Mozilla Discloses Past Relationships with Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2018/06/11/our-past-work-with-facebook/ <comment><USER2> A politico/Frontline style investigative documentary needs to be happen on the inner workings of Mozilla. Their financial reports are full of red flags (~$130M on marketing and operations in 2016 consutituting ~33% of expenses!!!).

Their posturing is much too similar to politicians - 'we work for you the people's good', and any and all criticism squashed away swiftly under the guise of moral superiority.

<comment><USER3> Where did you get this 130M number? I see $47 million on marketing in [https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2016/2016_Mozilla_Au...](https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2016/2016_Mozilla_Audited_Financial_Statement.pdf) and $60 million on "General and administrative".

How much marketing spend do you think Google had on Chrome in 2016?

How much should office space for the number of people Mozilla has cost, in your opinion?

[Disclosure: I work for Mozilla, on Firefox, not in marketing.]

<comment><USER2> 60+47 = 127, that I rounded up to ~130, for marketing and _operations_.

How much did Atlassian spend in marketing, or GitLab? Almost nothing (by design). How much does GitLab spend on office space? Almost $0 as they choose to do wisely with their money than feed an overpriced San Francisco real estate market.

Indeed these are extreme examples, but I hope you realise 33% of expenses on non-core activities isn't typically tolerated in for profits. It certainly shouldn't be the norm for a non profit.

Mozilla's US compensation for devs averages out to ~$137K/year. Are you telling me that Mozilla is justified in staying in the most expensive zip code (for operations) by choice, and choosing to underpay it's developers by design? I can keep going, but the numbers don't compute, they're fishy

<comment><USER3> 60 + 47 = 107, not 127.

> How much did Atlassian spend in marketing, or GitLab?

Are they competing with companies that are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a years on marketing the competing product?

> but I hope you realise 33% of expenses on non-core activities > isn't > typically tolerated in for profits

According to [https://vtldesign.com/digital-marketing/content-marketing- st...](https://vtldesign.com/digital-marketing/content-marketing- strategy/percent-of-revenue-spent-on-marketing-sales/) Microsoft spends 18% of _revenue_ on marketing/sales. Oracle, 20%. Twitter, 44%. Salesforce, 53%. Apple, 7%.

Mozilla spent $47 million out of $520 million in revenue on marketing. That's 9%. More than Apple, less than Microsoft.

Do you know what's in the "General and administrative" bucket? I don't know exactly what would go in there, but maybe it would.

> Mozilla's US compensation for devs averages out to ~$137K/year.

Where did you get this number, pray tell me? Dividing Mozilla's "Software development" number from the financial statement by the estimated total number of employees gives me significantly larger numbers than that, and not all those employees are in the US.

> Are you telling me that Mozilla is justified in staying in the most > expensive zip code (for operations)

Mozilla has multiple office locations, in different places which are variously expensive or not, plus a number of remote workers.

> and choosing to underpay it's developers by design

I would like to see some evidence for this claim, please, if you expect me to treat this as anything other than an attempt to troll me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> So they say that users could import their Facebook contacts onto their Firefox OS phones and that information wasn't shared with Mozilla, but what about the "adaptive app search"[1] on Firefox OS? That was implemented by querying a third-party service, "Everything.me", run by a different company.

Did that service get access to contacts? (Aside from the implicit access by way of your contact searches from the system search bar presumably being sent to them as app searches.)

[1] [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H9zwf0VMVDI](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H9zwf0VMVDI)

</comment><comment><USER5> Needed the access for Firefox OS APIs. Nothing to see here.

<comment><USER6> "In fact, in one case, our engineers noticed the overly broad access and requested that Facebook limit it." Yes, something to see here.

<comment><USER5> An African American man shouldn't have to thank a cop for not harassing him. Instead, police should do their job. I'm certain you don't thank every driver that doesn't hit you either.

Likewise, companies shouldn't expect me to thank them for being responsible. All they need to know is that being irresponsible carries consequences (eg. all the people leaving Facebook). Facebook giving overly-broad access to everyone under the sun is well-known (and the only reason Mozilla posted in the first place).</comment></comment></comment>


Is Docker the Right Abstraction for PaaS? - <AUTHOR> http://www.activestate.com/blog/2014/11/docker-right-abstraction-paas

<comment><USER2> With Docker, in regards to PaaS support, we are expecting developers to bring their own pre-built Docker images. This unfortunately means that we are going backwards and now telling developers that they must create their stack themselves outside of the platform. The low-level system dependencies within the container are once again in the domain of the developer. Time spent figuring this stuff out is redundant, not the best use of this engineers expertise and therefore prone to error.</comment>


It's Time to Break Up the NSA (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2014/02/its_time_to_break_up.html <comment><USER2> I think an even better argument for breaking up the NSA is that there's a fourth category of work they (should) do that's totally unrelated to surveillance and that I'd classify as "very good:" actively working to secure the communications of US government and companies against the NSA-equivalents of other nation-states and rogue actors. Having this is on the same list as encryption sabotage is a recipe for mismanagement and bad policy.

<comment><USER3> Yes. Imagine if the NSA were tasked with being a gatekeeper for data privacy and integrity that large companies like Facebook had to work with any time they pushed an update that sent data somewhere new, in the same way that the FDA verifies safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals when they're applied to a new problem-domain. (I know that sounds almost satirically over-the-top, but it _could_ work—if it were limited to companies [and branches of government] that were handling enough user data that, say, identity fraud attacks would be made possible just by having it. And any system where the government itself has specified the data-integrity requirements: voting terminals, library checkout systems, etc.)

Come to think of it, this NSA would probably also be responsible for chasing down companies who ask you for your SSN, wouldn't it?

They could also offer free pen-testing services (presumably through their defense subcontractors; they wouldn't have to employ any whitehats themselves) for small businesses who can't afford pen-testers, like a specialized form of industrial-development grant.

And, of course, they could also do the only legitimate/legal "active no- advance-notice" pen-testing for infrastructure they're concerned about (ISPs, hosts like AWS, etc.), converting taxpayer dollars directly into those "eyes that make bugs shallow."

Effectively, the NSA are to our sovereign data boundaries as the coast guard is to (most of) our physical ones. Since that's the case—where's our Lighthouse Service?

<comment><USER4> > ...any time they pushed an update that sent data somewhere new...

So you think making the NSA (or any govt agency) the gatekeeper for all data, public and private, would be a good idea? As if there's _no way_ that could be abused? No thanks.

<comment><USER3> The data wouldn't go through them, nor would they be responsible for auditing the algorithms themselves. The comparison with the FDA was exact: they would simply require the company to execute a study proving (to peer review) the data-integrity of each change they were going to make.

The one interesting thing is that this would likely enforce an open-core-SOA software development model: companies would be incentivized to build a "trust kernel" of services that the government regs apply to, exposing an API with stringent access controls; and then a view layer that consumes that API, which can have whatever sloppy code they wish. The trust kernel would then have to be at least shared-source to enable the peer review necessary for study. (The company couldn't just pass the code around within a cabal of trusted peer companies, since those peers might be unfairly positively-biased.)

<comment><USER5> That's fairly analogous to the current NIST regulations.

Unfortunately, NIST has been dragging 140-3 in draft form on for years. 140-2 was written in the 1980's and reflects very badly on current hardware and software practices.

Another area you could look into is Common Criteria. I find these certifications to be much more modern.

I've taken products through both processes. If you're going for more than the basic levels they can be quite rigorous and thorough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't understand why society thinks that certain things can be contained, while certain other things cannot be.

The liberals will always be telling you that the drug war is a failure, and that drug users will be able to get their hands on drugs anyway, and we should embrace that fact so we can retain some level of control, and so otherwise innocent people don't have to interact with criminals. But guns on the other hand...

The conservatives will always be telling you that guns can't be controlled-- that criminals will get their hands on guns anyway and will conceal carry all the time, and that we're better off keeping them legal so we can retain some level of control, and so that innocent people don't have to be at a disadvantage to criminals. But drugs on the other hand...

I take this a level further: There's no containing cryptography. The people that are on tor looking at child pornography are protected. The people that are on tor plotting terrorist activities are also protected. The only people not protected are people that don't care or don't know, and they're not the people that are worth spying on in the first place.

The NSA internet data collection is perhaps the most frivolous government program in the history of the United States. We've spent god knows how much money building their Utah data center, and it will be useless as soon as the tech community starts encrypting. [1]

[1]: letsencrypt.org

<comment><USER7> People being inconvenient in pushing for social change are insufficiently protected. The CIA spied on MLK Jr., discovered he was having affairs, and used that to try to blackmail him into committing suicide. If he had, that would have been a major loss to society.

