Alex Honnold Scales El Capitan Without Ropes, and the Climbing World Reels - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/05/531584651/alex-honnold-scales-el-capitan-without-ropes-and-the-climbing-world-reels?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social <comment><USER3> By far the best article I've seen to supplement this: [https://www.outsideonline.com/2190306/why-alex-honnolds- free...](https://www.outsideonline.com/2190306/why-alex-honnolds-free-solo- scared-me)

As a climber, there are very few people that I trust to have a more useful opinion on all this than Tommy Caldwell, a close friend and long time climbing partner of Honnold. It's so out there for most people that most jump to conclusions without proper knowledge of the subject.

Caldwell is in an interesting position of having to balance supporting his friend, and trying to get over the fact that he very well could die doing these attempts. His article does a great job expressing this.

<comment><USER4> _It's all too easy for headlines about climbing to lean on clichés about the climbers themselves—that these people are daredevils, thrill seekers, adrenaline junkies. But to most climbers, nothing is quicker to trigger the gag reflex. Climbing is an intimate relationship with our world's most dramatic landscapes, not a self-boasting fight against them. I don't claim to understand the inner workings of Alex's mind, but I know one thing for certain: Alex climbs to live, not to cheat death._

Can someone help me understand this? How is doing something without safety equipment that you can do with with safety equipment climbing to live, but _not_ about cheating death? What is the point of foregoing safety if not to somehow eke something out of the increased danger, whether it be adrenaline, or a period of increased focus, or fame?

If it's not about someone being addicted to adrenaline or looking for fame, then I just don't understand it. At all. As in it's so foreign to me that I can't even _begin_ to understand it.

<comment><USER5> I have a couple of things that might help you a bit:

1\. Alex Honnold's brain is atypical. His amygdala simply does not respond to stimuli the way that it does in most people. To learn more, read this (excellent) article:

[http://nautil.us/issue/39/sport/the-strange-brain-of-the- wor...](http://nautil.us/issue/39/sport/the-strange-brain-of-the-worlds- greatest-solo-climber)

2\. While I am (at best) a mediocre climber, the section you quoted rings true to me, particularly this section - "Climbing is an intimate relationship with our world's most dramatic landscapes, not a self-boasting fight against them." There is something incredibly natural and sensual about climbing on rock that I can't describe without sounding like I'm talking about sex. And...that's traditionally where people tell me to give them my keys because I've had too much to drink. :)

3\. Climbing is a deeply meditative activity, particularly when you get into a place where each movement flows into the next. When I am there, my mind shuts down and it is just a rock and me doing the most natural thing that I have ever found (see #2). That flow is deeply beautiful, but when you climb with ropes, you have to be in near constant contact with your belay partner. When I am with my regular belay partner, it interrupts that flow. When I am with a new belay partner, I never get close to it.

I suspect that if my amygdala worked like his, I would free solo simply to avoid having to communicate with a belay partner.

<comment><USER6> What is the personality test that this article about Alex mentions? The one that generated that bar graph. I'd like to take it myself.

<comment><USER7> Something like this:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/sensatio...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/sensation/)

<comment><USER6> Well thank you, but the test in that link doesn't work. Anyway, I searched for some high sensation seekers tests, but the graph in the article has far more detailed results than any test I could find. It measures several interesting personality traits.

<comment><USER8> link worked for me. [https://i.imgur.com/I7RKlW5.png](https://i.imgur.com/I7RKlW5.png)

<comment><USER6> The test doesn't

<comment><USER8> You're right. I found the full test and scoring table at [http://wsm.wsu.edu/s/we.php?id=200](http://wsm.wsu.edu/s/we.php?id=200)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some great pictures from the climb: [http://elcapreport.com/content/elcap- report-6317-special-edi...](http://elcapreport.com/content/elcap- report-6317-special-edition-honnold-free-solo-elcap)

<comment><USER10> I'd love to see a picture of the entire wall, with rectangles showing which tiny part of it we're looking at for each photo, just to get a better feeling for how high the climb is.

<comment><USER11> Not exactly what you asked for, but this is pretty good: [http://imgur.com/a/c74MY](http://imgur.com/a/c74MY)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you are interested in this or the history of climbing in Yosemite and and El Capitan I highly recommend the documentary "Valley Uprising." Even if you aren't necessarily interested in climbing its a beautiful documentary. It's available on Netflix.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3784160/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3784160/)

<comment><USER13> I'll just second this as someone not previously interested in climbing who was really drawn into Valley Uprising. From a purely technical point of view, it does some fascinating stuff bringing decades-old photographs and video clips to life on the rock face.

