

Slicehost

 _NON-REFERRAL HOSTS_ (6):

Linode

Brightbox

Rightscale

EngineYard

Mor.ph

Heroku

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I can't speak highly enough about Brightbox (the managed VPS service Antonio recommends).

Somehow they have managed to tread the fine line between a very comprehensive and well configured service with great addons (Comprehensive management Gem, load balancers, CDN and managed _very_ high performance Master-Master MySQL cluster for all accounts) and flexibility (root access, install what you want on the boxes, no need to re-learn "their way" of server management).

I'd like them to add PostgreSQL and US locations in the future, but for a high-speed, reliable host they can't be beaten.

(A satisfied customer)

</comment><comment><USER4> _> there are countless stories of people who have had their domain taken down for "questionable reasons" by GoDaddy_

There's no comment section on the original post, but can the author or anyone else provide links to specific and credible stories. Or at least elaborate on what "questionable reasons", e.g. DMCA?

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://nodaddy.com>

<comment><USER4> Thanks

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you are going to go with an unmanaged host, I highly recommend buying your own servers and looking into colocation. If you are going to bother installing all the software yourself anyway, you'll get a much better price.

We were paying $800 a month for two high end servers at LayeredTech in Texas to handle our rails site (about 2M pageviews/day) We then bought two supermicro barebones servers and set up at a local co-location facility in Toronto.

The upfront cost of buying the servers (which were better than the ones we were renting) was $3500, but our monthly fees are now just $160. It didn't take long to pay for the server cost, and we'll have them around for as long as the hardware lasts (I expect it to be a while!).

</comment><comment><USER2> Anyone tried HostGator? I'm wondering what kind of Rails hosting you're actually get for $5/month.

I'm using Dreamhost at the moment and my Rails app is _crawling_ and barely usable.

Can't justify spending much on hosting at the moment, though, so HostGator sounds interesting if they don't throttle your resources as aggressively as Dreamhost seems to.

<comment><USER6> Never used hostGator, but hostmonster is way worse than dreamhost, fyi. In the end I built my own setup using a Rackspace Cloud.

I've also used mor.ph (like heroku) and just really don't like the restrictions that come by running on someone else's box and by their rules. Building a server up from scratch is not for the faint of heart, but can be very rewarding (and informative), not to mention cheap if you don't count your own time.

<comment><AUTHOR> What's your monthly bill for Rackspace Cloud?

<comment><USER6> I have a 1Gb of ram running some hefty sites, as well as a dedicated mail server. That comes out to $50, per month (roughly).

When i got everything set up i was only paying $10 per server per month.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's really cheap. I'm surprised.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you have something with a fairly simple architecture then I would stick with Heroku or Slicehost, they are both very affordable.

If you need more flexibility I would go with EC2 (or EC2 through Engine Yards Cloud stuff)

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree. For most people, Slicehost or Heroku are plenty (Slicehost being cheaper, but less Rails focused). Another good name is Linode. I've read somewhere, that people found them to be better, performance-wise, than Slicehost.

<comment><USER8> Linode is awesome. The CPU power you get is crazy compared to other providers I've tried. They don't seem to overload their host boxes. I just ditched a $250/mo dedicated server and got everything running on a $40/mo Linode with no hassles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'd love to hear some comments here on equivalent Django/Python solutions. I know of Webfaction and that's about it. I really want a Heroku for Django!

</comment><comment><USER10> Does anybody have experience with scaling their Rails application on Dreamhost or Joyent? I have just started using Dreamhost VPSs with overall a good experience but have not reached the point where I start looking into scaling the app.

I see Linode and Heroku being recommended here a lot - will definitely explore them too.

<comment><USER9> Dreamhost shared hosting is some of the worst in the business, they oversell like crazy. Not sure how their VPS offering is, but in terms of price you will pay much less for the same VPS (on paper) from Linode. I've had great experiences with both Linode and Slicehost (using them almost equally for both small sites and a startup (schoolrack.com is hosted on a 4 cluster Slicehost setup). My vote is for Linode.</comment></comment>


How does C compute sin() and other math functions? - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/q/2284860/541136

<comment><USER2> There's nothing like hitting the source and seeing how someone has actually done it in a library in common use; let's look at one C library implementation in particular. I chose uLibC ( [http://git.uclibc.org/uClibc/tree/](http://git.uclibc.org/uClibc/tree/) )

Here's the sin function:

[http://git.uclibc.org/uClibc/tree/libm/s_sin.c](http://git.uclibc.org/uClibc/tree/libm/s_sin.c)

which looks like it handles a few special cases, and then carries out some argument reduction to map the input to the range [-pi/4,pi/4], (splitting the argument into two parts, a big part and a tail) before calling

[http://git.uclibc.org/uClibc/tree/libm/k_sin.c](http://git.uclibc.org/uClibc/tree/libm/k_sin.c)

which then operates on those two parts.

If there is no tail, an approximate answer is generated using a polynomial of degree 13.

If there is a tail, you get a small corrective addition based on the principal that _sin(x+y) = sin(x) + sin '(x')_y _

</comment><comment><USER3> A C program computes sine by linking to a program, sin(), that computes it. Usually the program works by examining the argument provided and using various equivalence formulas to reduce the range to an interval for which there is a good Tchebysheff polynomial or Pade rational approximation to sine. All this is done keeping an eye on the representation and the potential for rounding errors. Some of the computation may be done with integers, some the mantissa and exponent independently, and so forth. A good knowledge of machine arithmetic, arithmetic error propagation, and machine performance is needed to make a universally acceptable sine function for C.</comment>


Ask HN: What are you using D (language) for? - <AUTHOR> I had posted a similar question about Go(lang) here on HN a while ago, and there were some interesting answers. Since I'm using D some nowadays (mainly for small utilities as of now, but may do other things with it later), and liking it, I thought it would be interesting to ask the same question about D.
Thanks in advance to all who answer.
Edit: Add the "Ask HN" prefix to the post title. <comment><USER3> Currently using it to write a small OpenGL wrapper which intends to remove the explicit binding (and remove redundant binds under the hood), as well as make data definitions declarative, this is part of my plan to make a XNA-like gamedev lib for D, so I can make games in my favourite language! ([https://github.com/profan/gland/blob/feature/compute/example...](https://github.com/profan/gland/blob/feature/compute/examples/instancing/source/app.d))

It's still a bit awful and lacking most of what I want to support with it, but even in early days, it feels promising.