And now we have reports of the NSA developing dossiers of minor crimes and non-crimes of inconvenient people's behaviors for future use in discrediting them.

Is your suggestion that anyone who is (or may in the future) choose to be politically inconvenient should use strong encryption for everything even slightly unpopular they may do?

We can't contain cryptography, but neither can we depend on it being universally and effectively applied.

<comment><USER8> >The CIA spied on MLK Jr., discovered he was having affairs, and used that to try to blackmail him into committing suicide.

Have you got any more on this? Would be interested to read.

<comment><USER9> This story covers it. FBI, not CIA.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/magazine/what-an- uncensore...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/magazine/what-an-uncensored- letter-to-mlk-reveals.html)

<comment><USER8> Wow, great read. Very frightening, especially when one considers what they could be at today.

<comment><USER10> Even more so when you consider the kind of dossier they had on him, they now have on everyone, _by default_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _Second, all surveillance of Americans should be moved to the FBI.

The FBI is charged with counterterrorism in the United States, and it needs to play that role. Any operations focused against U.S. citizens need to be subject to U.S. law, and the FBI is the best place to apply that law._

No no _no_ a thousand times _no_.

One of the only saving graces about the massive surveillance from the NSA is that, I'm willing to wager, very little of it at all has made it over to where it could be used to oppress the citizens directly.

Bruce's claim that "FBI is charged with counterterrorism" means that they are also charged (along with DEA, ATFE, etc.) with the application of undue force on citizens--something we've been only somewhat spared from because of the difficulty they have in collecting information.

Turning over to them that capability--or even the just the current stockpile and archives of information!--would be a gigantic blow against freedom.

<comment><USER12> But.. what about parallel construction? We know that the NSA is feeding tips to, among others, the DEA and ATFE -- they're just pretending to find out about criminal activity in other-than-blanket-surveilance ways. The practice is so commonplace that the NSA has a special division for seeding the evidence to other agencies, and there are indications that even state and local law enforcement agencies are in on the fun.

<comment><USER13> Exactly. Right now the NSA can escape all legal oversight because it has historically operated physically outside the US and under military governance. Since 9-11 and the Patriot Acts, BSA operations have moved inside the US. And in concert with the sharing of intel across military and civilian, the NSA now operates freely across all spaces. This was never intended by statute, and virtually no oversight is in place to ensure 1) intel is gathered lawfully or 2) info is shared lawfully. Unlike the NSA, the FBI must operate wholly within the US and state civilian court system, so its gathering and disbursing of info is much more closely overseen and regulated.

It's also become very clear from their response to Snowden's revelations that NSA is not going to get any closer oversight any time soon. The FBI and its partners cannot hope to maintain a comparable cloak of invulnerability. To Bruce's suggestion, I vote yea.

<comment><USER11> Here's your oversight:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover)

 _Giving NSA powers (or archives) to the NSA is a really, really, really bad idea._

The court system and legal system in the US these days is a joke and a farce-- just look at the number of cases that make it to trial. We can't afford to give this sort of power over to any law enforcement agency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Actively attacking enemy networks is an offensive military operation, and should be part of an offensive military unit."

Key word here is _offensive military unit_ , like a bomber squad or tank devision. You should not send out this kind of units to allies, neutral states or neighbors, not matter how "valuable" it would be in trade negotiations. Its to the benefit of all that on-line communication is restored to peace, rather than a free-for-all combat zone.

Of the 3 changes suggested by Schneier, this I feel is the most important change that internationally need to happen. Since NSA is the biggest offender here, fixing that actor would encourage other nations to do the same.

<comment><USER15> But this sort of spying clearly isn't like ordering a bombing run on Berlin or sending a tank division to capture Athens.

Spying isn't even a military operation, it is mostly diplomatic.

Spying has always been common even amongst allies. It is a form of hacked transparency. Countries hide as much as they can.

<comment><USER16> There's a distinction to be drawn between James Bond-style spying ("Humint" \- which is the kind you're actually referring to) and the large-scale, indiscriminate, archived, mass-surveillence of _otherwise ordinary people_ ("Sigint" \- which is what we've learned about over the last couple of years).

<comment><USER15> Sigint has been around signals signals were around.

The only reason I see a reason to distinguish is what the info collected is being used to so America can blackmail German citizens, that is shitty. But if we are just trying to collect information about Germany or people who just happen to be in German who are people of interest? That is the NSA mission.

The real issue is the potential for abuse. But the US government has plenty of stuff it could really abuse.

<comment><USER16> > _"... who are people of interest?"_

I think you've missed the part where _everyone_ is now (effectively) a person of interest.

<comment><USER15> That is just not true. Sure, they are collecting some limited information on every, but mostly because its harder to collect targeted information than to just get it all.

So maybe the US has a record of every call made in Germany, but nobody is tracking some random bus driver in Bavaria.

Right now there aren't is the manpower to actually look at even a tiny fraction of what is collected.

I guess in the future, if an AI with human like ability is created, the actual monitoring of every person could occur. But it just isn't a fear right now.

I'd call it psuedo-pirvacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> the NSA's surveillance is an unprecedented power grab. add Moore's Law to the mix, let that policy sit for 20 years, and what kind of power do they have? they can predict everything, they can track everything, they have no oversight - what they're doing is setting themselves up to completely replace the government in 2035.

hopefully, that's not deliberate. hopefully, they're just that naively convinced of their own goodness. but that's what they're doing.

the NSA's unconstitutional surveillance is a total disgrace, a national shame, a total failure to uphold the Constitution. that's the GOOD news. that's what it is today. add Moore's Law and 20 years, it's going to be something much worse.

(shoutout to everyone who was on Hacker News back when mentioning how Moore's Law ties into this would be worth an upvote.)

<comment><USER18> Yeah, you hit the nail on the head.

Right now it's Orwellian and sophisticated-- if they have Amazon's level of data crunching and prediction ability, they might be able to predict certain things about you, and, on average, be more right than wrong.

Wait until they have 20 more years of data on you, and 20 more years of advancing the quality of their algorithms and machine intelligences. You will be owned, and your buttons will be pushed as necessary to maintain what has already been built.

<comment><USER19> And the same will be true of all the billions of people that you think are making bad decisions today.

<comment><USER20> This dragnet collection and _permanent storage_ of all movement and communications data is not justifiable, though.

Fundamental risk assessment fail!

<comment><USER19> As the cost of doing so diminishes, so does the requirement for justification. These days, the only noticeable cost is psychological. IMO, sufficiently justified by "we might need it one day".

Of course, 20 years ago, or even 5 years ago, that wouldn't have been true, and that's the mindset most critics are coming from. That you need a really strong reason to be doing some kind of mass data collection like this. I just don't agree with that claim. If you _can_ do it, you'd be stupid not to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This reminds me a little of the breakup of the Atomic Energy Commission. The AEC was supposed regulate and promote nuclear energy. This conflict of interest was recognized in the 70s and it was split into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and ERDA (which soon became the DOE).

<comment><USER22> This reminds me of the surreal world of the stock market, where organizations largely make their own rules and regulate and enforce them themselves.

In 1971, the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) gave birth to NASDAQ, which became publicly traded in 2000, and then a national securities exchange in 2006. NASDAQ wasn't really independent of NASD until 2000, so for a while the same people who owned the exchange also regulated it.

The NYSE is much older and became a Not-for-Profit in 1971. In 2006 it merged with ArcaEx and became a publicly owned for-profit, later merging with Euronext in 2007 and acquiring AMEX in 2008.

Here's the weird thing: exchanges are supposed to self-regulate, with the SEC basically just approving the rules they make for themselves. And the exchanges kind of 'outsource' their regulation - but not all of it - and that's not all that well defined anyway.

In 2007, NASD's and NYSE's regulatory and enforcement committees were merged into a new organization, FINRA, which basically makes the rules their members are supposed to abide by and enforces them in coordination with the SEC.

The SEC has been investigating exchanges since the "flash crash" of 2010, when it was shown how completely fragile the market had become by large players making very large trades, as well as new high-frequency automated trading.

In 2011, NYSE Euronext tried to merge with Deutsche Börse, which would have become the largest stock market in the world by far. It actually passed US antitrust investigation. But in 2012 the European Commission blocked the merger as it would have created a 93% monopoly on European derivatives trading. This doesn't have anything to do with the exchanges violating rules, but it does show how without regulation, monopolies would be a virtual certainty.

In 2012 NYSE was fined 5 million for giving data to its customers before the public. In 2014 NYSE was fined 4.5 million when it was found to have violated its own rules, or lacked rules it should have had.

