Touch Trigonometry - a visual representation of the trig functions - <AUTHOR> http://www.touchtrigonometry.org/

<comment><USER2> Pretty cool!

There's a bug at 315 degrees: cos is listed as -1/sqrt(2), when it should be +1/sqrt(2).

<comment><AUTHOR> I submitted the bug as feedback. It looks like he hard-coded all of the main identities, so it's likely a pretty easy fix. Nice catch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is an example of a great tool to complement an already existing understanding.

As someone who is not trained in Maths I'm confused as to what I'm seeing and where I should look.

Perhaps there needs to be a toggler for the six things you display. I have the feeling that if I played with just 2 or 3 of these I'd probably get it faster.

</comment><comment><USER4> Really beautiful.

Everyone's a critic, though -- I can't see secant (purple) because it overlaps the x axis. I wonder if the axis could be in gray?

</comment><comment><USER5> Just recommended this to my wife, a physics instructor at IU East; some of her local engineering hopefuls are good at tech but definitely fuzzy on math, and this should help a lot. I love it.

</comment><comment><USER6> Love this. There used to be an interactive geometry program for Linux called Dr. Geo - is anyone aware of something similar, preferably on Windows?

<comment><USER7> There is a nice app called Archimedes Geo 3d: <http://raumgeometrie.de/drupal/>

It allows you to play with geometrical constructions, intersections etc.

<comment><USER6> Oh, very nice - this is just the kind of thing I was looking for. Mathematica is more power than I need, and sometimes I just want to explore without pursuing a solution to any particular problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Very awesome, I wish I had this when I was taking college math classes.

</comment><comment><USER7> Nice, is there something similar for hyperbolic trig?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not sure. I came across this on r/math and figured HN might like it. I just found the visual correspondence between the unit circle and the resulting graph to be great.

I sent Matthew Trost, the creator, a comment asking if he could implement cosh et al. Apparently, he decided to make this after taking Calc II at a community college and realizing his trig was pretty fuzzy. He's also just learning to program. Pretty impressive.

<http://www.touchtrigonometry.org/about.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is awesome. I wish there was something like this when I was in school. At one point I had planned to start a blog showcasing educational hacks like this. I may have to get that started. This is a wonderful find.

</comment><comment><USER10> Awesome! We need more tools such as this one to help people get the feel of different concepts in mathematics and physics.

</comment><comment><USER11> Is this not loading for anyone else?

<comment><AUTHOR> Between Reddit and HN frontpages, it could have been /.'d.</comment></comment>


The Cost Center Trap - <AUTHOR> http://www.leanessays.com/2017/11/the-cost-center-trap.html <comment><USER2> This is a really profound point about software.

The ironic thing is that this "cost-center culture" has even affected the mindset of individual software developers and how we think of our own work.

Most developers ONLY look at their work in terms of cost. ALL pros and cons arguments are really about ways to reduce cost. Consider the term "tech debt" \-- nothing could be clearer. Yet discussions rarely ever take place among engineers at a company about how to maximize profit or increase revenue. In fact, I would argue there is a heavy cultural bias on most engineering AGAINST optimizing for revenue, as it is seen as something that motivates sales or product people to rush timelines and sabotage sound engineering practices.

The obsession with cost is baked into programmer culture in such a deep and foundational way, I'm skeptical will ever change, even if the accounting of software projects changes. If you perform a search for the word "cost" on the eBook for the Principles of Object-Oriented Design in Ruby by Sandi Metz, you will find it dozens of times in various sentences about the urgency and critical importance of reducing costs, but the words "profit," "income," or "revenue" appear not even once. I'm not trying to make a point about POODR in particular, because this bias is only reflective of the culture as a whole.

You can certainly make the argument that it has to be that way, and engineering should be separated from revenue. I find it very interesting that, as a culture, we are only willing to speak about the monetary value of our work in negative terms.

<comment><USER3> This is a really good point.

Something I've realized, tho it's, as you write, seemingly against my nature as an engineer, is that there are lots of situations where it's reasonable to 'assume' technical debt to reach a more important goal.

We absolutely should continue discussing technical debt, but also in the context of 'technical revenue' and 'technical profit'.

Interestingly, 'technical debt' works _amazingly_ well as a concept. I suspect it's not even really a metaphor. Consider that probably the most important pragmatic consideration about whether you should assume a debt (of any form) is whether you can expect to make all of the 'scheduled payments' that it requires. And even if you can, will you still have sufficient slack to be able to pay-off or pay-down other currently un-expected debts or expenses that you might incur between now and whenever it is you finally pay off all of the original debt?

<comment><USER4> I don't think there is a "technical profit" to be had, though.

The output of the effort put into technology is a new process or workflow, rather than raw "tech stuff". It's a multiplier to a different input, some other task or application, and so the creators of the technology are frequently disconnected from feedback about its actual use.

For tech to be useful it has to succeed at creating enough leverage that you would use it over what was there previously, and plenty of technical projects get stuck on that point: they show an immense engineering effort but are solving the wrong problem because they don't optimize the desired workflow, or they expect everything to change around the product's workflow.

In that light, in a universe where most of these designs are bad and misguided and deserve to be put out to pasture, the cost-center mentality makes total sense because it asks the design to prove itself as early as possible. And the outcome of that in turn is the familiar rushed, unmaintainable prototype-in- production scenario.

New technology efforts always have this element of being a judo match: if you can find just the right time and place to strike and take the problem off- balance you can get an instant win, but the same strategy at a different moment doesn't work at all, no matter how hard you flex your coding muscles, and would leave you better off not attempting any new tech.

The balance-sheet model doesn't explain when and where to strike, though. It just says whether or not you're trying to do so this quarter, and any benefit will most likely show up on a different business unit's balance sheet.

<comment><USER5> > I don't think there is a "technical profit" to be had, though.

Ostensibly, every net-new feature increases the pool of people for whom the software, as a whole, solves a problem. The performance and usability of that feature further adds to that.* I'd argue that is technical profit, and is realized into real profit when it converts to purchases/subscriptions/whatnot.

[1] For the sake of argument I'm assuming a scenario where the feature and its performance/usability is positively received.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This whole thing goes back to the accounting process of measuring "throughput" rather than some fixed number such as inventory.

This book "The Goal" was incredibly beneficial for me in understanding the concept of throughput. While the book is a parable focused on manufacturing, it can be easily applied to companies in tech. [https://www.amazon.com/Goal- Process-Ongoing-Improvement/dp/0...](https://www.amazon.com/Goal-Process- Ongoing-Improvement/dp/0884270610)

<comment><USER7> That book is next on my reading list, but also worth checking out is "The Phoenix Project". It applies the concepts of "The Goal" to IT (operations to start, but it gets extended to development through the book).

[https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping- Busine...](https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping- Business/dp/0988262592)

<comment><USER8> Was just going to recommend reading this book, glad someone did already. Being in tech/IT, you will be able to identify each of the characters in your work environment at one point or another.

<comment><USER7> One of the best things about reading these books, IMO, is that I finally have the vocabulary to speak to management. Before I'd say the exact same thing, but I didn't know they had a term for what I wanted (value stream maps, for instance) and we couldn't communicate. Now that I can speak in management terms, they're listening to my inputs because we understand each other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "However, accounting systems count inventory as an asset, so and any significant reduction in inventory had a negative impact on the balance sheet...successful JIT efforts tended to make senior managers look bad"

This shows a poor understanding of managerial accounting.

High "working capital" requirements, of which inventory is a big part, are a huge drain on free cash flow. Any company that sees its inventory as a % of assets go DOWN would view it as a positive by both its management and investors.

<comment><USER10> You are confusing what the business leaders of today think with what they thought in the 1920s. In the 1920s and before nobody could think of a reason why large inventories would be bad: they were a buffer against surges in demand, and you got to build them at today's prices. A large inventory just meant you need to hire more salesmen (literally men, it was a sexist time), and/or hold a sale.

Of course now management theory knows of many reasons the above is wrong, it is entirely accepted that you want inventories low because of the advantages it brings.

<comment><USER11> The article is talking about the 80's, not the 20's. The importance of working capital management was well understood by then.

<comment><USER10> In the 1980s it was well understood in universities. However senior management in real companies were catching up. Some companies understood at and were executing well (mostly Japanese companies who started early). other companies had figured out how important it was, but were still trying to figure out how to apply it. Other companies were just waking up to the fact that their competition doing something else was beating them, without knowing why.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> IT being a cost center at a modern information/product company is similar to doctors being a cost center for a hospital.

Only a deranged accountant thinks the cost center is the scarce talent that delivers outsize customer value, and that the profit center is the back-office filled with billers who "monetize" a relationship that wouldn't otherwise exist.

In tech, this flipped around in 2004-2008, I think. From 2001-2004, people thought IT was "over". Now, they realize software is "eating the world".

I am hopeful a similar realization will eventually come to medicine. Doctors deserve Google-style work perks and competition for their scarce talent. Insurance, back-office, and billing deserve to be turned into the AWS of medicine -- outsourced commodity.

<comment><USER13> I think it will actually reverse in the coming years ( 2-3 decades ) as the education programs that mold programers over compensate for supply and people in medical fields decrease to where they are valued again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> _Let's face it, unless there are mitigating circumstances, IT departments that started out as cost centers are going to remain cost centers even when the company attempts a digital transformation_

AWS and the Google Cloud are evidence of the possibility of escape. Are there any writeups for how they came about? (Particularly in the case of AWS.)