You can get a taste of it from a number of clips that are in the trailer: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o86TpaSBcWw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o86TpaSBcWw)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The thing that I've most loved while following Alex's exploits over the past few year is how he talks about his mental preparation. He always seems very well prepared for whatever route that he is climbing. To me, the biggest evidence of that is the fact that he quit doing this exact climb a few weeks ago because he felt conditions weren't right. That's really hard to do with media, etc. on your tail, even IF your life is literally at stake.

It would be one thing if he were just incredibly bold and daring and were getting away with it; instead, its clear that his method is a very slow, methodical process in which he manages to practically guarantee that he will have a safe and effortless climb. Even in the interviews after this, it is clear that he is committed to his routine and managed to set-up this climb in such a way that it simply represented a comfortable, natural step in his evolution as a climber. He talks about it almost matter-of-factly.

Truly awe-inspiring.

<comment><USER15> How do you quit a free climb?

<comment><USER16> 1\. Someone climbs to your location from the ground, or descends from the top of the route, hauling a sufficient amount of gear for you to rappel or be lowered to the ground. Obviously impractical on massive routes like El Cap.

2\. A rescuer is slung onto the route near the incapacitated climber's location using a helicopter long-line. They prepare the climber for extraction and then they are both slung off by the helicopter at one time.

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

<comment><USER17> in this case he could just wait on a ledge until other climbers went by and ascended with them.

<comment><USER18> You can't just insert yourself into someone else's big wall party if they weren't planning on it; those other climbers would be spending multiple days on the route and would almost certainly not have food, water, and portaledge space for you (not to mention how profoundly rude that would be...). If you were indeed at the mercy of needing strangers to rescue you, a passing party or a rescue party would need to change their plans and retreat with you, which would only really be a good call if your life were at risk otherwise.

The more realistic plan would be to have some friends ready and willing to come retrieve him if needed, and to potentially stash some gear/supplies at the larger belay ledges a few days prior.

<comment><USER17> > You can't just insert yourself into someone else's big wall party if they > weren't planning on it; those other climbers would be spending multiple days > on the route and would almost certainly not have food, water, and portaledge > space for you (not to mention how profoundly rude that would be...). If you > were indeed at the mercy of needing strangers to rescue you, a passing party > or a rescue party would need to change their plans and retreat with you, > which would only really be a good call if your life were at risk otherwise.

yeah, you can, it's called hitchhiking. it's not very common; but it has be done, Lynn Hill talks about it in her autobiography. if the climber hitchhiking is good enough, the new party will be faster in the end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As a climber, I wish this were less widely publicized. Free soloing is extremely dangerous, and dozens of climbers - including experienced ones die doing it every year.

<comment><USER20> Amongst the legendary free soloist rock climbers, here's the spread:

John Gill, alive at 80

Peter Croft, alive at 60

Alain Robert, alive at 54

Catherine Destiville, alive at 53

Steph Davis, alive at 43

Alex Honnold, alive at 31

Dan Osmond, died at 45, not free soloing

Dean Potter, died at 43, not free soloing

Michael Reardon, died at 43, not free soloing

John Bachar died free soloing at 52

It's a very small field, not many people make a discipline of it.

<comment><USER21> Dan Osman still died by falling off a cliff.. equipment failure though [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY6YsM5Rh0Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY6YsM5Rh0Y)

<comment><USER22> It's worth noting that both Dan Osman and Dean Potter died in part due to park service policies.

The park service allows all kinds of activities that cater to motorized tourists, but bans specialized activities like base jumping. Yosemite is one of the best places in the world to base jump, not just because of its beauty but because the cliffs are oriented well for base jumping. The ban pushes jumpers to fly at dawn or dusk, and hide their activities, in a way that pushes the safety margins.

<comment><USER23> A ban doesn't force anyone to do anything to break the ban.

The correct response to the ban is to respect the parks wishes and stop BASE jumping.

If you want to push the limits that's on you. You should know the risks and act accordingly.

<comment><USER18> This starts to resemble something like abstinence-only education in schools, though, where a hard-line stance of "just don't do the risky thing we've told you not to do and you'll be fine" leads to less successful real-world results than embracing the complex realities of human behavior.

<comment><USER23> No it doesn't. There are other places and countries where you can BASE jump. They chose to do it where it was banned and selected times where they would evade authorities.