Was working on a small 2D game engine earlier, but got snagged on that working with OpenGL was so horrible generally that I figured I could utilize D's metaprogramming abilities to well, improve the experience. (got inspired by rust's glium)

Hopefully I'll actually complete it.

</comment><comment><USER4> Not directly answering your question, but I've actually gotten interested in D because I wanted to learn something I can code hardcore stuff in (I mostly do web: js, dart, ruby, bitcoin in js). So I started learning D and thought I should try myself writing a simple Terminal emulator - this idea intrigued me because I didn't know where to start and how it all comes together. Then someone pointed me to a terminal emulator written in D: [https://github.com/gnunn1/terminix](https://github.com/gnunn1/terminix) \- I decided I should probably study it and understand how various parts come together. From the description and the looks of it, it looks great.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that sounds like a significant project to take up. Interesting. The screenshot looks good. Also these features sound cool, though I have to think of what uses they could be put to:

Terminals can be re-arranged using drag and drop both within and between windows

Terminals can be detached into a new window via drag and drop

Input can be synchronized between terminals so commands typed in one terminal are replicated to the others

The last one reminds me a bit of kibitz, a tool written using Expect (IIRC), that I had tried out some years ago, on Unix. I think it allowed you to have a sort of session with a user on another computer, and if you were in say vi, they would see the same vi screen on their machines, and your changes as you made them - something like that (like screen sharing on Skype nowadays, but this could have been there from before Skype, Hangout, etc.) Might not be quite correct about the description of what it did, since I only used it briefly and some years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I make commercial audio plugins with D: [http://www.auburnsounds.com/](http://www.auburnsounds.com/)

Was featured on the D Blog: [https://dlang.org/blog/2016/07/07/project- highlight-auburn-s...](https://dlang.org/blog/2016/07/07/project-highlight- auburn-sounds/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool. Had come across your site a month back when looking up D info, maybe via the This Week in D series. Congrats.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Im using it for everything I do. Small and big GUI apps, some tiny games I made use D, all my website backends are in D now and I try to use D everywhere I can.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's pretty cool. What GUI framework and on what OS(es)? and for web backends, is it vibe.d or some other thing?

<comment><USER6> Most of the time I use GtkD because my target platform is mainly linux but if I also want to target windows I use DlangUI. Don't actually target OSX but the apps happen to work on there too.

For the web backends I always use vibe.d

<comment><AUTHOR> Great. Any comments on GtkD vs. DLangUI, in terms of ease of use, features you need, look-and-feel on the different OSes, etc.? Planning to write a few small GUI apps in D to try it out as a platform for that. Mine will be only on Linux and Windows, though, since I don't have a Mac.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Higgs is a JavaScript JIT compiler written in D.

[https://github.com/higgsjs/Higgs](https://github.com/higgsjs/Higgs)

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool. That would be a complex project. Wonder what it is named after - <USER2> boson? :)

<comment><USER8> It is named after the particle. It's the successor to another compiler named Tachyon :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> [https://github.com/dhasenan/damask](https://github.com/dhasenan/damask) \-- a MUD with procedurally generated content.

MUDs are the original MMOs. Zork but over the network.

D is a good fit for this because it simplifies my programming model. A MUD is typically heavy on scripting (or at least, it is if you want it to do anything interesting). These scripts need to be lightweight, since I might have one script instance for every player (to handle automated combat behaviors), several for each NPC, and even some rooms and items have scripts attached.

In order to simplify script writing, I want to be able to write my scripts in a simple, procedural way that lets me pretend that my current script is the only thing running. That means fibers. Not just fibers, but fibers that I have a fair bit of control over.

What languages have fibers? Not many. C/C++ have library support, but that means manual memory management and plenty more pain. Go's fibers are too opaque -- I want to have a watchdog that can ensure that every mob has an active behavior, for instance, and I want more control over scheduling. Mono used to have working continuations, but that was a long time ago, and they don't work anymore, as far as I can tell. Ruby and Python have fibers, but without static typing, I write code that is less reliable, containing more errors, that is harder to reason about.

[https://github.com/dhasenan/subtex](https://github.com/dhasenan/subtex) \-- doing to LaTeX what BBCode did to HTML.

I write. I want to create ebooks from what I write. Previously, my process was: write in LaTeX (primarily using a double handful of macros instead of using LaTeX builtins), use htlatex to produce HTML; use a script to inline CSS rules to work around a calibre problem; use calibre to generate the ebook. Four seconds total for a 75k word book, and it vomited a bunch of temporary files everywhere. I could do better -- primarily by doing less.

Initially the benefits for using D came from Pegged, an easy-to-use parser generator; that sped development enough to make me happy working on the tool. However, Pegged was relatively slow -- it dropped time by only about 20%. At first I thought it was my ebook generation code, so I changed it around to be more allocation-friendly and faster. This was trivially easy to do in D. But that had no effect on the execution time.

I looked into it a bit closer, and it turned out that the Pegged parser was taking almost all the execution time. So I shrugged my shoulders and wrote my own parser. It was shockingly easy.

One specific thing I wanted to do is figure out, when there's a parse error, which line and column it's on. Normally that means keeping track of line and column numbers during normal processing, which is quite annoying and gets in the way of everything you want to do. But it turned into about three lines of code in the end, without interfering with normal parsing. Similarly, it's usually a bit of annoyance to keep track of where you are in the input. D's array slicing again made it trivial -- I just maintained a slice of the input string representing the part I hadn't parsed yet. No off-by-one errors. No segfaults. No array bounds errors. It worked the first time.

Nothing I _couldn 't_ do in another language, but D puts it all at my fingertips.