Compare this to NASDAQ settling with the SEC for 10 million just for mishandling Facebook's IPO in 2013. This is apparently because the SEC stopped short of finding the NYSE's actions as felonies. And all of this is relatively new, as exchanges historically were never legally scrutinized or punished for their actions. (Their revenue is in the billions, so these fines are basically just for show)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Bruce makes a good point here. There is a balance between the COMSEC and SIGINT. Any advance you make in SIGINT is a failure of COMSEC and vice versa. The issue is then the 'viruses' of our internet ecosystem, the hackers and state level threats. How do you balance the two? Will the nature of the system self-balance as threats are discovered and then bandaged?

Still, good job not just demonizing the NSA, they serve a purpose in the game of international relations, one that the free world may not like, but that we all need.

<comment><USER24> It seems to be a sort of universal truth in that the people trying to break a system will always be ahead of people trying to secure/protect it. Why then, would prioritizing COMSEC over SIGINT change any of that? COMSEC will never catch up to SIGINT.

I'm curious to know what exactly the NSA currently does to protect the US. Do they already use their existing SIGINT knowledge to update systems ahead of attacks?

<comment><USER23> Well, maybe the lemma is flawed. Maybe they are not always ahead. I mean, to date, no one has even been able to decode Kryptos, right out front of the CIA in plain view: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptos)

Again, what the NSA does to protect the US is an open question; if they did their job right, you'll likely not know it. Updating systems, at least large commercial ones that foreign governments use as well as the US citizenry, is not in the purview of their mandate, its the opposite. They do try to tell the world what they do, so as to justify themselves in some degree to their ultimate bosses (the US voting public). The Iranian nuke viruses are a good example, though, as far as I know, they have not claimed that particular hack yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Regarding NSA and CIA, what do they have to do to get shut down completely? Do we wait until genocide? It doesn't seem like a re-org is the proper response to institutionalized torture, semi-automated assassination campaigns, and creation of a panopticon.

<comment><USER26> It's better to keep the good parts and reform the bad parts than to throw the entire baby out completely.

Let's draw a parallel to something more tangible than the cyberwar we don't see. Recently there was a number of high-profile cases where police got into a clash with unarmed civilians, with disastrous results. Should police be shut down completely? Would you be safe in a city with no police? Many cities in the world have places where the police don't go, and those are dangerous places.

NSA and CIA serve important functions. They just need to be properly balanced.

<comment><USER27> \-- _Should police be shut down completely?_

Sometimes, yes. When the corruption and brutality is so bad that there's no other option.

\-- _Would you be safe in a city with no police?_

In Acapulco, the answer was yes. The police went on strike and it was so much better without them that the people didn't want them back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Imagine if the Centers for Disease Control, instead of researching cures for diseases, had a budget in the billions for buying weaponized viruses and bacteria, and was subverting disease prevention. Nobody would stand for that. It would be poisoning health care worldwide.

As another commenter pointed out here: _" Can we just flip their budget over to making sure US companies are secure?"_ That is, of course, what should be done. We get the results we spend money on. If the NSA's budget were spent on making security easy and routine, we would have easy and routine security. But that's not how we express our intentions with the budget right now.

<comment><USER29> I think that is a excellent example of how information might get abused.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The NSA is probably the worst-case of the general public not trusting government institutions. However, it seems that government has lost trust across all functions, despite only marginal increase in corruption. Is new, faster communication just making us more acutely away of the corruption that inevitably happens? I don't think it's bad to be aware, but we really need to learn to scale our response. A program can have a % of corruption and still achieve success. Also, I wonder whether mistrust of institutions stems from the record wealth disparity. In general, institutions seem much less trustworthy when a small percentage of people can disproportionately influence them.

<comment><USER31> While the level of corruption may not be that much bigger, the ability of the corrupt to cause harm has greatly increase through use of modern technology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Is it possible to hold the position that the NSA should be conducting signals intelligence, data collection, and code-breaking (and yes, email snooping) -- yet at the same time hold the position that the blatantly malicious activities: 0day exploits, software and hardware backdooring, etc should not be allowed?

Why commit ourselves to a massive overhaul of the entire NSA when we can address the actual problem here with some granularity and minimal cost yielding an impact almost all of us would enjoy?

<comment><USER23> True, I think the Snowden events have uncovered the unfortunate reality that there is a gigantic hole in the boat. In the end, the only way we get out of this is to redesign the system, from hardware on up, to be secure. The NSA, as per their mandate from Congress as an expression of the will of the people of the USA, is using the holes in the boat to advance the security of the nation. It is literally their job to do this. Again, the issue is that the boat is leaky. Maybe we humans decide that this leaky problem is not all that bad, and like biology, a certain percentage of 'sinking' is acceptable versus the cost to make a better boat. I dont think this is true though, because lawyers. Making a better and more secure net is the end of the game, it is only time that stands between us.

<comment><USER33> The NSA does not have a mandate from Congress: it was created by an executive order of President Truman in 1952 ([https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/truman/truman_memo.pd...](https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/truman/truman_memo.pdf)). That order was classified for a very long time.

That's to say that you're starting from false premises. It is not the NSA's job to advance the security of the nation at all. Hence the need to split it up now. It's time to move the legal basis from executive order to something else, that something else publicly debated and mandated by the people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Read "The Puzzle Palace" and find out why the NSA is structured like it is. The US gov has been re-orging the NSA and factions inside the gov have been fighting over its control since its inception. To use an annoyingly beat to death phrase: we haven't seen its final form yet.

Actually a pretty good article overall, but these two lines bother me greatly:

       > "What was supposed to be a single agency with a dual mission—protecting the security of U.S. communications and eavesdropping on the communications of our enemies"

That was never the mission and is not the mission of any similar org in the past 100+ years. It is to eavesdrop on everyone, including ones allies. The Brits were eavesdropping on everyone's telegrams over 100 years ago. This isn't something new.

       > "The result is an agency that prioritizes intelligence gathering over security"

Again, that is the #1 goal of the NSA and other similar organizations. Security never has and never will be its #1 goal.

<comment><USER35> Security is their objective; using all encompassing communication spying is their strategy for accomplishing that objective.

 _This comment is not an endorsement of any NSA policies._

<comment><USER34> Security, in terms of the NSA, refers to their COMSEC work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> "collecting data on innocent Americans either incidentally or deliberately, and data on foreign citizens indiscriminately. It doesn't make us any safer, and it is liable to be abused. "

If you are collecting data in order to analyze and identify threats to national security, how would you possibly exclude "the innocent" beforehand? These people are not innocent as much as they aren't guilty - however blinding oneself to observation seems like a knee-jerk alternative.

If these practices are "liable to be abused" isn't the solution proper oversight or accountability and not to shut down the entire program?

</comment><comment><USER29> I would rather not agree with this "Break up the NSA" thing. I do follow the public opinion that its surveillance is wrong, but this is not the fix.

NSA is a organization, a empty shell without its people. If the people are not going to change their mindset in short-term (social change in mentality), it means that law has to be changed in short-term, so that very mentality gets more time to change.

But this is where I must contradict myself, does these people who are benefiting from such "Its abuse, not use of power" deserve such a delay? Given that for every second the situation remains the same, countless bottom-of- pyramid-people across the globe would keep suffering? Or have we become TOO used to looking away?

Also, a very important question is, that 'has NSA's Information Collection System become such a tool, where bulk of Americans are used to collect data on Bulk of Americans, and put that in the hands of Few, who then abuse it?' Or NSA has more to it than just the empty shell called: "Interest".

As Voltaire said: "You must ask, whether it is 'Just Interest' or 'National Interest'. "

A supporting question is, who is the Nation anyway? A few or all? Abraham Lincoln ought to be right here. But, fast forward 200 years, It is also important to question, whether "Nations" especially the idea of "America" stands as it is, given the fact that it is America itself that pushed for a "Globalized World" and still does.

</comment><comment><USER37> It's easy to casually propose such things, on a blog, while lobbing the same tired criticisms about over-zealous intelligence gathering programs. But to actually implement such grand, sweeping measures would require resources that don't justify the benefits. Just scale back and increase oversight on troubling programs, and otherwise let the NSA do its critical job as an intelligence gathering agency.

<comment><USER36> Finally, a pragmatic voice amongst those calling for an anarchist solution. I will add my vote to those calling for increased oversight, and regulation over the all out "scrapping" of these programs.

<comment><USER38> If you take it as a given that the NSA is spying on all parties, that includes those supposedly providing oversight. Those providing oversight can then be coerced into rubber-stamping whatever the NSA wishes. Therefore, "increased oversight" is all but impossible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> What about the problem of distinguishing domestic vs foreign communications? NSA already minimizes American information, plus FBI doesn't have authority to track who called to or from the US to a foreign nation like Pakistan from what I understand, so no phone meta data. The NSA may be too big but I haven't seen anyone bring an actual technical solution for setting the boundaries and so forth.