This sort of entitled attitude doesn't help IMO. Breaking local laws just confirms that you can't trust these communities and you give everyone a bad name.

<comment><USER20> Do you honestly think anyone who BASE jumps gives a fuck what you think? Why even waste your time saying it? They're obviously not here to obey the rules. Like, really obviously.

<comment><USER23> I'm not really sure I understand the point of this comment.

Of course they don't have to listen to me. But people express their opinions all the time.

Of course they should follow local access rules, local ethics and etiquette.

Most outdoor communities I've seen try and keep good relationships with local authorities. We want to maintain areas as much as they do so we can keep using them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > "I woke up one guy and he sort of said, 'Oh, hey.' Then when I went by, I > think he discreetly woke up his buddies because when I looked down they were > all three standing there like 'What the f __*? ' "

What an awesome story for a climber: "I was woken up on the wall by the first guy to free solo El Cap"

<comment><USER25> "Dressed in a chicken suit"

Check #6 here: [http://elcapreport.com/content/elcap-report-6317-special- edi...](http://elcapreport.com/content/elcap-report-6317-special-edition- honnold-free-solo-elcap)

<comment><USER26> This needs to be higher up. A great read. I was going to post it up top in reply to the person who posted the NatGeo link saying it was the best description of it, until I found it mentioned all the way down here :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> A couple of years ago it was in the news that a couple a blokes (Caldwell & Jorgeson) had freeclimbed El Capitan.

So for those of us who know next to nothing about rock climbing, what's the difference here? Apparently Caldwell & Jorgeson were using ropes for safety although not for the climbing per se (hence why it was freeclimbing?) So this guy does it all alone, without any safety ropes, and in frickin 4 hours? Waaaat?

Or was it a different route? The Caldwell & Jorgeson stories mention "Dawn Wall", is that something else than Honnold climbed now?

<comment><USER28> > So for those of us who know next to nothing about rock climbing, what's the > difference here? Apparently Caldwell & Jorgeson were using ropes for safety > although not for the climbing per se (hence why it was freeclimbing?)

Aid Climbing = using ropes to assist with going up

Free Climbing = only using yourself to climb up, but still using ropes to catch your fall

Free soloing = climbing with no protection or assistance

> Or was it a different route?

Different route on the same mountain. They did the 'Dawn Wall' (which Honnold has also done), and his recent record was on 'Freerider'.

Here's the dawn wall: [http://www.rockandice.com/dawn-wall-el-cap-yosemite- topo](http://www.rockandice.com/dawn-wall-el-cap-yosemite-topo). Don't see a good topo for Freerider yet.

Edit: Turns out I was mis-remembering on the dawn wall. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Honnold#Selected_notable_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Honnold#Selected_notable_climbs) has a list of his notable climbs.

<comment><USER29> Honnold has not free climbed the Dawn Wall. Adam Ondra did last year for the second free accent.

[edit: fixed Adam's name]

<comment><USER30> Correct. The hardest pitch on the Dawn Wall is rated 9a and in addition the climbing is of a very particular style (slabs) that does not suite most 9a climbers. It is quite possible that the Dawn Wall won't be repeated for a long time. Alex Honnold has never free climbed any 9a but recently stated that this is one of his next goals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> achievements in climbing can be kind of difficult for non-climbers to see the relevancy of, since the conventions of success seem a little arbitrary until you put some time into it. it was interesting to see the news cycle pick up tommy caldwell and kevin jorgeson's ascent of the dawn wall in yosemite in january 2015. it was certainly the biggest thing to happen in yosemite at the time, but no bigger in terms of its relevancy to climbing than a handful of other ascents that happened in the few years surrounding. it was a huge climb, and worthy of all the attention it got, but it was a little peculiar to see it get more airtime than any climb since maybe the original dawn wall ascent by warren harding in 1970.

before alex's climb this week, it would be totally reasonable to make the claim that el cap will never get free-soloed. it's too sustained, the only feasible routes are too insecure. no one, expert or not, would ever get shouted down for making that claim, even among a cohort of dreamers who all want to live the impossible. among that cohort, free solo climbing isn't all that common; maybe one in a hundred climbers have ever climbed a difficult route taller than 100 feet without a rope. which makes him alien even within his sport.

honnold just landed on the moon. what he did doesn't require any of the qwerks of convention that accompany most big-wall free climbs. everyone immediately understands the idea of scaling a cliff without a rope. everyone can even try it. el cap is a ten minute walk from the car. but in case the context of the climb is unclear, this is the kind of feat that only comes along every few generations.

maybe I'm overstating it. from one perspective, this climb was another incremental step on honnold's journey. all of his previous ascents were mind- bending as well: moonlight buttress in zion, the regular northwest face of half dome, el sendero luminoso in el potrero chico, mexico. besides, technical rock climbing as we understand it today is only two or three generations old at most, and it's already produced this monster of an achievement. we may see more in our lifetime. I just wouldn't bet on it.