<comment> rm_-rf_slash I don't know any write ups, but in short, AWS was a solution to the variable demand for Amazon's, well, web services. Demand peaked considerably during holiday shopping months but otherwise remained far too low to justify keeping all of those peak demand servers running Amazon.com full time, so they were rented out to companies that actually had similar problems of peak demand. In particular, the Victoria's Secret fashion show is a great example of extreme peak demand and scalability for a web service that otherwise attracts relatively little traffic most of the year.

<comment><USER15> Origin of AWS is quite famous.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12022915](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12022915)

Yegge's famous rant about Bezo's 2002 mandate [https://plus.google.com/+RipRowan/posts/eVeouesvaVX](https://plus.google.com/+RipRowan/posts/eVeouesvaVX)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm not sure many IT functions are _not_ cost center functions. Almost none of them, including software development, are revenue drivers for most companies.

Like anything else in business this seems like a case where some hard, one size fits all rule is occasionally misapplied.

<comment><USER17> It's not a clear profit center like sales or direct marketing. But if you can clearly point to good engineering work leading to more sales (release happens, it's really good, lots of people buy the product clearly because of the good work) then it's more on the profit than cost side of the spectrum.

It's really just a matter of how easily can you see that A led to B.

<comment><USER11> > release happens

Release of what?

<comment><USER17> What selllikesybok said.

<comment><USER11> The discussion is about IT being considered a cost center for companies in other industries like banks, car manufacturers, restaurants, airlines, etc.

<comment><USER7> If you're a restaurant chain and you have your own IT, presumably it's for a reason. You're providing your own POS systems, you're providing a website for customers to order from. A new release can improve efficiencies in a restaurant, or wreck them. A new release can mean the difference between me being able to order from Papa Johns (literally 1 mile from my apartment) or not (because of my zip code, they think I'm in an area they don't service).

For banks, it's the same thing. It can be external: my bank added a feature that let me enter and see projected expenditures and incomes so I can see my future balance, it's an effective aid to my budgeting. It can be internal: Like a POS system, making it easier or harder for tellers or lenging agents or others to do their job. Giving them more accurate and up to date information with reports generated daily or down to the minute, instead of the historic weekly or monthly batch reporting.

Car manufacturers have control systems developed by IT, same results as above on a new release.

<comment><USER11> Nobody says that what the IT department does cannot be useful. And it is not about being internal or user-facing. Marketing and customer support are also considered cost centers.

<comment><USER7> Which is not reasonable in either case. Also, is marketing really considered a cost center in most businesses? I would see that put more in line with sales.

Customer support is certainly treated as a cost center, but it oughtn't be. Mary Poppendieck (author of this article) has a good example in one of her books where the customer support center improved profits by being able to aggregate and identify the majority of customer complaints. This led directly to improvements in infrastructure and delivered systems that reduced overall corporate costs (less rework, customers were happier, more sales).

<comment><USER11> Those are valid points. My intention was not to discuss the subject but to reframe the discussion. I can see advantages and disadvantages in considering some departments in the company to be providers of services to the rest of the business. But I guess an appropriate, but cynical, definition would be that cost centers are the departments where you can slash costs while hoping there will be no impact on the business...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> patio11 covered this in his career advice article.[0] I read that article around the time it was first published. The tidbit about cost centers and profit centers has stuck with me since. I have, for the most part, been able to avoid being attached to a cost center. Primarily by working at "tech" companies rather than more conventional companies which put software engineers in "IT" departments.

[0] [http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a- pro...](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-programmer/)

</comment><comment><USER19> Don't see the point of this article. There are accounting mechanisms that allow to activate money put into IT infrastructure as an asset in the balance sheet, at least in my cold and dark part of the world.

Some IT expenses are indeed cost centres and should be just deducted from the profits immediately.

However, other "IT expenses", like creating "back office cost reduction software" and generally IT infrastructure are no different than acquiring some fancy machinery that enhances an industrial process. This also applies to companies whose main revenue model is building software and cloud services.

<comment><USER20> The point of the article is "accounting metrics drive company culture, which leads to damage." It's an important point that senior-ish managers need to understand.

</comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash The given "best" solution - change accounting/metrics - is also one that is most difficult to meaningfully change.

Everybody has a disagreement with metrics until it suits them. Metrics justify mid-level management to upper management, which then justify themselves to top management, then the board of directors, then the shareholders. "Look at the numbers!"

It's similar to a grumbling slogan of fund managers in the 1980s about the then-consistently poor stock performance of IBM: "Nobody gets fired for buying Big Blue."

<comment> mark-r I've always heard that phrase used in reference to IBM products, never IBM stock.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Does anyone know of any further reading about how "software capitalization" works, with the audience of either a layman or somebody who is only cursorily familiar with real double-entry accounting? Also, do these rules vary significantly by country? It seems like the right way of accounting for software will be a huge structural advantage for countries as software becomes and increasing percentage of the value produced by the world economy.

</comment><comment><USER22> A good read. I believe the basics (internet, email, connectivity) of IT infrastructure should be a cost center, development of tools that assist the company in accomplishing their goals should not be.

</comment><comment><USER23> The "cost centre" concept is so silly, and it only ever seems to be applied to the IT department. Why isn't HR a "cost center"? They don't generate any revenue. Why isn't _Accounting_ a cost centre? How many sales do they bring in? It's just a stick other departments use to beat IT with.

<comment><USER7> Sometimes they are, that's why HR and Accounting get outsourced at many companies (or portions of them).

See what companies outsource, that's what they see as cost centers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is why employees of "cost centers" should just go on occasional strikes. Just don't work for 3 days, let the execs understand what the cost is of not having these "cost centers".</comment>


Why did Nintendo put the A and B buttons the wrong way round? - <AUTHOR> http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/34650/what-reason-could-nintendo-have-had-for-putting-the-a-and-b-buttons-the-wrong-wa <comment><USER2> Because A will be used more as its closer to the users hand?</comment>


This is what is wrong with contemporary mathematics - <AUTHOR> http://erik-poupaert.blogspot.com/2012/12/this-is-what-is-wrong-with-contemporary.html

<comment><USER2> Is this article meant to be a joke?

He goes from the statement "For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, if T includes a statement of its own consistency then T is inconsistent." To "all basic claims are more or less false." If we could actually prove that all claims were false, we would be in violation of the Incompletness theorum.

Not to mention the absurtidy of his conclusion. Proving a statement for a set of values you thought of is far more likely to be wrong than proving it with formal mathamatics.

<comment> meta-coder > Gödel's 1931 Second Incompleteness Theorem insists that it is strictly > forbidden to ever claim the truth of any scientific or mathematical > statement

That is grossly wrong interpretation of the theorem. I stopped reading the article right there.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why don't you write a program to show that a particular statement in my article would be wrong?

<comment><USER3> Your article constains no assert statement, therefore, according to itself, it is false.

<comment><AUTHOR> I like your attempt. At least, it is meaningful. Only the domain of statements about facts can be verified with facts. The domain of statements about statements cannot. You have indeed correctly underlined that the rules governing scientific statements -- statements about statements -- cannot be scientific themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _A Popper-compliant claim must be phrased as an invitation to look for counterexamples_

No, a _Popper-compliant_ claim must be falsifiable. It does not need to be phrased in any particular way.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think the fact that I cant drop that article onto a computer and have it tell me if its correct highlights the problem the author is trying to make.

I was also under the impression that programs like Mathimatica enabled you to do this with mathematic equations. But I guess for many they would take a long time to prove.

I suppose a easy way to sum up the article is we have a mathematic symbol for infinity, yet we could never compute that on a compter as you could always add a value greater than zero.

<comment><USER6> The reason we can't drop the article into a computer and have it magically return "true" or "false" is because making computers that even have human intelligence is _damn_ hard as it is, so until we can perfect language parsing and the like and then input millennia of collective mathematical knowledge (correctly, no less), we're not going to have any particular progress on that front.

What does this have to do with "flaws" in contemporary mathematics though? If you're trying to use this as an example of a flaw in anything, it would be the computer industry for not figuring out artificial intelligence, not the mathematics community. So, _if_ this was the author's intention, then I think it's flawed right from the outset, but I don't think this was truly the author's intent. (For one thing, Curry-Howard correspondence is talking about lambda calculus, not what you think when you hear "computer" today.)

Really, the article's entire premise is predicated on _extreme_ misunderstandings of Godel. For instance:

> In fact, Gödel's 1931 Second Incompleteness Theorem insists that it is > strictly forbidden to ever claim the truth of any scientific or mathematical > statement:

What? Where does it say that? It says (quoting the article here):

> For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical > truths and also certain truths about formal provability, if T includes a > statement of its own consistency then T is inconsistent.

If a theory includes a statement of its own consistency, then that theory is inconsistent. How does that imply that it is "strictly forbidden to ever claim the truth of any scientific or mathematical statement"? The honest answer is that it doesn't, not in the slightest. When it comes to mathematics, we're not saying the axioms are consistent, we're saying statements _within this set of axioms_ are true. Are the axiomizations true? I don't know, but _a lot_ of work has gone into these theories and so far they look pretty good. But at any rate, the author uses this theorem in a completely incorrect manner. He is right that we don't know if any of the various mathematical foundations are consistent, true, but as I said, so far everything looks pretty good.