That ebook that took multiple seconds with LaTeX? 0.04 seconds with Subtex. I had to double check to ensure that it actually ran the first time after I got my parser working.

My experience with D has been mostly positive, aside from missing libraries. But that's getting better with time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. Thanks for the detailed answer. I'm not into MUDs or Latex myself, but will check out your projects at least some to see if I can learn any language idioms or usage of language features. I did write a couple of small tools using my xtopdf toolkit (Python), to allow creation of simple PDF ebooks from text or XML input, but it does not use a markup approach, instead, it leverages the structure of text and XML files.</comment></comment>


Randomise Me - website that lets anyone design and run a randomised trial - <AUTHOR> http://www.randomiseme.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> Interesting that it is made by people that work on helping to hack with the NHS</comment>


Best machine learning project to contribute - <AUTHOR>

Which are few good Machine Learning, Computer Vision or Image Processing project one can contribute to? <comment><USER2> <http://mahout.apache.org>

<http://opennlp.apache.org>

</comment><comment><USER3> <http://mulan.sourceforge.net/>

</comment><comment><USER4> scikit-learn</comment>


'Mutant' coyotes with icy blue eyes photographed in and near Pt. Reyes - <AUTHOR> https://m.sfgate.com/science/article/mutant-coyotes-blue-eyes-pt-reyes-photo-13574847.php <comment><USER2> Winter is coming.</comment>


IE still doesn't fully support CSS3 - <AUTHOR> http://www.w3schools.com/css3/css3_multiple_columns.asp

<comment><USER2> IE 10 supports column count.</comment>


El Maratón Linuxero en vivo - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/maratonlinuxero/live <comment><USER2> [Hi from Argentina!]

This is an English speaking forum, so most post in other languages are ignored of flagged unless they are very interesting and there is no equivalent version in English.

I think you should at least translate the title in the HN post to English. Something like: 'Live Linux event "El Maratón Linuxero" [Spanish]'

This looks like a difficult content to be consumed by people that doesn't speak Spanish, because there is no autotranlation.

Anyway, autotranlation of the info in youtube:

> _The Marathon Linuxero is a project created by podcasters and GNU /Linux > listeners who want to perform a live event about Free Software applications > and services. On Sunday, September 3 from 3:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. (Spanish > time UTC + 2) we will offer 9 hours of broadcasts with Spanish speaking > podcasters._

> _Another aspect that we want to highlight is the collaboration of Spanish > companies. Both PCUbuntu, Vant and Slimbook did not hesitate to support this > project and join it by offering GNU /Linux products for draws that we will > make the same day live._</comment>


Sulong – Execution of LLVM-Based Languages on the JVM - <AUTHOR> http://2016.ecoop.org/event/icooolps-2016-sulong-execution-of-llvm-based-languages-on-the-jvm <comment><USER2> This may prove to be an easy way to benchmark native code performance against the JVM.

I wonder if longer term it could be used as a way to compile native C into something that could execute in a JVM. Giving the JVM access to the wealth of existing libraries without having to write native wrappers.</comment>


Cloud computing hits a tipping point - <AUTHOR> http://bernardgolden.com/2017/06/cloud-computing-hits-a-tipping-point/ <comment><USER2> old</comment>


Pictures for a Website - <AUTHOR>

I have an idea for a website but it is predicated on the use of celebrity photographs.  From what I've seen online it isn't legal to do such things.  So my question is if anyone knows a way to purchase a large database of photographs.  I'm certainly willing to pay(depending on how much it would cost)  Thanks <comment><USER2> I don't have expertise in this area but I have been researching something similar with music. There are companies that have large collections (millions) of copy written material and you pay a small yearly fee to get a license to use it. This is done a lot with music and karaoke. You need to buy a license to cover the royalties.

If the above is a no-go, you can always use Getty images, or search for images that are party of "public domain". That may actually be easier from the get go.

</comment><comment><USER3> How to Find Legal Free Images for Your Site

[http://www.doitwithwordpress.com/how-to-find-legal-free- imag...](http://www.doitwithwordpress.com/how-to-find-legal-free-images-for- your-site/)

This was posted on HN not terribly long ago. (Probably 18 days ago by the dating on my posterous account.) I didn't keep the link to the HN post, so there probably was no discussion on it at that time. A search of HN did not turn it up but I thought I had sent it to myself to keep as a resource and I had. (If you are better at searching HN than I am, maybe you can find it and maybe it has discussion.)

HTH.</comment>


Why Bitcoin Core 0.10's release notes say "…libsecp256k1 is better than…OpenSSL" - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2rrxq7/on_why_010s_release_notes_say_we_have_reason_to/

<comment><USER2> Interesting position on testing: "I generally don't consider my own software adequately enough tested until its tests have turned up a bug in a compiler/toolchain. So far I've not encountered a compiler bug for libsecp256k1 [...] so I may have to settle for discovering that a ubiquitous system library couldn't square correctly."

(The bug was found via comparing the output of libsecp256k1 and OpenSSL on "specially-constructed random inputs.")

<comment><USER3> Comparing multiple implementations is a great way to find bugs. Even running the same code with different compilers or platforms helps find bugs.

It doesn't find cases where they are both wrong, but often finds cases where one of them is wrong.

It is a very common testing strategy with maths libraries.

<comment><USER4> You might be intrested in this [1]. Its a 31C3 talk about exactly this. There idea is to write a runable spec (that only focues on correctness, instead of speed and things like that) that then can be used to test against real world application.

There idea is to do this against all the MAJOR interfaces that we all depend on TCP/IP, x86 memory model and stuff like that.

[1] [http://events.ccc.de/congress/2014/Fahrplan/events/6574.html](http://events.ccc.de/congress/2014/Fahrplan/events/6574.html) (the talk is on youtube or on ccc video streaming side)

<comment><USER5> > instead of speed

Not when developing crypto. You have to look at execution speed, too, to prevent timing attacks.