<comment><USER40> > NSA already minimizes American information

While this is the PR, in practice it's categorically untrue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Oh oh, looks they got to him. Link is now returning a 403:

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /essays/archives/2014/02/its_time_to_break_up.html on this server. Apache Server at www.schneier.com Port 443

</comment><comment><USER42> Can we just flip their budget over to making sure US companies are secure?

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm not sure this addresses the problem vs. just moving it to another agency.

Would it be better for the FBI to be doing these things than the NSA? Or should we be instead fighting that they're done at all?

<comment><USER26> I think holding the position "the United States should not be spying on anyone, ever" is perhaps too far over on the spectrum of idealism. You do need some spying on countries that pose genuine threats such as North Korea, Iran, China, Russia and the like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Note that this is from 2014, but it is more relevant than ever.

</comment><comment><USER45> I'm thankful to live in a country where we have the freedom to publish this kind of thing. (That said, I think that freedom will no last too much longer.)

<comment><USER46> I've got an idea. In the faux name of net neutrality, let's give one of the most abusive governments when it comes to privacy, vast control over regulating the domestic Internet, and let's allow them pass those new regulations without anyone external being allowed to review them ahead of time. What could possibly go wrong? It's not like the government will massively expand their direct control of the Internet, and use that to chill free speech. And it's not like we'll be sitting here in ten years, listening to pro net neutrality campaigners making excuses about how those weren't the laws they had in mind; after all, who knew the government would abuse their new powers, nobody could have guessed such a thing.

Whoops, too late:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink- those...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague- general-conduct-rules)

<comment><USER45> I agree with the general thrust of what you're saying, and I think the FCC takeover of the internet is much more problematic than the NSA spying scandal.

That said, the EFF is getting what it has been advocating for: A government takeover of the internet.

That is what net neutrality has always been for and about.

Once we grant that the internet infrastructure is not private property and is open to government regulation, that means it's open to _all_ government regulation, including speech regulation. There is no middle ground.

To think otherwise is to not understand principles and politics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Sadly the voices of reason like Bruce will be yelled over by the voices of "terrorism everywhere".

</comment><comment><USER48> [http://defundthensa.com/](http://defundthensa.com/)

</comment><comment><USER49> It just seems that you can do anything on paper but covert agreements between the agencies after break up will still occur.

<comment><USER45> Not necessarily. It's just a matter of dis-empowering the people who are on a die-hard mission of "spy on everything, and to hell with civil rights."

That is not the whole NSA; it's just a few key people in leadership positions that have been steering the ship lately.

If you keep those same people in power but split up the agency, yes, you'll just get the same thing again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Looks like the NSA penalty in article titles is still active? This one dropped fast.

</comment><comment><USER51> To me, it's pretty obvious that the supposedly "dual" mission of NSA, that of both anti-terrorism and cybersecurity, are completely incompatible. They are at the extreme ends of the spectrum.

One seems to need the abolishing of (true) secure systems and privacy (although, so far there is no evidence that mass surveillance actually helps thwart terrorist plots - and it may never be able to do so [1] [2]), and the other is _supposed_ to be about having super-secure systems and strong encryption.

However, since the NSA is in charge of both, it seems the anti-terrorism side has won, and it now causes the NSA to make _terrible cyber-policy_.

To Schneier's new post, I believe the EU is already getting ready to propose that a _civil agency_ (not one that is run in secret) should be in charge of cybersecurity in EU nations. Although, I think the NSA is working hard to convince EU spy agencies to push legislation that makes _them_ responsible for cybersecurity, at least in some EU countries that are more easily "persuaded".

EDIT: So I actually disagree with Scheneir here. I see no reason why a _secretive unaccountable agency_ should be in charge of cybersecurity. Why should it be a state secret that a hacker hacked into a US company? Just because the NSA has the "expertise" in cybersecurity? If you want to keep the experts, fine, but then turn the NSA into a civil agency.

I agree with his suggestion that surveillance (not _mass_ surveillance, though - that should be banned for all agencies) should only be the domain of FBI.

To recap:

1) Cybersecurity = civil agency

2) Surveillance of local citizens = civil agency (FBI in US, I guess. Mind you, this is what already happens, when referring to targeted surveillance, so the real proposal here is that the NSA or anyone else shouldn't be spying on local citizens, too - only the FBI and with warrants. This is not, or should not be about giving the FBI "mass surveillance powers". If that's what Schneier is proposing, then I completely disagree with this, too)

3) Cyber- _offense_ /cyber- _war_ = military/Pentagon/whatever

4) I'm unsure whether we need another agency for spying on "world leaders", but right now I'm strongly inclined to give this one to the military too. Also, it would be best if this wasn't actually targeted at _allies_ (like Merkel), but actual rival (Russia) or rival-like (China) countries. I think it's just good foreign policy not to do nasty stuff to your allies, just to be slightly "ahead" in negotiations.

[1] - [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/03/data_mining_f...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/03/data_mining_for.html)

[2] - [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/07/terrorists_da...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/07/terrorists_data.html)

</comment><comment><USER52> The (dollar) cost of the NSA makes us less secure.

</comment><comment><USER53> FYI: This is from 1 year ago.

<comment><USER54> What has changed in the past year?

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Interesting, but I doubt it would go far in helping anything. You can't cut and disperse the cancer growing inside of the US Government and expect anything to be solved or fixed, it needs to be uprooted and burned. Would any of this address secret courts, police brutality, domestic propaganda, or corruption? It'll have to be all at once, otherwise it's just rearranging the furniture in our cell.</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best keyboard you have used for programming? - <AUTHOR> Keyboard is where the rubber meets the road.  Every little bit of comfort and efficiency counts when you press keys thousands of times daily.<p>What works for you? <comment><USER2> I currently use two keyboards; the chiclet keyboard on my Razer Blade Stealth (primary computer) and a Razer BlackWidow Tournament Edition with green Razer/Kalih switches. I previously used a Corsair K70 Rapidfire, which is a damn solid feeling keyboard and I actually prefer the Cherry MX Speed switches to the high-actuation Razer/Kalih greens when it comes to actual typing (gaming, strangely, not as much). That said, I have been actively looking at options on MechnicalKeyboards.com (no affiliation) - I prefer blue switches, which the greens are equivalent to.

By far though I am most comfortable with the travel and feel of the chiclet keys on my laptop, which is a strange thing to say but they have an amazing feel.

</comment><comment><USER3> At some point in my keyboard-optimizing phase I decided that trying to find the ideal keyboard was the wrong approach. As long as it's a mechanical keyboard, I'm probably happy enough, and really from that point my optimizing was just novelty-seeking. So I kept my final two mechanical keyboards: a Razer one with blue switches, and a Corsair one with red switches. When I get the itch to get a new keyboard, I just switch from one to the other. They're both pretty good keyboards, and I figure that the variety is probably a good thing. I probably switch 2-3x per year.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is probably an unpopular opinion but I love my Apple Magic Keyboard. The way the keys click and the built-in battery make it a winner for me. It also fits in my bag next to my MacBook Pro which makes it ideal for travelling.

</comment><comment><USER5> Filco Majestouch MX Red keys

</comment><comment><USER6> Happy hacking professional 2

</comment><comment><USER7> $15 Logitech K120</comment>


Mozilla Marketplace goes live, install web apps like native PC apps - <AUTHOR> http://liliputing.com/2012/06/mozilla-marketplace-goes-live-install-web-apps-like-native-pc-apps.html <comment><USER2> people said "webapps are awesome, because there is no need to install."</comment>


Startup versus "startup-like" environment at a large company? - <AUTHOR>

I'm being offered a 3 month contract to hire software development position at a local startup, while waiting to hear back about a likely offer from a local large company promising a startup-like environment.
I've been informed that it reached profitability last year, and has roughly doubled it's income rate for the first quarter of this year. I worked briefly at one last year that went under, and then took some time off to focus on my life (got married, bought a house, etc.).
I probably have an offer for a test automation position coming from another large company who is offering a "startup - like environment : innovative, minimal legacy technology, high energy but safer funding and saner work hours", but I haven't been able to confirm it yet.
The salary is competitive, the technology is cutting edge, and the coworkers I've talked with have been amazingly talented.  As a small startup, I know the hours are likely to be intense, the technologies and learning curve broad and steep, and the rewards potentially greater.
Both positions are interesting and if I didn't have both options, I wouldn't hesitate to take the other.  If I lean towards the startup, I'll probably have to be convincing my wife, parents,  and in-laws that it is a good idea, but I don't like that being the main deciding factor. <comment><USER2> Make damned sure the "test automation position" is really a software development position, realize that the field in general doesn't get any respect, and be prepared to explain on your resume etc. how this wasn't really a testing per se position. Especially if you discover you don't like it and want to get back to software development.