Then he throws this bombshell:

> Given Gödel's First Incompleteness we already know that for any claim making > use of basic arithmetic, counterexamples must exist.

What? How? Here's Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem, per Wikipedia:

> Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic > cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, > effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic > truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in > the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250)

How in the world does that say that "for any claim making use of basic arithmetic, counterexamples must exist." (Counterexamples of what, anyway? Basic arithmetic?) Actually, what the theorem says that you can't have a theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic that is _both_ consistent and complete. The _both_ is the huge part. So far, for example, we think ZFC is consistent. We _know_ it is not complete; see this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statements_undecidable_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statements_undecidable_in_ZFC) . So, the idea that there "must exist counterexamples" (of what, I don't know) as per Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem is simply ridiculous. As a result, we don't know that there are "simply bugs" in the "successor function." As a result, the idea that "all basic claims are more or less false" is completely shot down. Needs better proof.

> The claim above is not Popper-compliant.

Why not? It's falsifiable, so it is. (If it were false, you would need simply to provide an extremely small epsilon and ask for the correspondingly large delta.) It gives the "appearance" of truth because it is indeed true -- relative to the axioms under which it was proven. The author also seems to conflate inductive and deductive disciplines. In mathematics, we create axioms and follow them through to some meaning. In the vast majority of the sciences, the process is very much inductive. So, this seeming focus on making everything mathematical "scientific" is pretty flawed in and of itself. How can you reason about mathematics if you don't have some way to check your results? In the sciences, if I predict gravity will disappear in five minutes for thirty seconds, that is a very testable claim (and a false one, most likely, based on our past experimentation). How can I disprove or prove something in mathematics? Well, we created all these wonderful axioms and they seem consistent (although incomplete, of course), so I can use them to check my results. A little PHP script is not going to cut it. For one thing, the author's script's notion of "division" is predicated on the very idea of division. Where did that come from? For another, the script is not a proof at all. It's just a program to test some values. It doesn't _prove_ anything at all. It's just further evidence towards the proof of something we already know is true.

In sum: the article is bullshit. It misinterprets Godel in terrible ways. For all the fancy French and Latin, it doesn't even provide a programmatic proof of its own claims, the supposed holy grail, after all! The only program it provides is a little test, not anything near a proof. I think if you actually try to provide "Popper-compliant" statements and write programs to prove everything, you end up reverting to all of the normal contemporary mathematical language anyway. I mean, look at this:

> In order to reject this claim, find a number almostZero for which it will > not be possible to find a large enough number x for which 1/x is smaller > than almostZero.

That sentence is essentially a rewording of an old-fashioned delta-epsilon proof. So, how does that indicate a flaw in contemporary mathematics at all? Why should we stop teaching our kids these "symbols" since they are apparently still so very convenient for reasoning about mathematics? The truth is that there's no reason to. The "executable claims" are only found after all of the "verbiage" is said and done.

<comment><AUTHOR> > That sentence is essentially a rewording of an old-fashioned delta-epsilon > proof. So, how does that indicate a flaw in contemporary mathematics at all?

The first flaw is that it is not a proof but only a reduction. The second flaw is that contemporary math does not make the slightest attempt at making its claims easier to verify. What is wrong with an invitation/challenge in the form of a program asking to show the claim wrong?

<comment><USER2> Contemporary math does not attempt to make its claims verifiable in the sense you describe, because it proves them. There might be a flaw in the proof itself (and there is active research in creating programs to check proofs). Sometime proofs in math our of the form you describe. For example, the (most well known) proof that sqrt(2) is irrational is a challenge to find the simplist fraction of to intergers that equals sqrt(2). The proof then goes on to show that any possible response you can provide to the challege is false. Simmilarly, for any mathametical claim, if you can provide a single counter example then you have dissproven the claim. Not being able to provide a counter example does not prove the claim.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I have to insist that math does not prove a statement true. Math only proves that the statement does not contain original untruth.

> Not being able to provide a counter example does not prove the claim.

It is never possible to prove a claim anyway. It is only possible to prove that it does not contain original untruth.

<comment><USER7> > Well, I have to insist that math does not prove a statement true.

Be careful to define your terms. Most people, including mathematicians, will insist that Euclid's prime theorem proves that there are an infinity of primes -- that the assertion is "true".

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

But it will always be possible to redefine "true" arbitrarily to reject any such claims, which partly explains philosophy's low standing among intellectual disciplines.

> It is never possible to prove a claim anyway.

You've shifted ground in your wording, and contradicted the idea of a mathematical proof. There really are mathematical proofs.

In general science, your claim is correct -- a theory cannot be proven true, only false. But in mathematics, proofs exist.

<comment><AUTHOR> Math and science use exactly the same method of reducing their claims to their basic claims and backing those with a failed search for counterexamples. Consequently, all untruth is invariably always the result of the untruth hidden in the basic claims. The untruth in the basic claims obviously exists but it is sheer impossible to pinpoint precisely where exactly it is.

<comment><USER7> > Math and science use exactly the same method of reducing their claims to > their basic claims and backing those with a failed search for > counterexamples.

This is false. You're overlooking a very important difference between math and science. Science is empirical, which means any scientific theory can be overthrown by new evidence arising in nature. This is not true for mathematics -- once a conjecture becomes a theorem, it's irrevocable.

Your viewpoint is a philosophical one that fails to account for the key difference between math and science.

<comment><AUTHOR> Probably worse than that. I simply refuse to make any such key difference between math and science. In my opinion, both math and science are empirical.

<comment><USER2> In what way is math empirical? If one wants to prove that 1+1=2, one does not take one apple, add another apple, and observe that one now has two apples. One defines: x + 0 = x x + successor(y) = successor(x) + y 1=successor(0) 2=successor(1)

One then takes the true true statement 1+1=1+1 | Identity And finds: 1+successor(0)=1+1 | Definition of 1 successor(1) + 0 = 1+1 | Definition of + 2 + 0 = 1+1 | Definition of 2 2=1+1 | Definition of +

I made no observation to prove 1+1=2. What I do observe is that if we map the counting numbers to the count of how many apples I have, and we map the addition operation to combing to groups of apples, then the mathematical result is consistent with reality. However, if we empirically discover that the mathematical result is not constitent with reality, than that does not mean that the math is wrong, it simply means that the reality does not behave in a way that corresponds to the math.

<comment><AUTHOR> > it simply means that the reality does not behave in a way that corresponds > to the math.

In that case, we should watch out to use that kind of math in engineering or for example calculate expected airplane behaviour with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> sounds like a programmer took a philosophy of math & science class and didn't fully grasp it

<comment><USER9> Agreed..

> Therefore, all basic claims are more or less false. We just do not know why > they are false. The entire body of science and mathematics therefore does > not rest on a set of true statements but on a set of difficult-to-prove- > false statements. Disproving a claim may even require showing where we can > find a bug in the successor function. This is seriously hard, but still > possible, because we know that these bugs must exist.

We do NOT know that these bugs exist. Gödel has shown us that any useful formalization of mathematics (such as the commonly utilized Zermelo–Fraenkel "ZF" set theory) cannot prove its own consistency. However, that does not imply that it must be inconsistant.

The fact that thousands of mathematicians have used ZF for about a hundred years without finding a contradiction makes me confident that even if it's inconsistant, we should be able to patch it up easily enough. But honestly I don't expect that to happen.

<comment><AUTHOR> In my opinion, Kurt Gödel's claim points to something that seems to go wrong in Alonzo Church's successor function. For the sake of the argument, let's call that a bug. It would take a serious amount of work to point out how that would affect Zermelo–Fraenkel.

<comment><USER2> Care to elaborate on how Godel's theroum implies a bug in the successor function.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "A little learning is a dangerous thing" -- Alexander Pope

</comment><comment><USER10> > Curry-Howard executable version of the claim

I don't see how the code provided has any relation to the Curry-Howard correspondence, which is a statement relating _types_ and proofs.

<comment><AUTHOR> The original CH mapping, that is, "a proof is a program, the formula it proves is a type for the program" is quite hard to achieve because it tries to demonstrate that a particular statement is true. It is much easier to honestly fail in demonstrating that it is false.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> IMHO, this article is a complete BS from someone who doesn't understand the difference between Bourbaki's math and real modern math

(P.S. I used to be a mathematician in my previous life)

<comment><AUTHOR> The whole point was that we were going to write a program and invite each other to find counterexamples for the statement proposed, so that we can finally stop the bullshit of ad-hominem arguments. I know it must be hard for you to switch but in the long term it will benefit you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This had me grinning like a maniac the whole way through. Delightful. And the PHP at the end is a masterstroke.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Well, for any statement that you did not like in my article, write a program to show me that the statement is wrong.

<comment><USER13> assert(0)

<comment><AUTHOR> If your claim is void (zero), you could put a bit more effort into elaborating that ;-)

<comment><USER2> You state: "Gödel's 1931 Second Incompleteness Theorem insists that it is strictly forbidden to ever claim the truth of any scientific or mathematical statement"

That claim is false, therefore, the truth of that claim is equivilent to the truth of 'false'. Becuase your article is true iff all of the statements within it are true, and your article contains a statement which is false, then your entire article is false. Using this, we can 'reduce' the 'proof' of your into assert(false). I suspect that the parent is using 0 as an alias for false.

More generally, for any contemporary mathamatical proof, what you call a reduction, you can reduce the proof of the form you describe to either assert(true) xor assert(false), depending on what the mathametical proof/reduction shows.