<comment><USER6> Execution speed _variance_

It doesn't matter if it takes 1s or 10s, but that it takes 10s every time (to verify a password, for example)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The quoting is quite misguiding, the article and its title say:

> we have reason to believe that libsecp256k1 is better tested and more > thoroughly reviewed than the implementation in OpenSSL

which is something very different from generically being "better" (which has 0 information value, BTW).

<comment><USER8> Thanks, yes. I spoke intentionally.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry. I knew I was mangling it, but it was the only way to get within HN's title restrictions. Thought about leaving a pre-emptive comment to that effect, and I probably should have.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > The incorrectly squared numbers would be expected to be found randomly with > probability around one in 2^128

1:2^128 is an incredibly low probability. Universe is only around 2^86 nanoseconds old. For all practical purposes, an event with a 1:2^128 probability is impossible.

They say that they found it with randomized testing (although one that explores "a class of rare corner cases") and dismiss the claim that this is a class of bugs that can only be found by analysis of the implementation.

I think a test that manages to find a bug like this can not be called "random" (as in, throwing random inputs to a black box). Obviously I don't know the details, but I am sure their test incorporated a great deal of detailed knowledge of algorithms used in the computation.

<comment><USER10> While I understand where your argument is coming from, it is important to ask the question: how many times a day is this piece of code executed on all computers worldwide?

Surely the chance of _one_ person running into this bug is extremely small, but what about all the people on earth combined?

Nevertheless, I think we can classify this method of testing as some sort of hybrid between brute force testing and auditing; I don't think the authors are dismissing that claim this either, but are merely stating that there are ways to make very informed test cases without looking at the code.

<comment><USER11> Reasoning about large numbers is hard. 2^128 is considered enough security in any crypto scheme to be "impossible" to break. Consider that Bitcoin uses ECDSA which gives 128 bits of security. This is not brute forceable as there isn't enough energy around to actually flip the bits that many times, let alone do the calculations.

<comment><USER8> OB: pedantry, an attacker who does one test with 256-bit ECC has a probability of success of ~2^-256. 128-bit security comes from a rho attack which starts off unlikely (2^-256) to be successful and becomes sure to be successful at around 2^128 operations: e.g. it makes progress unlike normal "guess and check" brute force.

I just mention it because this fact means that the sufficiency of ECC security by itself doesn't mean that 2^-128 is "sufficient" against random chance.

But, course, 2^-128 is unfathomably low probability, and it's generally sufficient against 'chance'. Though chance is usually the wrong way to think about attack. For example: If I create software which takes a 256 bit input and does a "if (input == 8675309) exec_shell();" and expose it to the Internet what is the probability of that input? ... probably 1. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> java-man no software is truly safe until the amount of testing code exceeds the amount of main code...

<comment><USER12> I don't know man... I can write some pretty lame unit tests.

<comment><USER13> Not to mention, massive amounts of lame unit tests exercising a tiny fraction of the code base :p

Of course, "java-man" is probably just trolling.

<comment><USER14> The nickname exposes the trolling.

<comment><USER13> Indeed :)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


SOPA: A symptom of a much bigger problem - <AUTHOR> http://www.wwtid.com/2012/01/04/sopa-a-symptom-of-something-much-bigger/

<comment><USER2> Are you kidding me... the Courier font?? I can't read that. Sorry.</comment>


Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts - <AUTHOR> https://lemire.me/blog/2020/07/12/science-is-the-belief-in-the-ignorance-of-experts/ <comment><USER4> Society has a long history of using the work of a scientist while persecuting, dominating and discarding them. And it will continue thanks to the personality trait distribution in the population. Not everyone cares about Science nor will they. People who care about other things will either see Science as a tool and use the Scientist, or see Science as a threat and take out the Scientist.

It is better to teach kids (with a scientific bent) this fact and train them how to defend against certain realities than to sell a story that if we just train teachers better and improve the curriculum everyone will get interested in Science and everyone will treat Scientists ignorance and shortcomings with the patience of a grandmother.

They wont and they will continue to take advantage of the "ignorance of experts" to sideline, control or bury them.

The opposite happens only when the Scientist takes power. See Merkel.

<comment><USER5> > The opposite happens only when the Scientist takes power. See Merkel.

I keep seeing this brought up. What specifically about Merkel's brand of politics is because of her scientific training?

<comment><USER4> I look at how Trump, Bolesanaro, Modi et al view Science. You don't see Merkel saying the stuff they say. They see admitting ignorance as a weakness. They don't do it as a rule. If you are a scientist and have to work in an institution funded by such people how would you feel?

Plus there are these kind of articles as a reaction to what populist leaders say every 2 days - [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/04/an...](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/04/angela- merkel-germany-coronavirus-pandemic/610225/)

And finally a close friend I have in Europe who had an option to move anywhere choose to stay in Germany the past few years because he feels its much saner and stable than anywhere else right now. I don't see that as an accident.

<comment><USER6> I think we should be careful with conflating being a "sane" politician with a scientific education. I don't think Merkel seeming more "scientifically sane" has anything to do with her scientific education. If anything it has to do with the political system of the countries in question. In fact Merkel certainly got into the position she is in, not by following scientific advise, but by being an extremely talented "Machtpolitiker" (a politician who knows how to play for power).

She was actually well known for never taking any clear position and it was even a bit of a running gag, how she would never say anything that would position her so that someone could attack that position. The 2016 refugee crisis was the big exception. She is also a very strategic thinker and it is known that advisers in the CDU essentially looked at the democraphics of voters and showed that if the party does not take a more liberal position on gay marriage, the environment etc., the party will be irrelevant within the next 15 years.

<comment><USER7> so...she didn't have an opinion until the data was in, and then let the data form her opinion?

That's almost the definition of a good scientist.

<comment><USER8> It is also a trait of any rational actor.

<comment><USER9> What's the difference between the two (genuine question)?

<comment><USER10> I would think the difference is one of motivation (or maybe intent).

Relating the two terms in various ways helps me to see this more clearly: a "good scientist" is necessarily a "rational actor" but a "rational actor" is not necessarily a scientist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I completely agree with Feynman and the blog post. However, I want to point out that today this sentiment is also used incorrectly, to bash the experts, or their discussion.