<comment><USER32> Looking at the pictures El Capitan seems really tall and flat/sheer. Are there other cliffs in the world that are even taller or more sheer? I'm just wondering since I've seen comments from people saying something to the affect that they can't imagine what could top this. There are thousands of mountains around the world. Surely El Capitan isn't the Mt Everest of climbing.

<comment><USER31> there are more sheer cliffs, there are taller mountains, and there are harder routes, for sure. but what makes a cliff, a mountain, or a specific route inspiring is harder to define than its physical countours. there's a mountain in Argentina called Cerro Torre that is seen my many alpinists as the holy grail of mountaineering. it's about 11,000 feet tall, and has a neighbor to the north called Fitz Roy that is even taller and has more terrain on it. but Cerro Torre is steeped in history of climbers making their own attempts on it, and has features peculiar to it that make it seem impossible.

on the other hand, within the alpinism/rock climbing community, Everest isn't actually even seen as the Mt Everest of climbing. if you read Jon Krakauer's "Into Thin Air", he elaborates on this. the commercialism associated with the mountain, the way it is treated by guided parties, and the way it is seen as a bucket list item that anyone with the means to hire guides can haul themselves up, all serve to detract from the appeal of the mountain to the "true" adventure mountaineer. I say that a little toungue-in-cheek, though. if any alpinist had the opportunity to climb everest far from the crowds and without the $50k price tag, they would probably leap at it immediately. the point is, even Everest's stature has fallen in prominence among many alpinists, in favor of more technical peaks (though exceptions are readily available). it's been this way since the 60's and 70's.

the 60's and 70's were the time that yosemite climbing began to really take off. warren harding climbed the nose (the most prominent and popular route on el capitan) in 1958, royal robbins climbed the sheer northwest face of half dome in 1957. from then on, legends like chuck pratt, yvon chouinard, john long, jim bridwell, john bachar, peter croft, ron kauk, and lynn hill, all made their impact on the cliffs of yosemite. many of them went on to climb in the greater ranges of the world. yosemite for a time was a melting pot of the finest pratitioners of the sport--until you could no longer spend an entire summer in camp 4 because of overcrowding.

fast forward to modern day, it's still the proving ground for so many rock climbers and alpinists around the world. to climb the most prominent cliff in the most historically meaningful place still has power that captivates. some of it is its accessibility, some of it is the beauty of the mountain, and some of it is the difficulty, but much of it is simply legend.

<comment><USER32> In your opinion, what cliff in the world would be most impressive if someone free soloed it? That is, there is no way someone could top free soloing X since there simply isn't any other cliff/route on the face of the earth that could compare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Proper Planning and Practice Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

and DEATH.

In all seriousness, Alex's mental and physical conditioning to achieve this goal should be lauded, examined, written about, and taught.

<comment> tuna-piano Alex is famous because he does "free soloing" \- which doesn't use any ropes or safety at all. More people do "free climbing" which uses ropes just in case of fall.

Anyone have any idea how often free climbers end up falling and needing their ropes? Could many good free climbers do what Honnold did, but just like the added bits of safety?

<comment><USER29> I climb but not at anywhere near the level of Honnold. That being said, free climbers fall quite a bit. Sport climbing, that is using bolts that are pre- placed as protection, often involves pushing to one's limit which of course means falling. Traditional climbing, using special gear and features in the rock for protection, does not involve as much falling since there is a higher risk of your gear popping out of its placement.

Honnold has climbed this route with ropes many times and no doubt fell while doing it. He was well aware that he was capable of completing the climb without a fall.

<comment> tuna-piano Any idea of how many people have free climbed this route? I'm really curious to know if Honnold is a one-of-a-kind climber or there are similar skill level climbers who just aren't willing to risk it without ropes?

Either way he's amazing, but I'm curious to know how amazing.