<comment><USER13> _using 0 as an alias for false_

Oops, my python roots are showing.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Startup Idea Prompts – Generate from YC's RFS and A16Z's 16 Things - <AUTHOR> http://ideasex.org/prompts/

<comment><USER2> "How can we use Pharmaceuticals to solve a problem in Hollywood 2.0?" ... and i thought that problem has long been solved? :)</comment>


Ellison, Page take stand as Google argues "Java language is free and open" - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/google-v-oracle-day-2.ars <comment><USER2> "Oracle lawyers have found exactly nine lines of code that are the same as Sun's code".</comment>


Hedge funds are increasingly outbidding VCs on hot deals like Snapchat and Box - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/22/venture-investing-hedge-funds-rising/

<comment><USER2> Good article. A few additional things to note:

1\. Most founders don't have to think about hedge funds as a funding source. They're not doing seed/early stage deals. There are 300-600 private companies that hedge funds track and care about. It's later stage, pre-IPO companies.

2\. GGV Capital (article author) is a late stage investor so they may compete with hedge funds, but more often than not, hedge funds are providing capital that VCs cannot. Hedge funds are a much much larger asset class than VCs and VC has been contracting. So when a VC-backed company needs big $$, VCs need to syndicate and corporates and hedge funds are often jumping into these deals.

3\. This trend is going to increase. As private companies stay private longer, hedge funds and public market investors in general are taking more interest in the private company universe. And they look at private compnaies as investment targets and as potential disruptors of their public company holdings.

4\. Hedge funds are a great deal more data-driven and analytical than their VC cousins. VC is still very artisinal and instinct driven. It will be interesting to see how their behavior and approaches influences VCs, if at all, over time. (We sell data to hedge funds investing in private companies and so see how they use data)

Notes:

1\. Hedge and mutual funds put $2.45 billion into private companies last year - [http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/trends/hedge-mutualfund- tech-...](http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/trends/hedge-mutualfund-tech- investments)

2\. Corporates part of 4 of 10 largest tech financings - [http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/trends/tech-corporate- venture...](http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/trends/tech-corporate-venture- capital-balance-sheet)

<comment><USER3> Since your company is providing the information, can you share more on how you are deciding which 300-600 companies to track and care about?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Maintaining a conceptual separation between "VC" and "hedge fund" is probably unhelpful.

<comment><USER5> Why, exactly?

<comment><USER6> Venture capital could simply be a subset of what the hedge fund participates in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Who cares. Nobody. That's why this thread is falling off the front page.

<comment><USER8> At what point did you think this comment contributed in any way?</comment></comment>


Map shows trillion-dollar reason why China is oppressing its Muslims - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/map-explains-china-crackdown-on-uighur-muslims-in-xinjiang-2019-2 <comment><USER2> This article is wrong in suggesting the BRI is the reason behind the camps, that somehow everything is about economics. The real reason is the China sees Xinjiang as part of its territory and wants to limit Islamic influences.

Kevin Rudd, the former prime minister of Australia, has done a great analysis behind Xi Jinping's world view and interests. They are, in order of importance to him:

"1\. The centrality of the party, keeping the party in power for the long term, as well as Xi's power within the party;

2\. Consolidating the internal unity of the country;

3\. Maintaining sustainable economic growth to ensure a continued increase in Chinese living standards, breaking though the "middle-income trap," while balancing now against a parallel requirement for environmental protection now demanded by China's urban elites;

4\. Keeping China's 14 bordering countries in a benign, and preferably supine state;

5\. On China's maritime periphery, projecting its regional naval and air power, politically fracturing U.S. alliances in Asia, and ultimately removing the United States from the immediate region militarily;

6.Leveraging its economic power across China's vast continental periphery, causing Eurasia, and in time the Middle East and Africa to become accommodating to China's economic, foreign policy, and security interests; and

7.Reforming parts, but by no means all, of the post-war international rules- based order over time to better suit its interests, and to better reflect China's domestic values rather than those of the post-war consensus."

Just apply this formula to China's actions and everything makes sense.

<comment><USER3> That's a good summary of Xi Jinping's goals. I would just add that the BRI has an important role to play in most of them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I feel stupid but I still don't completely understand why this oppression is necessary. Do they need to remove the villages for BRI to come to fruition?

<comment><USER5> I don't get it either. Why not play nice with them?

<comment><USER6> They'd probably want some degree of cultural and religious autonomy, and that's politically unacceptable to Beijing.

<comment><USER5> I guess the unwillingness to give some level of autonomy is ultimately the downfall of most dictatorships. This will just keep festering unless they are willing to kill all of them.

The Turks have been making the same mistake with the Kurd for a long time. Instead of looking for a mutually acceptable solution they just keep oppressing with no end in sight.

<comment><USER6> There's no such thing as an Uighur, just funny looking Chinese people. There's no such thing as a Kurd, just Turkish people with a funny accent. They're just making their supposed cultural differences up, why can't they just be like us?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> For a long time, I was quite puzzled by the Road-and-Belt initiative. Then I saw a map much like this one - but which included it's current land route through Russia; and realized that the road to Europe, through Iran, is probably key. Previously, all Chinese trade with Europe going by land went through Russia. Although there are undoubtedly many purposes behind Road-and- Belt, including building up heavy construction capacity partly on other country's dime; I concluded that China forsees the possibility of being at odds with Russia, perhaps even in the near term - or later at a time when they are less dependent on Russian carbon fuels - and that China wants to ensure that any such confrontations happen without interfering with its economy.

<comment><USER8> I don't think the plans have anything to do with future Russian relations, the reasons are better explained here than businessinsider tabloid spam [https://www.strategy-business.com/feature/A-Strategists- Guid...](https://www.strategy-business.com/feature/A-Strategists-Guide-to- Chinas-Belt-and-Road-Initiative)

Basically they want to spread their currency, expand their market to all regional neighbors and provide political/economic stability to the various regimes around them. The separatist East Turkestan crackdown has been happening for decades long before they imagined this initiative [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Turkestan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Turkestan)

<comment><USER7> I had read these explanations, but found them insufficient. You don't mention the G5/optic cable angle, which I think is a better argument on your side: [https://www.wired.com/story/china-will-likely- corner-5g-mark...](https://www.wired.com/story/china-will-likely- corner-5g-market-us-no-plan/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a ridiculous thesis. The Uighurs have the most to gain from trade with the outside world, especially since their culture in significantly un-Chinese, and has more in common with non-Chinese. The reason for "oppressing Muslims" is the collision between two cultures. The Uighurs will never accept Chinese domination— their country is East Turkistan. For the Han Chinese it is humiliating to be resisted by an inferior Turkic white minority that they have successfully subjugated militarily. In China, (1) You do as you're told and get along (2) The Han people are intrinsically superior to other races, Oh, and by the way. That this is about Islam and terrorism is pure Chinese propaganda, like Trump's Latin American murders and rapists.</comment>


Electric Barons (2018) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://cryptome.org/2019/02/elbar.pdf <comment><USER2> I don't know who the author is, but appreciate the pseudonym's nod to HG Wells, so excuse me if any of this is already known to the author.

There are some interesting ideas in this draft, but it won't work as a paper, in my opinion, until it enters into the wider intellectual conversation on these issues—there's been plenty of exploration of this theme prior to San Fransisco's current dire straits. For example, check out Langdon Winner's peice, _Do Artifacts have Politics_ which examines some of Robert Moses's infrastructural projects in NYC and their rather direct political and social consequences. Obviously, that's a bit different than the main thrust of the argument which has to do with servers and decentralization of computing power, but in general, exploring and subsequently citing works from the traditions of the philosophy of technology, history of technology, and social and political philosophy will help support the arguments in this essay, frame them within the context of prior human thought on the problems and concepts, and help fix vague and contentious use of terminology such as "ideology" with more specific, domain motivated contents. Since it's a draft this point is less important, but the peice could also use a solid copy-edit.

Overall though, I'm very happy to see people are out there contemplating this stuff, and it's an interesting topic.

<comment><USER3> I think you missed the point here. There is a straight line narrative of (a) architectures of control and regulation; (b) informational asymmetry between the public and intelligence agencies ["Germans", "1973"]; (c) reflection on the possibilities afforded by software vs hardware cypher systems; (d) and a critique of the du jour insistence of the "experts" against rolling one's own cyphers.

> help fix vague and contentious use of terminology such as "ideology" with > more specific, domain motivated contents.

It makes zero difference what is the "ideology" of the said barons. The point is that the infrastructure of control is being placed and whatever that ideology is, it is not 'representative' of the rest of us who have no choice but to use those "artifacts".</comment></comment>


New Particle Accelerator Fits on a Silicon Chip - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-particle-accelerator-fits-on-a-silicon-chip1/ <comment><USER2> This article keeps conflating this new "electron" accelerator with traditional "particle" accelerators.

I think it is important to understand that theres a big difference between accelerating an electron and accelerating a protron or neutron.

It is my understanding that the value of traditional particle accelerators is in the sub atomic pieces produced after creating a collision between two particles traveling in opposite directions.

Is it even possible to cause two electrons to collide? Don't electrons occupy multiple points in space at the same time?

That being said the work is still impressive and I am imagining super efficient solar panels being produced from this new tech.