(OK, yeah, I've been burned badly here, Lucent in 2001.)

As for deciding in general, can you convince them it's not a bad idea? Best is the enemy of good enough ... except for the longer term a true software development position where you'll be doing cutting edge stuff should leave you in a better position for the future. And you have already gone through the startup failure experience, just without the minor baggage of a family and a house....

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good feedback, thanks.

I got placed firmly into test from a split test/development position a few jobs ago. I'd call it a slight burn on my part. The job title of Software Engineer and the reputation of that company make up for it, I just didn't get to continue developing software there as long as I would have liked.

In this case, they are talking about needing a developer to test middle ware using a custom groovy testing application, and the testers they've had with out the software experience haven't worked as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> safer funding and saner work hours != startup.

do you want to work for a startup, or pretend you're working for a startup?

<comment><AUTHOR> Less risk / less reward.

The last question is key. The start-up will probably drive me to achieve more, but would probably be tougher on the marriage and the rest of my life.</comment></comment>


Rintagi Low-Code Generated ReactJS Applications: The Future Is Reactive - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/rintagi/rintagi-low-code-generated-reactjs-applications-the-future-is-reactive-e430319687ef <comment><AUTHOR> Rintagi, the first open-source low-code development platform from Robocoder, empowers users to create enterprise-grade applications with limitless extension and rejuvenation.</comment>


Supercomputer scale neural net - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/z6jrr/ai_is_potentially_one_week_away/

<comment><USER2> The actual video link, instead of having to click through two different reddit threads:

<http://techtalks.tv/talks/57639/></comment>


How America's love affair with caffeine has sparked a crisis of overdoses - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/09/02/how-americas-love-affair-with-caffeine-has-sparked-a-crisis-of-overdoses-and-what-the-fda-is-trying-to-do-about-it/

<comment><USER2> >The new products have led to an alarming public health development in recent years that was unheard of in the many previous decades that people enjoyed caffeine: a rash of thousands of overdoses and reports of addiction and withdrawal.

Overdoses being mostly new, I believe, considering how many cups of coffee you'd have to drink to get a lethal dose. But surely addiction and withdrawal are nothing new. If I let my intake creep up over three cups of coffee per day for over two weeks, I get a severe headache if I go a day without at least one cup. Caffeine withdrawal headaches at least used to be so common that popular headache remedies would include caffeine as well as aspirin and acetaminophen. Is this somehow not common knowledge?

<comment><USER3> I noticed that it didn't give any trend numbers, only statements that things have gotten worse.

As a teen in the 1980s, I remember Jolt Cola ("All the sugar and twice the caffeine") and a schoolmate who took powdered caffeine.

Ha! It was remarkably easy to find this newspaper article from 1988 - "Youth abusing easy-to-get caffeine pills"; [https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19880612&id=...](https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19880612&id=eUlOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KBQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6900,5118794&hl=en) .

> King said abuse of caffeine pills is fairly common among the teens and young > adults treated by her [drug treatment] program. ... Sixteen people in North > Carolina have died of caffeine poisoning since 1970, all from pills.

That's about 1/year. The N.C. population in 1990 was 2.67% of the US population, giving about 35 overdose deaths/year in the 1980s. (With of course large error bars.)

This story from 2006 [https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1893&dat=20061102&id=...](https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1893&dat=20061102&id=jgspAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9dUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3381,188366&hl=en) focuses more on energy drinks:

> In October, a new study found a surprising number of caffeine overdose > reports to a Chicago poison control center. These involved young people > taking alertness pill such as NoDoz or energy drinks ... During three years > of reports to the center, the researchers found 265 cases of caffeine abuse. > Twelve percent of those required a trip to the hospital.

Compare that to this article, which says "this year from Jan. 1 to July 31, poison centers across the country logged 1,675 reports involving energy drinks." Chicago has 1/120th of the US population, so 265/3*120/2 = 5,000 expected cases based on the Chicago numbers.

Obviously "caffeine overdose reports" is a superset of "reports involving energy drinks", but it's also obvious that the article doesn't give enough information to tell if it's something to be concerned about. Perhaps it's a sideways brag about how wired everyone is these days?</comment></comment>


Why are there relatively few female tech startup founders? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-relatively-few-female-tech-startup-founders <comment><USER2> Disney.</comment>


N1GHT.com, the nightlife platform. Looking for feedbacks - <AUTHOR> http://www.n1ght.com I'm one of the co-founder. We're in Belgium, Brussels.
Basically, we are building a platform for the nightlife.
The global idea is to provide a fast, easy, reliable, honest, accessible website to find parties in your city.
Accessible in multiple languages and devices, without mandatory login to find a party.
We're using the most complete and up-to-date source of information for parties (Facebook) and make them available in a clear and easy manner.
We provide multiple tools for nightclubs and events promoters. Analytics, viral promotion tools (http://bit.ly/1eFm7A9), customization,... And we're working on a ticketing solution dedicated to nightclubs.
Our bet is local clubbing guides aren't reliable because of their financial dependance on events promoters. Our premium features for nightclubs are paying, but at a very low price. (even free when possible) to avoid to become dependent of them.
Our business model is to sell nightlife oriented tools and presence on our platform to brands. (white labeling, contests, "spot" events,...)
Our MVP is released since june and we're looking for feedbacks.
Thanks for your help! <comment><AUTHOR> I'm one of the co-founder. We're in Belgium, Brussels.

Basically, we are building a platform for the nightlife.

The global idea is to provide a fast, easy, reliable, honest, accessible website to find parties in your city.

Accessible in multiple languages and devices, without mandatory login to find a party.

We're using the most complete and up-to-date source of information for parties (Facebook) and make them available in a clear and easy manner.

We provide multiple tools for nightclubs and events promoters. Analytics, viral promotion tools ([http://bit.ly/1eFm7A9](http://bit.ly/1eFm7A9)), customization,... And we're working on a ticketing solution dedicated to nightclubs.

Our bet is local clubbing guides aren't reliable because of their financial dependance on events promoters. Our premium features for nightclubs are paying, but at a very low price. (even free when possible) to avoid to become dependent of them.

Our business model is to sell nightlife oriented tools and presence on our platform to brands. (white labeling, contests, "spot" events,...)

Our MVP is released since june and we're looking for feedbacks.

Thanks for your help!</comment>


Argentina: pros & cons of 'super [credit]card' - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2013/03/11/argentina-pros-and-cons-of-supercard/

<comment><AUTHOR> It is interesting to analyze it from the startup perspective: can you quickly build a credit card company that significantly reduce commissions and has interests below the inflation rate?

It seems that somebody is lying and loosing money on this deal.</comment>


Ask HN: Single vs recurring payments for web apps - <AUTHOR>

I'm working on a new web app right now and am trying to figure out what the best way is to charge for it.
For my previous web apps, I charged the user once when they signed up. There were no recurring payments. I reasoned that for the type of web apps I build -- tools -- that most people would prefer one larger payment vs a recurring small one.
I've been discussing it with a few other folks and they're encouraging me to try a monthly payment, pointing to the success that 37signals has had with it. Less people might sign up, but over time the extra revenue you make from them will make up for it.
I tend to to think of apps like Photoshop, Textmate, and Transmit and think "A recurring payment? No way." And yet somehow when I think of 37Signals, it doesn't seem so bad, but I can't put into words why one makes sense and not the other.
How do you decide? Has anyone tried both and compared the numbers? <comment><USER2> When you issue a single charge for a webapp, what kind of legal language have you provided in the EULA that states something to the effect of "I can take the webapp down whenever I want and you will no longer be able to access the service you paid for"?

It's for that reason that paying for a webapp one time feels odd to me. It's like purchasing a product, except the product can be taken away from me at any time, which is unsettling.

<comment><USER3> I agree...it reminds me of the deal Sirius used to have where instead of paying $12 a month for satellite radio, you could pay $499 one time per device. I think Tivo had a similar deal. The problem was, when these services were new, who knew if they would be around in 5 years, or whether a new service would take their place. In the case of Sirius, HD radio now offers similar service for free, and I prefer to download my TV shows rather than record them. So I was wise not to pay upfront.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's something about human nature where we definitely prefer to make recurring payments.