<comment><USER29> This route, called the Freerider, has been free climbed by a lot of people. It is arguably the easiest free climb on El Cap. That being said it is out of the range of most climbers. I will assume you are not familiar with climbing grades, here is an overview:

[http://www.coloradomountaineering.com/2012/01/guide-to- yosem...](http://www.coloradomountaineering.com/2012/01/guide-to-yosemite- decimal-system.html)

The Freerider is rated at 5.12d. This is a grade that most people will struggle to attain without a huge amount of training and effort.

Also, keep in mind that the route is very long and takes most people multiple days to complete. Honnold did it in under 4 hours.

<comment><USER34> Honnold climbed the boulder problem variation, which is 13a. The Teflon Corner at 12d is slightly easier but less secure, so worse for soloing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> skim- Check these awesome photos of the feat: [http://elcapreport.com/content/elcap- report-6317-special-edi...](http://elcapreport.com/content/elcap- report-6317-special-edition-honnold-free-solo-elcap)

</comment><comment><USER35> There's a great documentary on the climbing culture of Yosemite and its evolution (including the equilibrium-punctuating arrival of Alex Honnold) available at least on Netflix: _Valley Uprising_.

Worth a watch.

<comment><USER36> _equilibrium-punctuating arrival of Alex Honnold..._

Yeah, I guess that just about describes the guys career.

Fun question: which people in other disciplines have had the same shattering effect in their field ? I can think of Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov in Chess.

<comment><USER37> Tiger Woods, Old Tom Morris, a whole crapton of scientists and musicians.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> First clip of Honnold's climb: [https://goo.gl/LZ1jcq](https://goo.gl/LZ1jcq)

<comment><USER39> palms literally raining phew

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> On a message board I use there has been some interesting discussion [1] of whether elite climbers are being subject to pressure to take unreasonable risks due to the need to stay visible on social media, the commercial requirements of sponsors, and increasing interest in climbing by media orgs like Nat Geographic. I climb at a very modest level and don't feel qualified to judge in this case, and I certainly don't want to imply that Alex isn't making informed judgements about what he does, but I suspect these concerns may have some validity.

But an awesome achievement, nevertheless.

[1] [https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=665201&v=1](https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=665201&v=1)

<comment><USER41> Interesting, I feel pretty confident that this was a personal goal for him though, since he first mentioned it in 2009.

<comment><USER40> I agree about it likely being a personal goal.

But when Dawn Wall was freed a couple of years ago it got a lot of coverage in the mainstream media [1]. I wonder whether that would be the case if, instead, it was done a year or so from now. Or would the fact that Caldwell and Jorgeson used ropes and protection mean that it was no longer extreme enough to be considered remarkable. Even though it was the outcome of a long-term project, would they have to solo it to get the same level of mainstream attention now?

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/sports/el-capitans- dawn-w...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/sports/el-capitans-dawn-wall- climbers-reach-top.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I see a lot of comments wondering why someone would take such risks, why it's irresponsible etc...

It makes me wonder how responsible it is to sit in a chair and program all day, distorting your body into a twisted fat shadow of itself.

I think our profession also comes with physical risks, and they sure aren't as rewarding as rock-climbing is.

</comment><comment><USER43> It's things like this that make me ask myself, "Why don't I climb rocks more?"

Then I remember I have a fear of falling to my death. It's a vicious cycle.

<comment><USER44> Fear of falling is natural, and good. If yours is a bonafide phobia, that will be a challenge of course, but some people climb in order to fight their phobia.

There's an interesting progression with regard to fear in rock climbing. Bouldering is fairly limited, fear-wise (if you don't count highballs). It's a great way for anyone to get into climbing, and just have fun.

Top-roping a wall is pretty benign as well, since if you fall it's usually just a couple feet. But the height can will still cause beginners to pause, but you should get over it fairly quickly. You will be too focused on the next move to think about the height, most of the time.

Then you progress to lead climbing, where you pull the rope up with you (attached to your harness), and clip into quickdraws. Lead falls are much farther than top rope, in general, and you have the added physical challenge of finding a good position to do the clipping. This added physical challenge leads to mental drain as you have to gauge "can I make it to the next quickdraw and have enough energy to find a position to clip without falling?" The more you move up, the farther you're going to fall..

Then you have traditional (trad) climbing, where you place protection into the rock, in the form of cams and nuts and what not, and you clip into those. The physical challenge with finding a position to put protection is similar to lead, but now you have to hold the position longer, and after it's placed, you have the added mental strain of "will that piece of gear actually hold if I fall on it?"