For example, some people dismiss things like evolution, global warming or mask wearing, under the guise of "we just want to have a debate" or "we just ask questions". But they don't understand even the basics of the existing theory, and don't want to understand it.

I think you can only have a meaningful debate with an expert if you are humble and you have done your homework. That is not to discourage anybody from asking questions, as Feynman said, just understand the experts are at a different place and probably asked these questions at some point as well.

And that's why there is value in expert consensus. Becoming expert is hard and nobody can be expert in everything. So the expert consensus is a good first heuristic for a layman.

<comment><USER12> >I think you can only have a meaningful debate with an expert if you are humble and you have done your homework.

Would the symmetrical statement, that you can only meaningfully _agree_ with an expert if you are humble and have done your homework, be true?

I don't generally get the sense that "skeptics" of whatever color are less informed than the orthodox. To take myself as an example---I don't _really_ know how vaccines work. I know the broad strokes---the immune system reacts to the dead pathogens and is better-prepared when I actually get infected---but that's just, like something someone told me, I'd have no idea how to verify that specific mechanism of T-cells and B-cells, oh my. If I were to argue with an anti-vaxxer, I would be "right," and they would be "wrong," but it wouldn't be because I was pro- _science_ , but because I was pro-expert.

<comment><USER13> I'd say that believing experts is more an act of philosophy than an act of science. In an area where you're not an expert, you can't meaningfully _agree_ with the experts – but you can meaningfully understand the limits of your own knowledge, take notice of the track record of science in general, and conclude that, in the absence of more specific knowledge, _believing_ the experts is a good Bayesian prior.

And the same applies in the other direction. In the absence of knowledge, you can't meaningfully _disagree_ with the experts, but occasionally there are enough warning signs that you can meaningfully choose to be skeptical. (For example, a lack of rigor in the field.)

<comment><USER14> >I'd say that believing experts is more an act of philosophy than an act of science.

Not philosophy. Faith.

<comment><USER15> Faith implies there is no mathematically sound reasoning underlying the belief, at least a little

The hypothesis "Expert consensus is more likely to be correct" is falsifiable and thus not purely blind faith

<comment><USER16> >Expert consensus is more likely to be correct" is falsifiable

That's one of those things that sounds like it should be falsifiable, but in practice it's not. The statement is far too broad to conduct reasonable experiments, and if you narrow the scope to the point where you can conduct experiments, then your experiments won't support a conclusion that's broad enough to be a sound foundation for "expert consensus is more likely to be correct".

I happen to think expert consensus is generally useful, but there's still an element of faith in my opinion.

<comment><USER15> Of course it's not 100% black and wide and there is an element of faith.

The consolidated statement is way to wide, but if you take consensus to mean "a large majority like 66%+ portion of the scientific literature within the field(s) relevant to that specific instance" that becomes a lot more testable for an individual issue.

<comment><USER16> > there is an element of faith

That's exactly my point.

>if you take consensus to mean "a large majority like 66%+ portion of the scientific literature within the field(s) relevant to that specific instance" that becomes a lot more testable for an individual issue.

Yeah we can say that for some specific issue like choosing what time of year to plant tomatoes, expert consensus is useful, but that doesn't generalize, which was also my point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _The peer-reviewed article is like a sacred text._

Peer review came about in a certain context and that context no longer exists. Our current peer review process is flawed.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23280372](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23280372)

 _The fundamental defining characteristic of science, the one that Feynman explicitly identifies, is that we do not decide whether something is true or false based on authority but rather based on experience._

Science never decides that anything is "true." Science is defined by the exploration of ideas which can be falsified. They can be tested to check if they are untrue.

What we call _science_ is our current best understanding, which can be overturned if new evidence comes to light. To claim that this is something "True" is a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

This is why religion is outside of science: You cannot prove God does not exist.

There is a huge body of mental models and philosophy developed by scientists who were Christian and trying to explain to the world why their belief in God does not contradict their role as a scientist. We use these mental models a lot, often without understanding the actual origin of the rule. We use them because they have become generally useful mental models and the origin story that some Monk or the like who was also a scientist was trying to argue "My belief in God is irrelevant. I can believe in God and also be a scientist." gets forgotten.

Science is not about what we know to be true. It is about what we cannot yet manage to prove is untrue, though we have tried. Our failure to prove it untrue -- so far -- makes it the best mental model we have for the moment.

</comment><comment><USER18> > He is credited with identifying the cause of the Space Shuttle Challenger > disaster.

Feynman demonstrated it. Feynman didn't identify the cause himself.

Morton Thiokol engineers[1] had been saying that NASA should not be flying on those conditions, because O-ring problem was not solved. Sally Ride (member of commission) informed USAF Gen Donald Kutyna (also member of commission) about the O-ring problem. Kutuna invited Feynman for a dinner and pointed it out to Feynman so that he could bring it up.

Everyone knew how politically sensitive the issue was and how there could be whitewashing attempt. Kutuna figured out that Feynman was the best person to bring it up. And he did so brilliantly.

\---

[1] Allan McDonald (director for Morton Thiokol) refused to sign the launch recommendation over safety concerns [https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_...](https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_Colloquium1012.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm surprised that no one has yet pointed out the irony of using Feynman as an "expert opinion" to make the case that you should question authority and don't "just believe the experts". I'm pretty certain Feynman would have gleefully pointed this out himself.

</comment><comment><USER19> I agree with the blog that science is about doubt/falsification.

But if we want to be pedantic, we should make some distinction between scientific models/theories and the scientific process. A model is some description of reality. The scientific process is making a model, experimentation, falsification. Statements like "science says x" are referring to models or theories -- the best knowledge at the moment (but people shorten the language?). Learning "facts" are learning useful models which are accurate to some degree.

If you are studying some sort of science like physics, you have to build some intuitions. You need to start somewhere. So you need to learn the various models, but they should be treated as various approximations. Doing science applied to understanding reality, is the formal process of taking some limit in the category of scientific models I guess.