Think about 40 bucks a month for an alarm system, or 60 bucks for the gym. That's roughly 5-7k over a ten year time span, and even if you adjust for time value of money and the user having the cancellation option, at the end of the day it's ridiculously easier to get people to make a monthly payment for those sorts of services than it would be to get a one-time upfront multi-thousand dollar payment.

<comment><AUTHOR> _There's something about human nature where we definitely prefer to make recurring payments._

I think I'd rather pay a one time fee for software. My fear (and I doubt this is only me) is that I'll forget about it and wind up paying for it long after I've used it. Great for the services I pay for, but bad for me.

Is there any _software_ you pay a recurring monthly fee for? If so, what is it? And if not, why do you think that is?

Consider a hypothetical example: You can pay $50 once for Textmate, or $8/mo. Which would you prefer? How about $4/mo?

<comment><USER4> I may not be the best example, because I am ridiculously frugal. There are very few things I pay for beyond food, rent and travel, which is another way of saying I pretty much exclusively use free tools. Incidentally, when my 30 day trial of Textmate ended, for some reason the software kept working and rather than pay for it, or stealing it by continuing to use it, I just switched to another editor.

That said, if I really wanted to spend money on Textmate, yes, I would prefer to pay 50 bucks rather than either $4 or $8 monthly. At a $1 or $2 a month, I would probably be indifferent. To some element there's an issue of how long the purchaser will actually use the tool vs. how long they estimate they'll use it.

I agree with you 100% that we develop countermeasures because we know that these recurring monthly plans are dangerous. My sense is that we develop the countermeasures exactly because the monthly plans are so effective at separating us from our money, and that the countermeasures only partly offset the tendency. Of course, for you may have an outright aversion to the monthly plans, just as I have excessive frugality, but overall my sense is that for most people monthly plans go over better than upfront charges in most situations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _I tend to to think of apps like Photoshop, Textmate, and Transmit and think "A recurring payment? No way." And yet somehow when I think of 37Signals, it doesn't seem so bad, but I can't put into words why one makes sense and not the other_

Simple: 37Signals has server costs on an ongoing basis to maintain a customer - Textmate/Transmit/PS do not. Most consumers understand it's a hosted solution and are ok with paying a recurring payment.

If your solution isn't hosted and it's a onetime download kind of thing then it would only make sense to charge them the one time.

</comment><comment><USER6> Not sure how easy it is to do.

But surely, as the "webapp" you can also revoke a users subscription.

I have been thinking about "recurring payment" with an agreed, "we the webapp" will cancel your paid access if you have been absent of the site "x days" or more likely 2 months.

</comment><comment><USER7> I prefer to pay recurring payments because it's incentive for the developers to continue working on the project.

You could look into using quarterly or half yearly payments potentially, similar to how Pandora does it, charging for the whole in one fell swoop.

<comment><AUTHOR> You raise an interesting point by pointing out that you like the incentive for the developers because that's not something most people would consider (I think). _Our_ opinions may differ a lot from ordinary people.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, most people balk at the idea of paying monthly for something, even at something like $10-$20 a month. My background is heavily mixed with Internet Marketing kinds of guys, who are notoriously stingy with this stuff. But it's easy to counter: if you have a $30 per month app, and someone complains, just ask them "will this tool help you make $1 per day? if yes, then it's worth it"

Good luck with it

EDIT: misused day instead of month</comment></comment></comment>


Functional View Controllers - <AUTHOR> http://chris.eidhof.nl/posts/functional-view-controllers.html

<comment><USER2> Missing from the headline: the article is specifically about iOS dev using Swift.</comment>


Pedestal: An open source tool set for building web applications in Clojure - <AUTHOR> http://pedestal.io/#about

<comment><AUTHOR> This is an example of how much the Clojure eco-system is maturing.

It is important to note that this is coming from <http://thinkrelevance.com/> . This company has some of the earliest and crucial contributors to the Clojure eco-system.

The summary on that page:

"Traditional lean web development languages focus on two things: ease and speed.

Ease has meant ease of adoption and ease of development. This has encouraged more people to engage with technology.

Speed has meant speed to market and speed of development. This has brought rapid innovation to building straightforward web applications.

However there is a new suite of problems that require more. Problems that require multi-layered, fine-grained security. Performance that scales. Dynamically evolving client server communication. Real-time analytics. Complex data transformations. There hasn't traditionally been a right choice for this suite of problems.

Why? Because they are difficult and easy solutions aren't designed to solve them. Rather, you need _simple_ solutions."</comment>


Removing Google Black Top Bar - <AUTHOR> http://www.blognotes.in/how-to-disable-remove-google-black-top-bar/ <comment><USER2> And for Safari, use NinjaKit with the Google Bar Classic script</comment>


Windows 8 app designs - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/dd/2012/11/10/25-inspiring-windows-8-app-designs/

<comment><USER2> Is it me or does every single app on the list looks like a web app?

That is to say that every app does its own thing as far as the design is concerned. Excluding the lack of 3D decorations and skeumorphisms, there's little consistency in their look and feel. Not necessarily a bad thing, but that's a new push in a direction of one-design-per-app for a desktop OS.

<comment><USER3> Well, not exactly. In Windows 8, Apps can have very different designs, but they use common interface elements and interactions. For example, there are many styles of app bars, but they all come up with a right click.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Bing travel is pretty good to and comes with 360 degree panoramas. My favourite is ESPN Cricinfo app. Some screenshots: imgur.com/a/pEPSA

<comment><USER5> The Cricinfo app is stunning, I was blown away when I first used it.

I hope a lot of other developers use it as inspiration for what is possible with the Metro UI, too many apps follow the same cookie cutter templates with no real thought behind them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> In my experience Metro apps work well in cases where I do not need to multitask or where I do not like distractions. I like to read my feeds in Metro and I like to write personal email in Metro.

Also, I quite like pinning things like twitter or IM into a Metro sidebar/split next to my desktop. If I have multiple monitors connected, I even fill the second monitor with Metro apps, for example a browser for documentation.

But despite all that, my main work space is still the desktop and it is quite hard to get real work done in a Metro-only environment. (Disclaimer: I am a programmer)

<comment><USER3> I find that as a programmer I use the desktop most of the time - but still the occasional metro app. I use the included mail app and pin it to the side, and that works well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> About 7 of these apps could be called inspiring on a stretch, but the rest should be called Visual Studio templates.

Good on Microsoft to make these templates to help developers get started, but the new and fresh of WANM (Windows Application Not-Metro) is quickly starting to look like tired PowerPoint and Front Page templates.

I'm going to start calling it WANuM Style. I can hear the theme music already.

<comment><USER8> The reason they look so much like the VS templates (on which many are probably based) is that the VS templates implement the very precisely set out UI guidelines. Microsoft wants to have a set of very consistent UI patterns, which I wholly commend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Flipping through them, only a few jump out at me as inspiring :( the drawing app looks great, as does the tv app.

I think it might have something to do with a lot of empty screen real estate for some of these apps.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm surprised they missed Netflix, as it's the best Netflix design anywhere (iPad, web, Android, XBox, etc...).

I've actually been surprised how often I am using "apps" rather than the web version on a full blown Win8 box that does NOT have touch.

<comment><USER11> I burned through 2 entire seasons of Walking Dead on Netflix on the Surface. Definitely prefer it compare to the Netflix app on my TV, Xbox, and the browser(ugh!).

When more stuff like HBO, Showtimes, etc are available I would definitely see the Metro thing replacing my HTPC setup. Add Kinect support Microsoft!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Nice designs :)</comment>


From Monads to Machine Code - <AUTHOR> http://www.stephendiehl.com/posts/monads_machine_code.html <comment><USER2> This is a gentle introduction to Haskell and also a brilliant tutorial on x86 assembly language – bonuses for anyone interested in compiler implementation. Exceptionally well written and clearly illustrated.

</comment><comment><USER3> Man, I always love how cleanly EDSLs come together in Haskell. If you're a fan of "language-oriented programming" (e.g., in Lisps and Forths) but you want static types, Haskell is for you.

<comment><USER4> My problem with Haskell, coming from the ease of Lisp, is that so much of the syntax is symbolic!

I know mathematicians might love it, but forgetting a symbol can mean I don't understand an entire block of code. Whereas it could have been made so much clearer with one word.

<comment><USER5> Could you give an example of this? I don't quite follow what you mean by "symbolic syntax". Do you mean infix functions like _> >=_ and _< $>_?

<comment><USER4> Syntax where symbols are used in leiu of words.

For example, I have no clue what >>= and <$> mean from a glance.

I have to look it up to get Monad and Functor. Why not use the word?