And then, you have Honnold here, with free soloing. You fall you die (or get super messed up).

When I went from top roping to lead, it was like starting over again. The level I was climbing at plummeted (on lead), due to the mental game. Nowadays when I top rope, it's almost a joke (fear-wise). I can fly up a route on top rope, and then struggle up the same route on lead.

\--

One of the most interesting things about the sport, to me, is the whole mental challenge, and any climber will tell you the same. You are not just challenging yourself physically, but mentally. We all have to fight the fear, our weakness of mind.

<comment><USER45> Some people don't have any fear; Sometimes I forget to clip when I'm lead climbing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Interview: [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/features/athlete...](http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/features/athletes/alex- honnold/interview-rope-free-solo-climb-yosemite-el-capitan/)

Pictures: [http://elcapreport.com/content/elcap-report-6317-special- edi...](http://elcapreport.com/content/elcap-report-6317-special-edition- honnold-free-solo-elcap)

</comment><comment><USER8> To me this quote is the best gauge of how incredible of a human feat this was.

"One way to measure the greatness of any sporting achievement might be to consider the amount of time that passes before it's achieved again. New world records are set in virtually every single Olympics. Every year brings new sports stars who stand on the shoulders of those who came before them. Look at someone like Usain Bolt, who has a dominant record in the 100-meter dash that might last for generations. The difference is, lots of people can run the 100 meters (albeit not quite as fast as Bolt).

Honnold, meanwhile, is performing in an event that no one else is even qualified, much less willing, to participate."

[http://eveningsends.com/is-alex-honnolds-el-cap-free-solo- th...](http://eveningsends.com/is-alex-honnolds-el-cap-free-solo-the-greatest- individual-sports-achievementever/)

</comment><comment><USER47> Sincerely, even thinking about it - feels scary! :)

These are great pictures indeed:

[http://elcapreport.com/content/elcap-report-6317-special- edi...](http://elcapreport.com/content/elcap-report-6317-special-edition- honnold-free-solo-elcap)

</comment><comment><USER48> I would not do a climb like this even if the fate of the universe depended on it.

</comment><comment><USER49> Obligatory related entertainment: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MubrSXdjjQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MubrSXdjjQ)

</comment><comment><USER50> Tommy Caldwell is the most qualified person in the world to write this story. A famous name in climbing himself, having written many of the books, and having climbed and prepared with Alex.

[https://www.outsideonline.com/2190306/why-alex-honnolds- free...](https://www.outsideonline.com/2190306/why-alex-honnolds-free-solo- scared-me)

</comment><comment><USER51> There was a very good interview with Alex on Joe Rogan a few years back:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OusYaNWBy08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OusYaNWBy08)

In a typical Rogan style, it's a pretty relaxed and "real" chat, about girls, shitting your pants etc. Gives a little more insight into how top athletes like Alex think and approach their craft.

</comment><comment><USER52> How did he get back down? With Ropes? Then who brought them up? Or did he do a BASE jump? Catch a ride on a Helicopter?

<comment><USER53> You can walk off the back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I find it interesting that I feel some of the same physical symptoms of fear when I look at clips of this guy 1000' off the ground, climbing the rock.

Alex has a such a unique set of skills, which he has not only identified but honed to their best level of execution. It is hard for me to now simultaneously feel awe and disbelief.

</comment><comment> matt-attack Something I've always wondered about stuff like this: How can someone get so good at a craft that seemingly allows for zero mistakes? How do you practice and develop your skills when there's no margin for error?

(Note: I'm assuming he'd have died if he ever made a mistake on this climb)

<comment><USER55> There are lots of small mistakes you can make while climbing that don't result in a fall. Poor route selection, bad hand placement, sketchy foot holds, etc. The sport is choices leading to choices. Small bad choices can be corrected, for the most part.

For example, in the National Geographic[1] story it mentions that he attempted the climb in November but "but backed off after less than an hour of climbing". I assume he hit some threshold of small mistakes, bad conditions, and negative vibes that added up to, "not today." But he got down and lived to climb another day.

The interview with Tommy Caldwell linked elsewhere in the comments mentions that he even fell once while practicing for this climb, "he had taken a fall on a practice lap of the Freerider and badly sprained his ankle."

So probably less that he makes NO mistakes, and more that none of his mistakes have meant a deadly fall yet.

[1]: [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/features/athlete...](http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/features/athletes/alex- honnold/most-dangerous-free-solo-climb-yosemite-national-park-el-capitan/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> About Alex Honnold, there's just one thing that comes to mind - <USER2> Ambition.