It turns out reality is even stranger than our every day experiences. QFT/relativity are useful models. They seem to capture a lot of information about how the universe works. They are not the end of the game but you need to build familiarity, because you definitely do not start with some deep intuition about how these things work. You can be skeptical but you need to do experimentation. I'm sure the same can be said about ideas in biology/chemistry.

I then wonder what the point of this post is because they gloss over that aspect, and they want to emphasise being skeptical. I feel like this appeals to the pseudo intellectual "rationalist" crowd which if you unfold it, is really just some subtle attempt at dogwhistling.

</comment><comment><USER20> Telling people that they can verify science themselves is dangerous. I understand the need for peer review and critical thinking but I keep thinking of the flat earth lady with the ruler at the beach. She thinks that she can prove the horizon is flat because someone taught her literally _anyone_ is qualified do debunk _all_ science due to a widespread "ignorance of experts". Part of science, the important part, is accepting that others know more than you. It is possible for something to be true despite you yourself not understanding why.

<comment><USER21> You actually can tell if earth is curved with compass, automobile, stick, ruler, and maybe a clock.

And math, of course. You need a little bit of trigonometry to do that.

There is nothing dangerous telling people they can verify things themselves. That is how next generation of scientists is born. It is dangerous to tell it is dangerous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I love Jacob Bronowski's take on this from _The Ascent of Man_ :

 _" Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken."_

NB My parents had me watch _The Ascent of Man_ when it was first broadcast when I was ~8, it left a deep impression even though I clearly didn't understand much of it!

<comment><USER23> This has been on my to watch list for a while! Saw the first couple of episodes. Wholly different pace to documentaries today!

<comment><USER22> That particular scene, which I vividly remember after over 40 years, is on Youtube:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltjI3BXKBgY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltjI3BXKBgY)

<comment><USER23> I WISH THERE WAS MORE TV LIKE THIS TODAY /screaming

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Anti-intellectualism no doubt has been given a bad name by its adherents. By its very nature it attracts the ignorant and opportunistic. But anti- intellectualism, in and of itself, is a positive good for our society. Ironically, we just need more intellectuals to embrace it and to give it more rigorous foundations.

Science is a process not a body of knowledge. A scientist, outside of the scientific process, is just a hobbyist. An interested layman. I can't tell you how many "science-denial" stories start and end with "such and such said so and so in an interview -- this is wrong according to this research paper". And of course, the "science-denier" is correct. But the problem in this situation isn't science. Its the belief that doing science gives you credibility outside the narrow scope of the science you actually do. Even if the topics are related.

I know enough scientists to know they are human. They make mistakes. Science as a process helps correct that. Science as a belief system turns them into false prophets.

The belief in the "expert" needs to die. "Experts say [...]" is such a common refrain in American media its become a cliche. Experts can write a peer- reviewed paper under all the rigors of the scientific method and then they may summarize it for broader consumption. But to extend that ethos any further than the recitation of knowledge already produced is to do a disservice to science and the progress of humanity.

</comment><comment><USER25> I think there is a case for (for want of a better word) "practical wisdom" in assessing scientific claims as well.

For instance, if a scientist's every finding matches their political views, that's a "smell". Or a track record of their previous predictions. Or how viciously they attack people who disagree with their conclusions. Or whether they lie about being a nobel prize winner.

</comment><comment><USER26> I actually don't agree with this and I think Feynman had a very personal feud with authority that dominate a lot of his philosophical takes.

For the layperson, but even for the average scientist, science is never just, or even primarily, the unmediated experience between some individual and some experiment. This is because the domain of knowledge or even the domain of methods has become so large, that not even the most zealous scientifically minded person can understand or participate in all the science going on.

This necessitates hierarchies and social networks that don't primarily rely on experience, this has some issues of course but it enables science to take place at a level of complexity that no individual can achieve.

I think doubt, in particular untrained doubt is not a virtue. The motto of QAnon is "question everything". The stereotypical conspiracy theorist is not a blind believer but someone who asks "why, why, why" over and over again like a child. Of course a sceptical mindset can be healthy, but taken too far it's not englightening at all. Today if anything the world has a bigger issue with virulent sceptics than it has with too much trust.

Experts make mistakes and the separation of concerns can lead to science being done incorrectly, but collectively it's still a system worth placing trust in. And that's not a technical trust but a social one that we should not get rid of.

<comment><USER27> > taken too far it's not englightening at all

That statement is almost universally true, no matter the subject. But in general, if you're going to err, erring on the side of skepticism seems reasonable, given the alternatives.

<comment><USER6> Interesting comment, I would also add that this in general is a very scientific mindset. My partner pointed when we first met pointed out her observation, that myself and my other science friends/colleagues (I'm a physicist) ask a lot of why questions when we talk, on one hand to better understand things, but also out of scepticism. Generally as scientists we are trained to first look for flaws in any theory (which can also be quite annoying for someone you're talking to).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The phrase "science teaches us such and such" is funny in the same way Zoidberg saying "I'll have one art" is funny.

</comment><comment><USER29> > _Then I asked "how do the scientists know this?"_

Plug for the wonderfully entertaining _A Short History of Nearly Everything_ by Bill Bryson, which he wrote just to answer this question and fill in the gaps that education misses.

</comment><comment><USER30> This is one of my favorite quotes. I personally take it to heart and interpret it to mean someone being an expert only earns them the right to be listened to. It's the arguments that matter - they still need to make a good case if they want me to believe them.

Often though, scientists never make convincing arguments to the public - <USER2> need to find specialist forums and blogs where they argue amongst each other.

So it's no wonder we have such an issue with the public's lack of trust.

<comment><USER31> Most of the public is unable to understand scientific arguments and discern science from bullshit. I also think it's unrealistic to expect all scientists to also be professional PR gurus. I would like to see a publishing industry sub-sector emerge that deals with translating papers into articles. Any article must be edited and signed off by the papers original authors. Any derivative article would have to link to both the approved article and the original paper. This would solve a lot of issues.

<comment><USER30> The point of the quote and science in general is that "you", a member of the public, need to treat scientists as ignorant, because they are. An argument you can't follow is useless; they need to be made at a level you can understand.