<comment><USER6> Well, because it's pretty obvious after you've spent a week with Haskell. With that said, one thing the Haskell creators seem to regret is not requiring every operator to also have a name. (In the case of <$> it does: fmap)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's so cool how similar the contents of the arith function are to actual x86 code. The relative offsets were also handled really cleanly.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> (With a short detour through writing a JIT in LLVM, of course, but I didn't want to edit the title. Sadly, I accidentally added the "from" at the beginning.)

</comment><comment><USER8> I got lost at the monads bit. Where's the best place to learn about them? I did basic Abstract Algebra in university, and I understand how to use the Maybe/Option/Optional monad.

<comment><USER6> Do this course: [http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~cis194/spring13/lectures.html](http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~cis194/spring13/lectures.html)

I know it sounds ridiculous but a) it took me about seven evenings b) it's a lot of fun and c) I guarantee you'll get some proper programming insight, whatever language you use for a day job.

<comment><USER9> I second this, it's a great course.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10>
        pflags = protRead <> protWrite
        mflags = mapAnon .|. mapPrivate

What's the difference between these two operators?

<comment><USER3> There's no difference in this case—looks like an oversight. "<>" is the Monoid "append" operator (e.g., concat lists, union sets, compose functions). If you look in JIT.hs[1], you'll see that there's an instance of Monoid that just calls ".|." (bitwise OR):

        instance Monoid ProtOption where
          mempty = protNone
          mappend (ProtOption a) (ProtOption b) = ProtOption (a .|. b)

[1]: [https://github.com/sdiehl/tinyjit/blob/master/src/JIT.hs](https://github.com/sdiehl/tinyjit/blob/master/src/JIT.hs)

<comment><AUTHOR> There _is_ no canonical monoidal operation on booleans (just as the case is in any arbitrary ring), so I'd guess using the bitwise operators explicitly is good for disambiguation.

<comment><USER3> Yes and no—in practice in Haskell we tend to choose the most convenient instance and wrap things in newtypes to get at other instances. Writing code using generic operations (Monoid, Functor, Foldable) makes it easier to refactor datatypes later—coding to the interface and not the implementation, and all that. The bitwise OR operation makes sense for ProtOption because it's basically a set.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's true, for bitflag-like things OR does make sense.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The future of communication? - <AUTHOR> http://bomega.com/2008/03/07/dont-hang-up-boris/ <comment><USER2> Whilst I think he makes a point that communication differs through the ages. My parents turn their phones off at night, one time when they had to pick me up from the airport they got the date wrong (+1 day on the flight time) and because of the time difference between Canada and the UK my dad was about half-way to the airport before he turned on his phone and got my text message telling him "I fly on the #, I arrive on #+1. I haven't even packed for the flight yet!"

To me cell phones are redundant. I grew up with the internet, and I love wireless networking. I really don't see the point in making a call, when I can just click a button on an IM client and I have video and voice for free.

However, I seriously doubt people will leave calls on perminantly even if they are free unless an automatic hold feature is implemented. I mean what if you talk to your kids before you go to bed, do you really want your conversation in the morning to be, "Wow dad, you -really- satisfied mom last night!"

I can say it right now, 24/7 calls like fuck they're going to happen in my house. We had calls that was I believe $0.05 per call no matter the duration and I was on for up to 5 hours sometimes, but I -always- hung up because it's just damn creepy not to.

</comment><comment><USER3> Insightful--this will actually happen. I've already been in some telecommuting relationships (professional) where we just leave the ip video phone on constantly. You don't have to call to communicate, you just talk to the phone as if the person was in the room. If they're not at their desk you can see that easily on the video screen.

</comment><comment><USER4> That's swell. And although it's not the subject of the article, it seems to me that the distinction between "good enough" and "good" is lost on the always- on, no-land-line cell phone crowd. Most of the time, it's still miserable to talk to someone when they are on a cell phone.</comment>


Europe's big weakness: the language fragmentation - <AUTHOR> http://martinweigert.com/europes-big-weakness-the-language-fragmentation/

<comment> k-mcgrady Firstly I like that there are so many different languages in Europe. It makes travel more interesting and we have a wider variety of culture (e.g. music in one language doesn't always work in another). However if the problem is that ideas don't get spread around I don't think that's true. Travel to any country in Europe and you won't have much difficulty finding people who speak English very well. They prefer to speak their own language but communication with non- speakers isn't an issue. When you throw in the fact that most Europeans are also quite well versed in another European language other than English (French, German, Spanish being the main ones) finding a common language to communicate in is really not a big deal. Of course it depends on the age of the person you are speaking to. I find that older people (above 40/50) aren't as muti-lingual but younger people due to travelling more and learning multiple languages in school don't have a problem.

</comment><comment><USER2> Greece's island fragmentation gave them the greatest fleet of their time. Europe's languages might actually be it's strength.</comment>


American Astronauts to Return to Moon Within 5 Years, VP Pence Pledges - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/science/nasa-moon-pence.html <comment><USER2> I've heard this promise all my adult life, and some of my childhood.

Under George W. Bush, the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 directed the NASA administer to "strive to achieve" milestones including "Return Americans to the Moon no later than 2020" and "Launch the Crew Exploration Vehicle as close to 2010 as possible" \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Authorization_Act_of_2005](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Authorization_Act_of_2005)

The Augustine Committee in 2009 determined that it would not be possible with the budget available. "The Committee judged the 9-year old Constellation program to be so behind schedule, underfunded and over budget that meeting any of its goals would not be possible. President Obama removed the program from the 2010 budget effectively canceling the program." \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_of_United_States_Human_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_of_United_States_Human_Space_Flight_Plans_Committee)

Instead, Obama wanted "a U.S.-crewed orbital Mars mission by the mid-2030s, preceded by an asteroid mission by 2025" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy_of_the_Barack_Oba...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administration)

Going back in time, the Space Exploration Initiative was a policy in the George H. W. Bush administration. "he described plans calling for constructing Space Station Freedom, sending humans back to the Moon "to stay" and ultimately sending astronauts to explore Mars." \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Initiative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Initiative)

So, excuse me while I screw up my face and point out that until I see a real political push by the administration for actual, serious funding, I ain't holding my breath. And the NYT piece says there is no such funding.

<comment><USER3> Agreed on all of that and maybe it's a mistake, but I'm actually kind of hopeful this time.

Bush's made an empty campaign promise then Obama kicked the idea so far down the road it was totally out of sight.

But five years? That's doable insane. Like, get Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and NASA in a room ask them who wants this more.

<comment><USER2> From what I can tell, this new proposal is more empty than that of George W. Bush's administration.

1) Bush's does not seem to have been a campaign promise. While the vision was proposed in an election year, it also received Congressional funding - $16.2 billion - and legislation in the same year.

Note that Trump started his reelection campaign when he entered office, so anything he says about the future can be regarded as a campaign promise, yes?

2) There does not appear to be funding behind the Trump administration's proposal. Quoting the NYT piece, "an accelerated pace has not been evident in the Trump administration's NASA budget requests to Congress, raising many questions about how it will be possible for the agency to accomplish this ambitious goal." Much less the White House pressure that the Bush administration used to get their full budget through.

(Quoting [https://web.archive.org/web/20050913093403/http://www.space....](https://web.archive.org/web/20050913093403/http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive04/congressarch_120604.html), "The White House, which had threatened to veto a bill moving through the House during the summer that would have cut $1.1 billion from NASA's request, leaned on appropriators during the closing days of the budget battle to make NASA a high priority.")

3) I see no indication that Trump prioritizes this policy anywhere near as high as Bush did.

As to "doable insane" for going to the Moon now, note that Bush announced in his 2004 speech "Our second goal is to develop and test a new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned mission no later than 2014."

That was 4 years for a new spacecraft. Certainly that's more doable and sane than going to the Moon, which was Bush's third goal. Yet it wasn't done.

No matter which of Musk, Bezos, or NASA might want it more, how much money do you think they'll need, and where is that money?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The last time a human being stood on anything but Earth was December 11, 1972 (Apollo 17). God, I hope they're serious and can pull this off.

</comment><comment><USER4> Why?

<comment><USER3> Not because it's easy, but because it's hard. And because it's there.

<comment><USER5> 50 years later, the reason is not that it is hard. The reason is that it is easy[1] now, but it's still inspiring, so you get the votes anyway.