<comment><USER3> This is a very small particle accelerator. It's small because it only can give the particles an energy of a few MeV and it's small because the usual equipment has the size of a a refrigerator or a building.

You can accelerate electrons, protons, or other particles. It's easier to accelerate electrons/positrons and protons/antiprotons because they have a looooong life and they are charged.

Usually in modern big accelerators they use a particle and an antiparticle, because you can reuse the big tunnel for both. The largest one that used electrons-positrons was the LEP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron–Positron_Collid...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron–Positron_Collider) , but they "dismantle" it and are using the big tunnel for the LHC that use protons-antiprotons.

But if you want to construct two gigantic tunnels instead of one you can make an electron-electron collider. It's probably easier to convince an electron to colide with a positron, but I'd like to ask an expert to get the exact number.

If a very fast electron goes nearby another electron they can get very close before the electrostatic repulsion wins. When there are nearby, they can interchange some very high energy photons, and perhaps some W or Z particles. If you are lucky enough, some of the particles they interchange may escape and steal some energy from the fas electron.

The electrons never really collide, they never touch the other electron. But if you see this from far away (like a few millimeters away) it looks like they have collided and released a particle.

For an exact calculation you must replace the handwaving an small balls story with some Feynman diagrams and quantum mechanics, but the story is close enough.

When you have an electron and a positron, they also don't really collide. They release some photons and other particles. Sometimes all the intermediate particles get reabsorbed and the electron/positron just change direction. Sometimes both disappear and you just see the other particles that gamma rays(that are photons). Sometimes something in between.

With protons-antiprotons it's more complicated because each has three quarks and a lot of gluons that make the calculation more complicated, but at the end it's the same story. The quarks never really colide.

Edit: There are electron-positron nodes in Feynman diagrams, so it's better to say that they can colide, but at high energy the collision is much more complicated than expected because they can interchange particles before the collision.</comment></comment>


In Undertale, you can choose to kill monsters or understand them - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2015/09/24/undertale-game.html <comment><USER2> My first thought was, this is just like the US and the Middle East / Al Qaeda / ISIS.</comment>


The History of the Processing Programming Language - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@ProcessingOrg/a-modern-prometheus-59aed94abe85 <comment><USER2> "and Processing are poorly-designed languages that support weak ways of thinking, and ignore decades of learning about learning." \- Bret Victor

[http://worrydream.com/#!/LearnableProgramming](http://worrydream.com/#!/LearnableProgramming)

like many things "better" is often not what wins. Kind of ironic that many of the "learning about learning" ideas also came from MIT

<comment><USER3> As much as I absolutely love the work of Bret Victor, Processing actually shipped and is teaching people every day how to code.

Although he's achieved a massive amount of research in the field, I'm still waiting for absolutely any of it to ship into systems and actually teach people.

<comment><USER2> I agree, shipping is better than not, but that article lists lots of low- hanging fruit that would help users of Processing.

One example is designing for autocomplete. He asserts that shape(type, ...) is better than square(...), triangle(...), circle(...) because once you know `shape` then typing `sh` finds you all the shapes where as you have no idea what shapes are available when you have to guess all function names (circle?, ellipse?, hexagon?, rhumbas?)

IIRC there were other low-hanging fruit.

<comment><USER4> Not sure I like the suggested autocomplete on a string though. But using namespaces or similar like Shape.Triangle... would autocomplete better. I know that Microsoft deliberately designs the .net API's to facilitate exploring an API by using autocomplete.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use Processing whenever I teach an intro to programming workshop or course. It's kind of the perfect language for beginners.

First, it eliminates the need to navigate the programming ecosystem. Rather than having to choose python, Ruby, js, or C on day one, processing lets you get students up and running quickly. No need to install local servers or compilers or interpreters, just install processing.

Second, because it makes visual programs easy, it lets students develop an intuition for the effects of their code faster. A negative sign makes itself obvious when you see an object moving in the wrong direction.

Finally, it's fun. Students get to make interactive games that keep them interested, rather than yet another Fibonacci sequence calculator. I think this is the most important thing to nail in the early days of a programming education. Build fun things to keep you motivated to learn more.

It also has a pretty easy progression into JavaScript, so students have a clear next step if they wish to break into "real" programming languages after their course.

All in all I only have good things to say about Processing, as long as it's used in the right educational context. Glad to see it's still doing well.

</comment><comment><USER6> Also [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16874102](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16874102), but that looks like a different article.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, cool. That one's also a good read. It's more of a user's perspective on Processing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I encountered Processing after I'd already learned the very basics of programing, but found it invaluable as a tool for quickly experimenting while learning practical concepts.

Daniel Shiffman's excellent book "The Nature of Code"[0] uses Processing (now ported to Processing.js) to teach all kinds of practical introductory tools useful for modelling real things in an interactive environment. Vectors, forces, simple steering/flocking behaviors, cellular automata, how to set up and use Box2D, even a bit on neural networks. For a student who knew how to write some syntax, but not enough to actually create interesting things, it was (and still is) a fantastic resource.

Even though I've mostly moved on, I still love the simple graphically oriented "sketch" model and am now using Quil[1], a Clojure layer over the Processing core, to teach myself Clojure by reimplementing some old projects. Live- editing Lisp code in Emacs while interacting with a real time 3D graphical environment is an eye opening experience.

[0] [http://natureofcode.com/book/chapter-6-autonomous- agents/](http://natureofcode.com/book/chapter-6-autonomous-agents/)

[1] [https://github.com/quil/quil](https://github.com/quil/quil)</comment>


Inside the Chaotic Battle to Be the Top Reply to a Trump Tweet - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/trollpotusgrowthhack?utm_term=.ujv16EKk#.rllAznW6 <comment><USER2> The amount of time some verified Twitter users spend sending angry tweets to Trump is actually kind of frightening.</comment>


Uber gets special tax treatment from UK - <AUTHOR> https://waitingfortax.com/2017/10/27/something-is-very-wrong-at-hmrc/ <comment><AUTHOR> Jo is a tax barrister who does some pro bono work for tax fairness cases. There is more analysis on Twitter @JolyonMaugham. He seems to be alledging that the government are pressuring HMRC not to collect tax from US technology firms. A whole new meaning to the Special Relationship

</comment><comment><USER2> There seems to be a pattern of US tech getting special tax treatment from the UK. Google pays little. Amazon avoids payroll taxes by exploiting self employed. Starbucks exploits brand licensing to move profits abroad.

</comment><comment><USER3> Uber is an agent acting on behalf of the driver. Why should it collect VAT.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you put your home address on your resume? - <AUTHOR>

With a lot of folks now putting their resumes online and on various other hosting sites.  It's pretty clear you likely don't want your home address out on the web.  While most people can find it via sites like spokeo and others these aren't authoritative sources and your resume would be.<p>So it's 2014, do you still put your home address on your resume when sending them out? <comment><USER2> I put city and state. For local jobs, it's important to say you're local (for whatever definition of local is). For remote jobs, it's important so people know what time zone you're in.

I think a full home address sends one of two signals. One, the person hasn't really thought about it, and just includes it because the first resume they copied their format from included it, which suggests a lack of attention to detail. Or two, they have thought about it, and their address is important, such as when they aren't interested in a long commute.

I can't think of a reason it would be useful to divulge your home address when applying for remote work (obviously, if you got the job, you'd do additional paperwork that provides it).

</comment><comment><USER3> If the posting says local applicants only I do.</comment>


Now the party's over, will the young really pick up the tab? - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/12/pre-budget-economy

<comment><USER2> Short answer - no. They'll inflate the currency and/or declare bankruptcy. I'd prefer more of the latter than the former.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have a few ideas:

1) Raise the retirement age to 70, that way people have to pay more into the system before they can benefit.

2) Expand work training programs for college age kids so instead of going to college, kids have a choice to learn skills, like tech certifications for example. These programs could even be funded by tech companies, who would get a tax benefit perhaps for doing it, and also would have the benefit of having a ready-made pool of interns, and competent interns are nearly impossible to get these days I have noticed. This way, kids could go right into the workforce, and not be burdened by loans from a worthless degree.

3) Move away from the model of getting a 30 year mortgage, which over-burdens young people. Rather, develop low-cost, pre-frame housing, and make that as an available alternative to the traditional mortgage. It is easier to finance a 30K pre-frame home, then a 150K fossil that may or may not appreciate in value over the decades.

4) Re-work tax shelters like the 401K and the ROTH IRA to compell people to have at least 25% of their contributions into money market accounts. This keeps liquidity in the markets, and makes sure people don't completely shoot themselves in the foot with risky investments. If people want to forgo the 25% short-term investment rule, then they get to forgo the tax benefits too.

5) Shift the focus in medicine from long-term care to prevention. For example instead of millions going into experimental chemotherapy drugs that may or may not work, shift at least some of that into gene research which could highlight the risk factors for things like cancer, and so on. For example, certain countries in Asia like Japan are known for their longevity, and probably don't put more into healthcare costs than we do, but their nutrition is far better - sushi is healthier than pizza, bottom line. Focus on prevention saves lives, keeps people healthy, and lowers costs of geriatric care.

6) Get over the western suspicion of robots. Robots can be great for low-wage jobs that we might not have the manpower to fill as people age, and also can be great caregivers for the elderly. Japan knows these things: they use robots in place of factory workers if they cannot find people for those roles, and also, they are moving towards using robots for caring for the shut-in elderly. Again, this is cost effective. Forget the Hollywood crap about robots and realize they are an economically practical tool to serve man.