This is possible with many things - for example vaccines. There is very little evidence for harm and overwhelming evidence for large numbers of lives saved. There is no need to get too technical.

If the only available arguments are too complex to follow, there might be someone you can trust who is more technical and can follow them. But you shouldn't trust a stranger just because they say they're an expert.

<comment><USER31> I don't treat scientists as either ignorant or knowledgeable when discussing ideas through a science lens. I remove the person from the equation completely as who did the research is mostly irrelevant unless they have a track record of fraud. Science is about explaining and replicating real world phenomenon. It's purposefully technical and if I have a vested interest in a topic I'll read the papers and make up my own mind. I know most people don't operate like that which is why I suggested what I did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I was researching this topic once and found that two related keywords in epistemology are "epistemic peers" and "peer disagreement", although arguably having a different focus. I guess some may be interested, so I'll just leave a comment here.

I don't know if there are other discussions on similar topics in other fields. Finding the right keywords is always hard for outsiders.

</comment><comment><USER33> There is science the method, epistemology, etc. There is science, the human institution. The epistemology of science is pretty solid, but in our interaction and understanding of science as people we tend to struggle keeping these separate.

For example: science_the_epsitomologist can only make statements about the scientific nature of a theory, experiment or such. An untestable theory is unscientific. Many experiments can be unscientific.

IRL we want to make wider judgements. Is economics a science? That's not something the Science can properly comment on. A field is not a unit that is scientific or unscientific, strictly. Only specific things economists do or say can get that designation.

This isn't just people being stupid. Scientists are experts, and scientific expertise has gained prestige for a reason. A scientist's unscientific opinion (a more generic form of expertise) carries weight, because science is respected. That respect doesn't conform to the narrow Popperian definition of science. It applies to individual, institutions, etc.

We also sometimes need to make decisions when we need to make them, not when science has a breakthrough. The economy is in recession, what to do? At the point were are in now, it's hard to do anything if you don't claim or imply a scientific merit to your decision. This is another reason why pseudoscience proliferates.

We tend to think of pseudoscience relative to real science. Intelligent design instead of darwinian evolution. Head-on disputes with science. IRL pseudoscience is most prevalent in areas where science doesn't have good answers. The human mind, history, etc. Pseudoscience fills an empty space we can't/haven't filled with science. We abhor those empty spaces, it's how our mind works. Since science is both required and absent, pseudoscience is the outcome.

</comment><comment><USER34> Seems to be the physics way of looking at the world. Don't trust potentially accidental empirical observations, because they might fail you in a relativistic universe in which there isn't even such a thing as simultaneity (all swans are white until one isn't).

Only trust fundamental truths / laws of nature, as they govern what works / doesn't and prescribe fubdamental constraints on how the world works - <USER3> likely anytime, anywhere and independent of a particular context.

So the expert looks at the world and says: everyone is doing agile, so what you have to do is agile. Replies the scientist... It depends!

</comment><comment><USER35> The key word in Science is _Observation_. Making close observations and communicating the results. Use tools to help the observation and mathematics to hone and sharpen the description.

If you want to teach science, start by teaching careful observation. Otherwise, in my opinion, it's not science being taught but awareness _of_ science. Knowing what came before, learning about the observations and science made to build up to what we have today, is important, but should not be mistaken as the central point of being a careful observer.

<comment><USER36> When you observe, you will discover (and not invent). It is interesting that corporations want to patent new discoveries (things which they didn't invent, but just observed)...

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Underdetermination is the idea that evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it.

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

This is closely related to the is-ought gap - now that I know the facts, what am I supposed to do with them?

</comment><comment><USER38> Science is engaging with the data, engaging with the experts, understanding and addressing what that all really says, while keeping in mind that the experts are ignorant and I am ignorant.

Just sitting in my basement grumping about how the experts are ignorant is not science. People did that long before science became influential, and they will continue to do it long after science dies out (god forbid).

</comment><comment><USER39> "The peer-reviewed article is like a sacred text"

Not sure at what level of education he is claiming this to be the case but from M.Sc.and up, my experience is that students and researchers regard articles as containing claims with varying degrees of supporting evidence to substantiate them, rather than as facts.

<comment><USER6> I would go even further, the more scientific education one has the more sceptical one regards scientic articles and often we try to find flaws even in published articles, leading to attempts to, for example reproduce results. Unfortunately there is no reward for reproducing others results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Science is not a "belief", science is a process, which conists of generating testable hypotheses about how the world works, then using objective observations and real-world data to modify or change these hypotheses.

Science does incorporate the ignorance of experts, but that's also conflating ignorance with acknowledgement of uncertainty. Scientists are usually the first ones in the room to hedge their statements, saying "Well, this is not my area of expertise, however..." or "...not my area of research...". Does this make them ignorant? Well, in the reductionist sense, yes, everyone is ignorant of things about which only 3 people are experts.

So, stating "Science is belief" is an extremely over-simplistic view of science, which may play straight into the non-materialistic, non-expertise loving right-wing which has taken over the US and led to anti-vaxx, anti-mask, denial of basic facts, etc.

So, those opposed to science are people who believe very dangerous and negative things for society, and now we're calling science the mere belief in ignorance of experts? That's just bad strategy, science is so much more nuanced and rich than a belief in expert ignorance.

<comment><USER41> Totally agree. Science is about knowledge of experimentally verifiable, repeatable and objective facts. Beliefs are neither objective nor verifiable.

I never went to India. I never went into Space. I never saw a human or a blood cell in a microscope. Still I _know_ India exists, that Earth is not flat and that vaccines work. This is because I've been taught so many different facts and theories that all fit nicely together in a way I understand and that I can verify myself, and that are continuously and regularly confirmed by all the echoes I received from reality.

As for scientific mistakes, this is very well incorporated in the scientific process, new theories and facts replacing previous ones. However, as science progresses in a domain, new theories and facts are usually less and less groundbreaking than the previous ones. If you think Earth is a sphere, you're wrong, but much more right if you'd think it's flat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I prefer to think that science is the method to avoid lying to yourself about reality.