[1] Where "easy" means that they will have a 1% chance of dying, but that almost a half of the risk of flying in the Space Shuttle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> on what budget?</comment>


Backtesting Our 100% YoY Profit Generating Strategy - <AUTHOR> https://austingwalters.com/backtesting-our-100-yoy-profit-generating-strategy/ <comment><USER2> They backtested this only against a recent period with no major economic downturns. Buyer beware.</comment>


Show HN: Checkmate Posters – Custom chess posters from PGN files - <AUTHOR> https://checkmateposters.com/ <comment><USER2> This is awesome!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I wrote the original version of this software while working on a FEN-rendering tutorial for Pointless. It ended up working pretty well so I decided to build it into a full product. I figure that anyone who's sunk as many hours into playing online chess as I have has a few games they'd like to show off. Let me know what you think!</comment>


Sudan, Africa's most misunderstood country - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/travel/gallery/20170228-africas-most-misunderstood-country <comment><USER2> I am really happy to see some nice information about Sudan. Some years ago I got a bit angry at racism in myself and around me, and I did a little research on Africa History.

I was deeply disturbed to understand that concepts that were deeply engraved in me as Africa as a "terra nulla", without history, without writing systems or even buildings, were huge lies. Sudan, Ethiopia and Erythrea have a rich history which goes thousands years back linking Egypt, the middle east to India. Later it was a milestone on the road from the Roman empire to India. Most of what we call as Egyptian history is in fact a mix of Lybian, Assyrian, Egyptian and Nubian (Sudanese) history. One thing that is not mentioned is that Sudan and Ethiopia have their own writing system [0].

I suggest also to have a look at Jos Plateau (Nigeria) prehistory which goes back hundred of thousand years. Jos Plateau is also probably one of the areas at the origin of the great Bantu migration. And how those people mastered Iron metallurgy and also to the rice invention in the mega lake Chad area where was found the most ancient boat in the world.

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

(edited)

<comment><USER3> I just wanted to add a few more African civilizations, namely: Great Zimbabwe[0], Axum[1], Asante Kingdom [2] Swahili Kingdoms[3] etc.

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

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

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

[3][http://richard- hooker.com/sites/worldcultures/CIVAFRCA/SWAHI...](http://richard- hooker.com/sites/worldcultures/CIVAFRCA/SWAHILI.HTM)

<comment><USER4> Needs more west Africa!

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

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

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

The Mali Empire was so wealthy that Musa I's pilgrimage to Mecca destabilized the gold market of the eastern Mediterranean.

<comment><USER5> And the Benin empire: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin_Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin_Empire)

Not so large, but noteworthy for the admiration Europeans showed for Benin City / Edo, and for its centuries of history of trading extensively with Europe (and even employing European mercenaries to assist in attacks on surrounding states). E.g. a Dutch account from the 17th century (from the Wikipedia link):

> The king's palace or court is a square, and is as large as the town of > Haarlem and entirely surrounded by a special wall, like that which encircles > the town. It is divided into many magnificent palaces, houses, and > apartments of the courtiers, and comprises beautiful and long square > galleries, about as large as the Exchange at Amsterdam, but one larger than > another, resting on wooden pillars, from top to bottom covered with cast > copper, on which are engraved the pictures of their war exploits and > battles...

The "special wall" was the Benin Earthworks[1]:

> They extend for some 9,900 miles (16,000 kilometres) in all, in a mosaic of > more than 500 interconnected settlement boundaries. They cover 2,510 sq. > miles (6,500 square kilometres) and were all dug by the Edo people. In all, > they are four times longer than the Great Wall of China, and consumed a > hundred times more material than the Great Pyramid of Cheops. They took an > estimated 150 million hours of digging to construct, and are perhaps the > largest single archaeological phenomenon on the planet.[3]

... and it was destroyed by the British [2] as they conquered, burned and looted the city.

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

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin_Expedition_of_1897](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin_Expedition_of_1897)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Saved you a click: the country is Sudan. (Maybe a title like "Sudan: Africa's most misunderstood country" would be better)

<comment><USER7> But then you'd get the obligatory "title is not the same as original!1!" complaint. It's the HN way of life I guess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Really confused by the following error message:

"We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com."

Surely blocking UK citizens like me from seeing the page leaves both the BBC and me strictly worse off vs letting me browse the page and see the same adverts as international viewers?

<comment><USER9> Seems like the logical (but irrational) consequence of a few different UK broadcasting laws colliding:

[http://www.baekdal.com/opinion/bbc-future-is- blockingitself](http://www.baekdal.com/opinion/bbc-future-is-blockingitself)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ugh can't view from the uk

<comment><USER11> You can't view a BBC article from the UK? Don't your taxes pay for this content?

<comment><USER12> We "prefer" to call that a "TV License" because if we called it "tax" it would have negative connotations. It is also paid separately to "tax".

<comment><USER13> The term "TV License" is 1000% more offensive and outrageous, to my Canadian ears, than "TV Tax" would be.

A "license" is a permit from the government to do or use something, and carries the implication that it's something that can be denied.

I know it 100% functions as a tax and not in any sense as a license. And the idea of requiring government permission to have a TV carries less weight in the internet age than it would have in the past. But the wording alone still makes my blood boil. It sounds like something you'd find in North Korea.

<comment><USER14> > I know it 100% functions as a tax

You wish. Taxes are mostly proportional to the payer's income, or wealth, or to the value of some owned good. Instead, so called "tv licenses" are fixed, such that the poorest citizen, owner of a 10inch tv found in the trash bin, is bound to pay as much as the richest taxpayer, with his multi wall-sized home cinema devices.

In this respect it works exactly as the annual subscription to a TV service (it's actually called "subscription" in some countries) and it's clearly a remnant of the times when TVs were rare, expensive objects that were in themselves a proof of the wealth of their owners.

<comment><USER13> You're right, that is much more rightfully offensive than just the naming problem.

We have a similar bit of bullshit in British Columbia, where government health insurance is paid through premiums, administered outside of the tax system (which is annoying as hell, and doesn't happen in other Canadian provinces), which are progressive only up until $30k (£18k) annual income, and fixed after that at $900 (£550) /person/year. Which is 3% of $30k/year, but 1% of $100k/year, etc.

... actually laid out like that and looking at the inhuman shitshow in the US, I think I might withdraw my complaint.

But, back to naming because obviously that is what really matters, a regressive tax[0] is still a tax.

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

<comment><USER15> _We have a similar bit of bullshit in British Columbia, where government health insurance is paid through premiums, administered outside of the tax system_

Those premiums come no where near actually covering the cost of government health insurance.

Ontario has a similar scheme - although administered inside of the tax system - which brings in approximately $3.5B from health premiums. The province spends over $50B on health and long-term care.[0] The health "premium" should really be called a surtax because that is what it is.

Looking at BC's provincial budget[1], which plans to cut them, MSP premiums will bring in just over $2.5B in revenue this year. This is inline with a previous year's forecast[2]. According to both of these sources', BC spends over $17B on health care.

Its 2017 budget claims that BC is the only province which charges health premiums - I suspect that this refers to the method which BC uses to charge people. In Ontario, the "health premium" is collected along with provincial income taxes.

[0] [http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2016/ch3b....](http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2016/ch3b.html#t3-21) Scroll down to table 3.22 for expenses

[1] [http://bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2017/bfp/2017_Budget_and_Fiscal_Pl...](http://bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2017/bfp/2017_Budget_and_Fiscal_Plan.pdf) Table 1.7

[2] [http://bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2015/bfp/2015_budget_and_fiscal_pl...](http://bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2015/bfp/2015_budget_and_fiscal_plan.pdf) Table 1.7

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I was unable to view a few slides in the presentation. I imagine its probably because they are flash videos and Firefox on Linux has been a pain about it so far. Anyone else experiencing this or knows how to fix it?

<comment><USER17> I'm using Firefox on Linux, and I don't have Flash installed. The animated backgrounds are using the video tag, and provides "video/mp4", "video/webm", and "video/ogg" files for each of the slides that include video (slides 3, 7, and 9).

Slides 4, 6, 8, 11, and 13 looks like they're doing some kind of more protected video, but I've never done any kind of web development, so I don't know how to track down how it works. I'll note that I've got an h.264 plugin from Cisco and a Widevine DRM module installed, and that might have something to do with how it works for me.

Firefox 50.1.0 on Mint 18, if that makes a difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Africa, mostly misunderstood as a country.

</comment><comment><USER19> Very nice presentation.

</comment><comment><USER20> WTF slideshow.

</comment><comment><USER21> Sudan is "misunderstood"? I personally know several refugees from there. Certainly their stories are their own experience, and certainly they were on the receiving end of a religious and racial civil war. Still, I have a hard time seeing the government as anything but a bunch of murderous thugs who, rather than trying to deal with the grievances of those unlike them, instead tried to bomb them into submission or non-existence. I've seen the effects of that approach on the bodies of people I know. And beautiful scenery and history don't make up for that, in my mind.</comment>