That same spirit that Caesar's men harnessed to build a bridge across the Rhine in 10 days, that led NASA to get to the moon in a decade, that led to the empire state building being erected in slightly over a year.

</comment><comment><USER29> Here is a post-climb interview with Alex Honnold: [http://www.rockandice.com/climbing-news/alex-honnold-el- cap-...](http://www.rockandice.com/climbing-news/alex-honnold-el-cap-free- solo-interview)

</comment><comment><USER57> Explore El Capitan via Google street view

[https://www.google.com/maps/about/behind-the- scenes/streetvi...](https://www.google.com/maps/about/behind-the- scenes/streetview/treks/yosemite/#trek)

</comment><comment><USER58> One of the best pieces written to date about this.

[http://eveningsends.com/is-alex-honnolds-el-cap-free-solo- th...](http://eveningsends.com/is-alex-honnolds-el-cap-free-solo-the-greatest- individual-sports-achievementever/)

</comment><comment><USER59> It would be well to remember the old adage that there are two kinds of rock climbers: those that have fallen and those that will fall. As spectacular a feat as this was, even for someone as skilled as Honnold, he does this often enough, in the end, it will kill him.

<comment><USER60> i used to think that, but now i'm not so sure. his free climbs are basically choreographed down to the inch, well ahead of time.

that is a completely different thing than just going up because he's in a good mood and thinks he can do it.

<comment><USER59> That is like saying you can flip 50 coins and have them come up heads every time because your flips were choreographed. Every single move he makes, every fingerhold, every foot placement, everything, must be perfect every time. The rock can't crumble unexpectedly,the sun can't momentarily blind him, hell, a butterfly in the Peruvian Andes can't flap its wings just so. There must be thousands of such points in his climbs, any one of which could kill him. He does it often enough, someday, they will.

<comment><USER61> Your comment doesn't make sense. You can't choreograph the result of coin flip, but you can definitely rehearse a rock climbing sequence so that you always nail it. I can promise you there weren't thousands of moments on this climb where chossy rock, the sun, or chaos theory had anything to do with his success or failure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I'm curious , if he is free climbing this large peaks, wouldn't it make sense to wear one of em lightweight parachutes, I'm sure for someone like Alex an extra 800g wouldn't be much of an issue would it?

</comment><comment><USER63> Assuming Honnold has perfect ability, what are the risks of the route itself? I assume these routes are kept clean of loose rock, holds are inspected constantly and anything showing wear is communicated to the climber community.

<comment><USER31> hey, actually no one maintains the routes in an official capacity. there are groups of climbers who voluntarily will upgrade fixed protection, or individuals who do the same, but certainly no governing body. it's not like a hiking trail, for example. it's pretty wild west, but generally people work together.

as far as the objective risks, they include loose rock, broken holds, wet rock, birds spooking you, base jumpers spooking you, hornets, climbers dropping things by accident on you.

<comment><USER29> On the subject of maintaining a route like this, it is dangerous to remove loose rocks since there is a reasonable chance that there is someone below you. As a result, some loose rock is still present on these routes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> > I hope others are inspired by Alex's dedication to excellence and ability to > live without fear

What he did was impressive to be sure, but I wonder how many people inspired by it will attempt it themselves, only to fall to their deaths.

</comment><comment><USER65> There's some National Geographic video footage of the climb here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HoUDDetAg0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HoUDDetAg0)

</comment><comment><USER66> Why is this celebrated? The man could die. Is it for our amusement? You take someone, you give him sponsors, you make him think risking his life to make a living this way is his own choice? Between fame and money, and a life working as a clerk in some office ... what choice could there be.

I imagine it's like the choice for slaves in ancient Rome between being a house slave or becoming a gladiator. Fame and riches maybe ... death maybe.

Why does society accept this behavior as normal?

The welfare state will bear the cost if he lands hard and is paralyzed. If he dies, his loved ones will bear the cost.

For all this, what do we get in concrete terms? The knowledge that a human has risked his life for something so meaningless? Some "sweet photos, dude".

Madness really. How does everyone accept this as normal?

<comment><USER67> You could die doing anything. It's his life to live and he shouldn't be restricted in how he wishes to live or die. And it's celebrated because it's a form of bravery not all of us have but many of us respect.

<comment><USER66> It's also brave to play Russian Roulette. Should that be celebrated?