7) Have an age-indexed social security tax, so people in their 20's and 30's pay less, but this increases in one's 40's and 50's and up until retirement. This keeps the tax burden off the young when they are getting started but ultimately brings in more revenue to the system, if properly indexed.

8) Don't stiff NASA. Going to the moon, mars, and beyond stimulates technological advances, which stimulates industry, which stimulates jobs and opportunities. Ultimately the solution for the burden on the young lies in opportunities. Howard Roark can save his generation, but only if he is in an environment that rewards, rather than stifles, creativity and innovation.

<comment><USER4> "3) Move away from the model of getting a 30 year mortgage, which over-burdens young people. Rather, develop low-cost, pre-frame housing, and make that as an available alternative to the traditional mortgage. It is easier to finance a 30K pre-frame home, then a 150K fossil that may or may not appreciate in value over the decades."

If by 150K you mean 150,000 US dollars, it might interest you to learn that the average UK house price is more than twice that:

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_pric...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_prices/html/houses.stm)</comment></comment>


Tokbox: A Platform for Adding Live Video Chat to Your Web Site - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jeffreymcmanus.com/1783/tokbox-a-platform-for-adding-live-video-chat-to-your-web-site/

<comment><USER2> woop woop!

</comment><comment><USER3> +1

<comment><USER4> Just noticed your account was recently created. You seem enthusiastic :D If you'd like to vote up the post, click the lil up arrow.

(no affiliation w/post or HN, just a self-appointed ambassador)</comment></comment>


Apple resumes selling iPhone SE at lower $249 price on its clearance store - <AUTHOR> https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MP7X2LL/A/iphone-se-128gb-space-gray-unlocked <comment><USER2> The only thing that could get me to upgrade from my iPhone 7 would be a premium version of the iPhone SE. I want a smaller phone, not a bigger one, but I want updated specs and possibly an OLED screen.

<comment><USER3> Not only is this something I'd love, it's also a comment that gets a lot of upvotes on Hackers News every time it's made. Do HN readers have an unusual like for 'small' phones or is it just an unserved market?

<comment><USER4> Since no one here is rushing to get the small xperia phones I'm guessing it is one of those things people want, but at the same time is the first feature they are willing to give up.

another case in point: parent only wants to change to smaller phone if all other specs are also improved.

<comment><USER5> I bought the iPhone X because it was almost iPhone 8 Plus at iPhone 8 size. But if there were a iPhone SE2 that followed the "all screen design" and was almost an iPhone 8 in an iPhone 5s body? Sign me up.

I don't think Xperia matters much here is it is sacrificing iOS and also to a lesser degree, an Android manufacturer that isn't known for great software on that end.

<comment><USER6> I hate all screen design I also want a thicker phone. I want to be able to actually hold the damn thing. I get a case because those are now design flaws.

<comment><USER5> that's fair. I'm not saying get rid of other designs, just saying there is interest in smaller devices. I personally don't have an issue holding mine with or without a case, though I had a Samsung Galaxy Edge so I became accustomed to not resting too much on the front. I could see where someone who isn't accustomed to it or, fair enough, has no interest in becoming accustomed to that disliking it and that's fine. I respect that.

<comment><USER6> I hated the Galaxy edge because the edge menu was pretty pointless. And it came with Samsung shitware.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The upcoming sony xz4 compact may be the only small phone with premium components, and it's extremely frustrating. It's not even /that/ small.

You can find small phones but they have terrible cameras, sub HD resolutions, and bargain basement SOCs.

Is the demand for a premium (or even mid range) small phone really that low?

<comment><USER8> Yes, the demand really is that low. People who want a smaller phone in 2019 are a very small yet very vocal minority.

If there was a large untapped market for smaller phones, then the limited number of small phones on the market would be selling a lot better than they actually are. Somebody would notice and start making more of them.

Like phones with physical keyboards, phones with small screens have become a niche product and they will probably disappear in the next few years.

<comment><USER9> Do you have any insight as to why?

I'm part of that minority and small phones seem better in so many ways. My hands are relatively big I think, but even with "small" phones now I can barely use them with one hand. The smaller screen uses less battery. Larger phones don't fit in pockets very well and result in a spot that wears through on my jeans where the corner of the phone pokes out from my pocket.

I'm really struggling to think of advantages to larger phones. I guess if you always carry around a purse/bag then the size doesn't matter as much, and if you had smaller hands then maybe one-handed use is just impossible regardless of the size. But what's the use case? It's not like a real computer where a larger screen means you can multitask better, since you can barely multitask anyway.

<comment><USER10> Clothing should have a certain amount of utility, IMO. Perhaps it's the jeans that need to be updated.

I'm pretty happy with the size of my phone currently, not sure it qualifies as small or large. Largest phone I had was for work, Iphone 6+, that thing was unwieldy, essentially a tablet. I wouldn't own one that big personally.

<comment><USER11> Cargo pants, right? The modern variant is called "tactical", and can be found with flat sides rather than bulky pouches. In a dark color the pockets are almost invisible.

Vertx Legacy are my favorite. The thigh pocket has an inner magazine pocket that holds a phone perfectly. Or a backup battery. If you carry two phones, it keeps them from clunking into each other.

[https://vertx.com/mens-legacy-pants](https://vertx.com/mens-legacy-pants)

<comment><USER10> flat side cargo pants, that's pretty neat, I hadn't seen those.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I use iPhone SE as my daily driver because of the form factor. Give me a premium SE with thinner bezels and I would probably pay close to iPhone X prices. There are quite a few of us out there.

<comment><USER13> Don't try to motivate Apple to make everything more expensive as it will fail them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't understand why Apple can't update the SE in its current design iteration. Obviously if they can release a redesigned iPhone in a small form factor, I'd hop on it.

I want a small one handed device that has the latest specs and TouchID, and a headphone jack.

<comment><USER15> Back when I bought my SE, it was _cheaper_ than getting a 6, despite having better specs. I also check for deals online a lot, and the SE was almost _constantly_ being discounted. I think it's not unreasonable, based on these, to assume that it never really sold particularly well.

Based on that, I'd say that they stopped making the SE simply because only a very small, specific slice of the market actually wants to purchase such a device, and it's not worth keeping a unique product in their portfolio if the sales numbers just aren't there.

<comment><USER16> The 5s/SE is less than 5% of mobile traffic at our site.

<comment><USER17> Five percent of iPhones is still an enormous number when Apple sells ~200,000,000 iPhones per year. (And that's despite Apple not catering for this market for the past three product cycles. Imagine if they did!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I guess it's time for all those HN people who were moaning about iPhones being too big/expensive/lacking in home buttons/etc... to put their money where their mouths are.

It's a 2016 model, so it should remain supported until at least 2021. Not far off, but still better than some (many?) Android phones.

I'm not sure how $299/128GB compares to Android products, but it's cheaper than its previous $449 price.

I'd pick one up myself, except that I have a 5 that keeps on chugging along.

<comment><USER7> $250/32 is barely competitive. however, you cannot buy an android phone this small that isn't complete garbage

<comment><USER19> $250 isn't a good price. The SE/32 was advertised and sold for $79 at WalMart on Black Friday 2018 and was advertised and sold for $99 at WalMart on Black Friday 2017. Both times no-contract.

<comment><USER7> Those are door buster sales.

Anyways, I looked it up - they were also carrier locked to walmart mobile, a mvno in which the price of the phone is subsidized.

<comment><USER19> > Those are door buster sales.

Not correct at all and why do you have to make a fake new account to post your false troll?

WalMart for several years has been maintaining sufficient stock for advertised black friday items. They had sufficient stock for everyone that wanted one, and they _also_ were selling it online as well on Black Friday with free shipping.

I bought FOUR and gave them to friends and family. I use mine as a camera, mp3 player, and portable web browser and have never paid an additional cent for it.

<comment><USER7> I googled it. Maybe the results were misleading.

So, you're saying that the phone you bought you didn't use as a phone? Hmmm....

Also, this isn't a fake account. I don't think anything I've posted was intended to troll.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Wish this came before I refreshed to one of their newest models. The iPhone 5 form factor is still my favorite.

<comment><USER21> I bought a brand new SE a few months ago for $180. It was from a third party but Apple verified the serial as original and unused. It wasn't availability or pricing that kept them from anyone who wanted one, it was the lack of name- brand-new-thing validation.

<comment> w-ll Mind sharing were you ordered it from?

<comment><USER21> It was an Amazon third-party seller.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Hardware lends itself to a vertical business model, Apple has clearly been the best example but even video game console manufacturers write their own games.

With AI assistants seemingly the 'next big thing', which lends itself to a more horizontal model, will Apple change gears to accommodate? Their services division has been growing rapidly.

Apple could leverage it's brand to create an awesome cell phone at a very cheap price. Not a lot of low income people are buying the the XR, my sister has had to replace her iPhone for at least six months but as a college student she's not going to spend a grand on a phone. Maybe it's time for Apple to dial down the luxury brand pricing and make a phone for the common man?

<comment><USER23> > With AI assistants seemingly the 'next big thing'

Are 'AI Assistants' the 'next big thing' in the same way that 'chatbots' where the 'next big thing' in 2015?

To me, it just seems that the market is mostly propped up by Medium articles and vendors trying to force the next big thing to make payday.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Why does everyone love this phone so much? Clue me in?