</comment><comment><USER43> He's right about science education. Way too much of it is about learning facts and calculating numbers from equations. Basically, things that are easily examinable.

I've found the most enlightening science courses have been the ones where you get a story like this:

1) Someone was wondering what shape DNA has, because this might answer questions about how it is copied, how proteins are eventually made from its code, and so on.

2) One way to look at is through x-ray patterns. And this can be as shallow or as deep as you like, there's certainly enough math here if you want to go that way. You can also look at other historical attempts to uncover the structure, ones that failed but nonetheless were considered a reasonable thing to investigate. Plus auxilliary experiments like where it was discovered that phosphoros was part of it.

3) We looked at the x-rays and someone figured out that it is consistent with a double helix, because (evidence).

4) Further questions arising from this double helix hypothesis seem to confirm the structure, and opened up new questions, which we can look at in the same way.

I like the Bill Bryson way of explaining things. He mixes in the people along with the existing ideas, evidence that needed explanation, the breakthrough, and so on.

But my main point is science teaching shouldn't be about the subject so much. You benefit more from understanding how the Krebs cycle was discovered than from memorizing all the parts of it.

For most people by far, the point of learning science it to learn how to apply that style of thinking to all your judgements (should I vaccinate my kids? What do I think of modern monetary theory? How safe is my car?), rather than learning specific things that were discovered in scientific fields.

If you learn how to think the way the article says, you will also be better able to judge how certain you should be about various claims. You'll be asking more what evidence the claims rest on than what are the claims themselves.

<comment> harry-wood My high school experience (in the UK three decades ago) doesn't really fit with this blog. We were taught quite a _lot_ about scientific methods to the point where we often wanted the science teacher to just stop with meta- teaching and throw some science facts at us! Maybe it means they didn't really succeed in getting the point across :-/

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> See also: Argumentum ab Auctoritate

A very useful word to know as it can quickly shut down people using this very common fallacy

</comment><comment><USER45> m.twitter.com/ProfFeynman

</comment><comment><USER46> At some points in history, communism, racism, bloodletting and alchemy all were scientific theories.

I wonder what our descendants will be laughing about when looking back at 21st century?

</comment><comment><USER47> There are way too much politics and partisans in science, and that is the leading driver behind people ignoring science and scientific evidence.

Just consider why a conservative or skeptical person would not trust Covid information. Fauci and the US Surgeon General knowingly lied about the efficacy masks and then now they are treating people who don't wear masks as pathetic morons. Health care policy "experts" chastise people for attending rallies, protests, or gatherings... but then come out and say anti-racism protests are okay. Apparently Covid-19 will not infect you if you are at a "correct" rally... but if you are at a Trump or conservative rally then you better watch out. Come on.

That's not science. Get politics and partisanship out of science.</comment>


DAO May Be Dead After $60M Theft - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/dao-may-be-dead-after-40million-theft <comment><USER2> Crypto Noob here, but since DAO is built on ETH never understood why you would buy into the former and not the latter.

<comment><USER3> DAO : ETH :: Y Combinator : US Dollar

A DAO is an organization that makes investments as proposed and voted on by its members. The crypto only comes in because a DAO's "fund manager" is a piece of code rather than a human.</comment></comment>


Transparent JPEGs for the browser - <AUTHOR> http://jim.studt.net/jpeg-alpha/ <comment><USER2> Why send men to the moon? Because its a challenge a way to test yourself and to test conventional thought.

You cut your image sizes almost in half. If you are a mega busy site or a catalog or similar you save bandwidth and reduce connection time to your site.

</comment><comment><USER3> So why would you go through all this trouble?

<comment><AUTHOR> For photographic style images, a JPEG+mask is about half the size of a PNG, much less for very large images. You could just manage your images and masks as separate images, but that carries the cost of an extra GET and possibly misplacing one part.

In my case I have a large number of masked, photographic images which need to be in the 300ppi range to manage on a single page and the GETs and file size savings are a clear win.

Note: The canvas method works in Firefox, but not for everyone. I'll have to find an afflicted version and see what is wrong. IE should work with FlashCanvas, but I don't have an IE to test with and fear I left something important out of the example at <http://blog.jackadam.net/2010/alpha-jpegs/></comment></comment>


Israel and the race to bring lab grown meat to the world - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/israeli-startups-join-firms-making-lab-grown-clean-meat/2019/02/25/ba2b1e72-38c5-11e9-b10b-f05a22e75865_story.html <comment><AUTHOR> We are starting to see major advancements from Israel based companies. They are now going heading to head with Silicon Valley based startups that have since been leading the space.</comment>


MIT: A defense research giant, with a long tradition of defiance - <AUTHOR> http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/08/08/leak_case_spotlights_an_mit_divide/

<comment><USER2> BZZZT: MIT _administers_ Lincoln Labs just like the University of California administered Los Alamos and Laurence Livermore (exclusively from the beginning, now in a consortium). And there are many other examples of this method the Federal Government uses.

You simply can't consolidate the pass-through budget of Lincoln Labs with MIT proper and I gave up on this article after that tendentious attack.

</comment><comment><USER3> The mission of MIT seems to be: gather together lots of smart ambitious people and get them to work on problems of DOD interest.</comment>


Show HN: Bookmarklet to Change Every Google Page to English - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/franzenzenhofer/585af21b0d76574933d2733d3d625b85 <comment><AUTHOR> What most US users might not be aware of is, that Google has very, very inconsistant market to language detection. Every product seems to use it's own logic to determine what language to show you. Those of us who prefere the english version have to switcht languages multiple times per day, most of the time doing "url-hacking", adding or changing the &hl=.. whatever parameters to 'en'.

this bookmarklet does this for you. you are welcome. feel free to fork.</comment>


An Ultimate Guide to Google+ SEO - <AUTHOR> http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/google-plus-seo

<comment><USER2> Thanks for putting this up on HN. Let me know if anyone has suggestions on how to improve the guide.</comment>