<comment><USER25> The iPhone SE was the last stand of a dead philosophy - the one-handed phone.

To Steve Jobs, it was absolutely essential that all of the core functions of the iPhone could be performed with one hand. That requirement dictated large parts of the iPhone's design and the UX principles of iOS. One-handed operation formed a key part of the marketing of the iPhone 5.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O99m7lebirE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O99m7lebirE)

The one-handed phone represents the phone as a means to an end rather than an end itself. You make a quick call to your partner while holding the baby, you check your shopping list while pushing a grocery cart, you send a text while holding a beer. The one-handed phone does a job, then gets out of your way. It's never the total focus of your attention.

Bigger phones are obviously better for intensive use. If you sit an iPhone SE and an iPhone X side-by-side, the iPhone 5 seems comically tiny. It's lousy for web browsing, it's lousy for reading e-books, it's lousy for watching movies. It seems like a relic from a different age. That's because it is - it's a relic from an age when a smartphone was a smart phone, rather than a pocket computer. Rightly or wrongly, there's no turning back from here.

<comment><USER26> I recently bought an iPhone SE and you've articulated why I bought it far better than I could. Well done!

I know a simple upvote would suffice but just wanted to tell you that, on my iPhone SE, of course :)

<comment><USER27> +1, this comment is spot on. I'd also add, it feels both more useful yet not utilitarian.

When I first saw the iPhone 6 the design struck me as lousy. It feels great in the hand and the hardware is top-notch, but it definitely felt like a phone they could build easily, while knowing you're most likely going to put a case on it-- quite utilitarian. On the other hand, after the iPhone 4 I had no idea how Apple would outdo its hardware design, but the iPhone 5 with its chamfered edges and unibody enclosure is, IMO one of if not the best Apple ever had. I'm happy that design was inherited in the SE.

In the sense of usability though, in spite of the utilitarian design new iPhones have lost both the headphone jack and TouchID! Moreover, they're too big to use with one hand. In that sense, the SE still feels more "useful", and it's why I keep mine around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Aaand... they're gone.

<comment><USER29> theyre still available in other colors here:

[https://www.apple.com/shop/refurbished/clearance](https://www.apple.com/shop/refurbished/clearance)

i just ordered one, finally got the phone ive wanted!

<comment><USER30> This will be my third gold Apple device. I don't mind the color but the world in general seems to.

I'm excited, once my iPhone 6 kicks the bucket, I'll have a great backup ready.

<comment><USER17> It's not fair to call it a mere backup, it's an upgrade to the iPhone 6 in every respect other than screen size. The SE is effectively a 6S logic board shoved into the case of an 5S.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> My iPhone 4S is perfectly sized for me and seems indestructible but the battery has been gradually getting worse and worse. I'd hoped that the SE form factor would get an update with the last set of model refreshes and was sadly disappointed when it was discontinued.

When I saw this post, I immediately ordered one.

</comment><comment><USER32> Got a new one in November when the battery replacement for my old one failed at the Apple store. They just unboxed a new iPhone SE in front of me and I was amazed they still had any left.

</comment><comment><USER33> Too late for me, I already bought 3 of them at full price... I'm estimating that's the reserve I need to hold out until Apple changes their mind and bring back this form factor.

</comment><comment><USER34> Damn. Not available in Germany. I was going to grab two for my two kids. If Apple price them to below 100$ price point, it would kill the low to mid level phone market.

<comment><USER35> Was looking for that, too. Seems like they just removed the SE from the German store at all. Or did I look at the wrong place? :-D

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Like many others I wish they'd release one with fresh hardware. I'd buy one immediately, for my wife, who hates all the phones since the 5s because she can't hold them well. There's this whole ridiculous pop-socket thing she uses so that she can hold an iPhone 7 without dropping it, she swears it's the only thing that makes it usable for her.

Wish this market was bigger since apparently there's not enough demand.

<comment><USER37> Those awkward things attached to the back? I guess she doesn't have pockets since it makes them a really awkward shape - such a weird usability trade off yet many people seem to have them.

I hope this is a test of demand - I ordered one since my existing one is falling apart after some big drops but I didn't want something bigger.

I tried an LG v30 and it always felt like I was about to drop it (though the audio sounds really nice!) I can't find any phone besides the SE that I'd rather buy even without price as a factor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Note that it's a clearance sale within 'certified refurbished', so these are not entirely new devices.

<comment><USER39> These look to be new. Refurbished listings clearly indicate that, for example, the listing "Refurbished iPhone 7 128GB - Black (Unlocked)" [1], and it goes on to describe details about what a refurbished phone from Apple entails — all things that are missing from the iPhone SE page. My guess is Apple doesn't normally sell new "clearance" products, so they decided to just add it to the existing discount/refurbished store.

[1]: [https://www.apple.com/shop/product/FN8L2/Refurbished- iPhone-...](https://www.apple.com/shop/product/FN8L2/Refurbished- iPhone-7-128GB-Black)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I bought two to replace the iPhone 4 and 4S that my wife and I use. Does anybody know if there is still a reasonable source for a battery case for this model? (I'd like to prolong the life of the internal battery.) Everything I'm seeing on Amazon is scaring the heck out of me-- tales of melting cases, dead batteries after a month, etc. I assume that I've just come to the party too late.

</comment><comment><USER41> That's so wrong... you can have a borderless formfactor form redmi(sub brand of xiaomi) for 160 usd , and 5 y.o. Design for much $200+. I'm ok that Apple price is higher, but it should be decent. What Apple is doing is selling expensive outdated tech and formfactors.

</comment><comment><USER42> I have an iPhone SE and I've been extremely disappointed in its quality. After the warranty expired, the touch screen started giving out, a microphone stopped working, and the LED backlight started fading. I don't recommend the phone

<comment><USER17> I know five people with iPhone SE devices (I recommend them to older family members who aren't phone addicts and to anyone who baulks at the cost of a new phone) and all of them are still working perfectly. I do recommend the phone.

Given the hundreds of millions of iPhones Apple sells, there inevitably going to be some lemons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I am holding on to my SE and has been buying phones in the private market to keep a new SE available. I like the form factor size, but would be very keen to get an update processor .

</comment><comment><USER44> I wonder if they're going to discontinue production of them once they sell them all out? It seems to already be sold out for some of the models (depending on color chosen).

</comment><comment><USER45> Hmmm. From the comments, looks like it's time for modular phones. That way, everyone could assemble what they need, and change when they need.

Whole new ecosystem follows.

</comment><comment><USER46> This is cheap enough that I might consider buying one just to replace my current SE with a phone that's less beat up. Is Apple still making any money at this price?

</comment><comment><USER13> Now that they failed to make everything more expensive for no good reason, they bring back old models like Mac mini, iPad mini and now iPhone SE. Truly not a revolutionizing company anymore but just stares at the balance sheet to figure out what to do next.

Apple was 5 years ahead of everyone while Jobs was around and now struggling to just stay relevant. I still like most of Apple products and use them daily but they should do better.

</comment><comment><USER47> Thank you!!!! Going to grab at least one!

</comment><comment><USER48> I am an SE fan. I used mine until the XS was released. I wish the XS was just a tad smaller.

</comment><comment><USER49> Did they maybe finally realize that people love the phone for its size, not its price?

</comment><comment><USER50> It says "out of stock", dammit.

</comment><comment><USER51> If I knew about it I would have bought one and told everyone I know to buy one.

</comment><comment><USER52> Apparently you need to upgrade to ios11 to view the site. NO DEAL.

</comment><comment><USER53> It's too bad they won't make a new one

</comment><comment><USER54> Of course it is sold out by now

</comment><comment><USER55> Only US

</comment><comment> cuban-frisbee New hope for a refesh?

</comment><comment><USER56> The 128GB would make a great iPod. You can go to T-Mobile and get a data-only, $20/month "DHH" plan that includes audio streaming zero-rated, meaning it doesn't take up any of your data to stream Apple Music / Spotify etc.

</comment><comment><USER57> aaaand its gone (at least online)

</comment><comment><USER58> Needs a spec bump.

<comment><USER46> …there are four other iPhones with better specs that you can buy.

<comment><USER59> For many, those four are one notch too large.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Seems like it's $299 now...

<comment><USER61> $ 249 / 32GB

$ 299 / 128GB

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> a literal advertisement

<comment><USER18> Not really. The iPhone SE has been in a recurring topic here because it suits the needs of a certain market segment, and there wasn't a suitable equivalent after it went away.

<comment><USER62> Yes really. It's a direct link to the actual product landing page to buy the product, complete with price information in the HN headline to draw the customer in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Thanks. Snatched up one of those bad boys up immediately.

</comment><comment><USER64> They really are getting desperate.

</comment><comment><USER65> Beautiful design- but it's effectively dead on arrival due to iOS being too bloated for dated hardware, and it's only going to get slower as newer iPhones get faster.

<comment><USER66> It has the internals of a 6s. Most folks I know with either are happy with iOS 12.</comment></comment>


Lyft's $1B Gross Run Rate in Context - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/17/lyfts-1b-gross-run-rate-in-context/ <comment><USER2> Can someone explain the term runrate to me ?

<comment><USER3> Estimate of the year, based on the month.

So they billed for $1B / 12 for the month, though that includes the driver's cut, so it's more like $16 million which is obviously very nice to have.</comment></comment>


FireChat messaging app unites China and Taiwan in free speech - <AUTHOR> http://www.techinasia.com/unblockable-unstoppable-firechat-messaging-app-unites-china-and-taiwan-in-free-speech-and-its-not-pretty/ <comment><USER2> Hey, libertarian "hackers"! If you actually want to make a difference stop messing with cryptocurrencies and make P2P networked chat. This is the kind of thing actually oppressed people need. Cryptocurrency is basically just cash without any of the regulatory benefits anyway. P2P networked chat is actually subversive stuff.

<comment><USER3> There are a lot of potential benefits of cryptocurrency. And why can't we have both?

<comment><USER2> Because there's a limited amount of ideologically motivated programmer man- hours available?

<comment><USER3> There has been tons of work done on mesh nets and secure messaging apps. It's not like it's been ignored.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I immediately looked up if android has the same functionality. [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19067794/ios-7-multipeer-...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19067794/ios-7-multipeer- connectivity-and-android-wifi-direct) sadly it does not

<comment><USER5> Yes it has, and it's far better:

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.servalproj...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.servalproject&hl=fr)

Advantages:

\- It's working in a mesh setting (although I don't see anything preventing FireChat to do the same) \- It's based on a protocol named batman, which is a cool name \- It's open source

<comment><USER6> This is just an app, it doesn't indicate what networking capabilities are built into the OS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I recently tested this app when I had no internet in South America and I was able to communicate with other members of my group who were nearby in the hotel, but different floors. It was cool and it definitely has potential for any off-the-grid situation, especially if it can do proper multipeering. I wonder how this will do at a place like burning man.

</comment><comment><USER8> Open Garden's new FireChat tool is superb.

Just what the Taiwan / China doctor ordered. 台湾中国和自由 -- 加油!

</comment><comment><USER9> Hopefully with the arrival of the pCell [1] technology, the Wi-Fi Alliance will start working on even longer range and lower bands for Wi-Fi than the 2.4 Ghz band. Lately they've only focused on short ones, but to make Wi-Fi meshnets work we need Wi-Fi that's longer range and doesn't suffer from interference.

As for FireChat itself, the disappointing thing about it is that it doesn't seem to encrypt the messages. So if there's someone listening within range, they can get that conversation. Obviously, this won't be a huge issue in the early days, but I hope they do intend to fix this eventually.

[1] - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6NEnLvhFCk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6NEnLvhFCk)

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't get it. Since the range is so low, at the point that you're close enough to chat via p2p, wouldn't it just be easier to actually talk? Or am I missing something?

<comment><USER11> The promise of multipeer connectivity is that each additional node can potentially increase the network. So for Alice, who is in range of Bob but not Cathy, can talk to Cathy is Bob is in range of Cathy.

<comment><USER12> Only up to 8 nodes per session (at least, at the moment), according to the docs and this post: [http://lightyearsoftware.com/2014/03/multipeer- connectivity-...](http://lightyearsoftware.com/2014/03/multipeer-connectivity- panacea/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Qualcoms Alljoyn has SDK for all platforms,and its supposed to be peer to peer without network connection as well. Not sure if it does the mesh networking thing... but for crossplatform Alljoyn peer to peer has been doing it for years now. [https://www.alljoyn.org/about](https://www.alljoyn.org/about)

</comment><comment><USER14> I am really excited about meshnet technologies. I think they could eliminate some today's problems with internet. (Censorship, spying, throttling) Lets set up some more meshlocals HN. [https://projectmeshnet.org](https://projectmeshnet.org)

</comment><comment><USER15> I wonder if this app has more capacity than Twitter to start and sustain revolutions.

</comment><comment><USER16> Big congrats to Micha and team at Open Garden for this app. Really good work!

</comment><comment><USER17> What about for Android? Where is such peer connectivity framework? What about connecting Android and iOS?

What about Alljoyn SDK?</comment>


Google Reader alternative for Emacs - <AUTHOR> http://idorobots.org/2013/03/30/greader-alternative/

<comment><USER2> Sorry, but I'm not impressed. It's yet another LL-TL-BC (see [http://www.zedshaw.com/essays/i_want_the_mutt_of_feed_reader...](http://www.zedshaw.com/essays/i_want_the_mutt_of_feed_readers.html)) RSS reader, and even one without built-in OPML import.

<comment><USER3> That's a brilliant article you linked to, I do enjoy Zed Shaw's style. However, that's not going to stop me from trying this out, because Emacs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Usenet solved the rss reader problem decades ago. Gnus takes all that experience and applies it to feed sorting/reading. Manual scoring, adaptive scoring, group scoring, topics, virtual groups. And for extra points, load up your favorite feeds in gmane.org and browse rss over nntp.

joe</comment>


How Ridiculous Is It That Apple Maps Redirect To Google Maps On The Web? - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2012/09/22/mapsception/

<comment><USER2> I don't think it's ridiculous. They don't have (probably don't want) a web version, so they are redirecting you to Google.

Would you prefer to read "sorry, you can only see this map on an iPhone/iPad with iOS 6 or higher"?</comment>


Help Improve Web Typography with ttfautohint - <AUTHOR> http://pledgie.com/campaigns/15816

<comment><AUTHOR> Found it on the Google Web Fonts blog. It's not currently there though. The html of that blog post can be found here: [http://www.google.com/reader/atom/feed/http://googlewebfonts...](http://www.google.com/reader/atom/feed/http://googlewebfonts.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?r=n&n=100)</comment>


Monzo urges 480k customers to change their pin numbers - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/05/monzo-urges-480000-customers-to-change-their-pin-numbers <comment><USER2> "And as your bank, we keep a record of your PIN so we can check you've entered it correctly. We store them in a particularly secure part of our systems, and tightly control who at Monzo can access them." What? They store device PINs? I worked on several mobile banking apps and although not directly on the crypto part - I know that the PIN never left the device and the bank didn't know the PIN. It was just a part for generating/signing operations. I think an SRP (secure remote password) protocol was used in this case - where the password is never transferred over the wire.

<comment><USER3> From the sounds of it, Monzo was/is using customer (card) PINs as a security passcode within their app itself. Hence on 2 operations in the app (cancelling a standing order, and getting a reminder of your card number), it was being logged due to a misconfiguration.

I was of the understanding that it was accepted best practice for a bank to never use the user's card PIN anywhere except card authentication, for this very reason (and even then, to handle it particularly carefully).

It seems that treating the PIN as a general authentication factor within the app might well be convenient for users (only 1 PIN to remember), but then this exposes their card PIN as seen here (which is used to prove you authorized a transaction yourself). The notion the PIN itself was stored in a secure part of the system to "control which staff members could access them" is at odds with how banks used to handle PINs - which is that no staff can see them, and they're held in hardware security modules, which validate encrypted incoming PINs and say "yes" or "no".

Some of the banks use SRP-like setups for app-based credentials - I've seen some clever symmetric hash-based implementations of a challenge response protocol that can be backed by a HSM - low entropy credential info (3 characters from a password) is hashed together with a session salt (presumably) generated by the HSM, and the hash is sent to the HSM, which can say "yes" or "no".

For debit card PINs, the bank needs the ability to verify the PIN, for ATM or magnetic stripe online authentication transactions I believe, but this could again be handled by HSM. Not sure why they were using card PINs as a generic password, and storing them at all retrievably by staff. I wonder if this is complaint with best practice in banking?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to go from a Django app to Android app. - <AUTHOR>

We have a properly structured Django app, which we now want to develop an Android app for with the same functionalities as the Django app. What is the most relatively pain free way going about achieving this? p.s: our devel team has no prior Android experience. <comment><USER2> The following metaphors are more or less accurate and helped me with the same transition (MVC web architecture to Android):

* Layouts are like views, though Android's XML layouts aren't able to have conditionals or logic like most web app templates

* Intents are like URLs, the Manifest file is like the router

* Activities are like controllers, you should aim to keep them "thin". This is also where callbacks for things like button clicks live

* You can use sqlite on Android, but there isn't anything like the Django ORM built-in

* SharedPreferences can act as a key-value store for small data (sort of like Redis I suppose)

If you can expose all of your app's functionality through an API, then you can just treat the Android app as an API client. If not (or if you want the app to be more than a wrapper), I would aim for the prototypical "thin controller, fat model" pattern and push all the business logic into plain Java objects if possible (so much easier to unit test).

<comment><USER3> There is a fairly good ORM addition to SQLite that can be used on android. We are currently using it for one of our projects - <http://ormlite.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for this info jat. I will look into this.</comment></comment></comment>


Watch_Dogs 2 Launch Page Broken by Same Origin Policy - <AUTHOR> http://watchdogs.ubisoft.com/watchdogs/en-US/reveal/<p>But here's the Youtube Gaming Stream it tries to embed: https://gaming.youtube.com/watch?v=QWF3zuuBLFY <comment><USER2> In other news, the reveal itself was pretty interesting, so thank you for the link, even though that wasn't the intended purpose, I had no idea about it :)</comment>


What's Your Company Worth? (story about younoodle) - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/magazine/20081201/whats-your-company-worth.html

<comment><USER2> _His company, which will book just $75,000 in revenue this year, was apparently worth $11 million. "It was flattering," Monsef says. "I've figured we're worth maybe a couple million dollars, but maybe I'm selling myself short."_

Best paragraph of the article. He's astounded the tool considered his company worth 146x revenue, but 26x revenue is seemingly rather realistic :)</comment>