You have to distinguish between brave acts which have a moral purpose. And brave acts which are just displays of bravado.

Bravery to save a person from a fire ... that is worthy of celebration.

Bravery to jump between two tall buildings to impress your bozo friends below ... impressive ... but any society that makes a point celebrating this in its culture might see some problematic developments in how its youth view risk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> It is a remarkable feat, but still in the realm, evidently, of what is humanly possible. Risk is always relative to the activity in which you spend your time.

</comment><comment><USER69> Just reminds me of Ueli Steck who climbed the Eiger within a few hours. Sadly he had a fatal accident in the Himalayas just recently.

</comment><comment> matt-attack I find it annoying that clicking on the first image takes you to Instagram which displays the linked image smaller than the original article.

</comment><comment><USER70> More more detail I'd read the National Geographic article linked in this NPR article, it has a very good history/background worth reading.

</comment><comment><USER71> I know a neuropsychologist who believes that certain people are simply missing certain personality traits that other have, such as fear.

</comment><comment><USER72> Yes, this was amazing and, as I shared with a friend, bone chilling. I don't know if this feat will ever be repeated.

</comment><comment><USER73> "...he passed some climbers who had spent the night on a ledge. He did his best not to wake them ..."

</comment><comment><USER74> Honnold's interview on Tim Ferriss's podcast is fascinating, for anyone who's interested.

</comment><comment><USER75> I wouldn't even stand with my back to the precipice, as he does in a photo in the article.

</comment><comment><USER76> How does one get back down from one of those climbs?

<comment><USER77> there is usually an easy way down the other side.

or you have to abseil.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> So crazy, my palms are sweaty just thinking about it

</comment><comment><USER79> It's Alex Honnold I'm not shocked.

</comment><comment><USER80> Absolutely incredible.

</comment><comment><USER81> And why is this hacker news material?

<comment><USER36> > And why is this hacker news material?

Because _" a person who is a hacker , only a hacker, and nothing but a hacker, cannot be much of a hacker."_

<comment><USER81> Yes, but not all hackers that aren't just hackers love climbing. And if I interpret that quote correctly, is there even a remote connection between the article and the kind of social news that are a good fit for this site? I though this site is about computer science and entrepreneurship. And for hackers who love climbing there are online climbing magazine sites, the same for gardening, formula 1 etc.

What would happen if people would start posting here unrelated sports news, or pop music, or motivational quotes, in the name of the quote you mention? Or is it okay if it's only from time to time? What's the ratio?

<comment><USER82> There's a huge difference between an article about the latest soccer match and an article like this: [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lionel-messi-is- impossi...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lionel-messi-is-impossible/)

I feel this article exposes a monumental achievement that it warrants being of interest. I mean, the proof is in the pudding: it's gotten more comments and discussion going than 95% of the "Version X of [Piece of Software] released" articles (and I consider those to be semi-useful.)

<comment><USER81> Very interesting point, I haven't thought about it that way, thank you.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What the F**k Is Social Media? Here's an Answer - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2009/08/03/what-is-social-media/ <comment><USER2> excellent guide!</comment>


Boeing 787 In Flight Entertainment System Security fun - <AUTHOR> https://www.btr.pm/rambles/2017/5/12/787-inflight-entertainment-fun <comment><USER2> I wish people wouldn't do shit like this on live systems like this one. Even the port scan could have had bad consequences (especially since this person did -A). By all means explore the interesting JSON object that was downloaded and yeah I'd worry about installing random stuff on my machine.

I'm not talking about crashing the plane; I'm talking about crashing the IFE and me then having to sit through 10 hours of people who didn't bring a book.

<comment><USER3> Thank you for this comment. I for one would be pretty pissed if a "hacker" decided to crash my/or my kids entertainment on a long flight. There is definitely a need for this type of work, but doing so in a 50,000 lb brick floating a few miles above the ground isn't an atmosphere I am comfortable with, especially if I am present...

<comment><USER4> If anything were to happen, it definitely shouldn't affect the avionics, not even remotely, or the plane would not have had a chance of certification. Data to the less secure IFE had better flow through a unidirectional network ("data diode"), and/or use a separate set of sensors.

Even if it brought down the server, it's still nothing that the flight attendants can't solve by "turning it off and back on". This kind of fault happens all the time.

More interesting to me is the level of isolation of the network. Could someone exploit my phone through the in-flight WiFi, for example?

<comment><USER3> I agree that, in theory, at least the avionics shouldn't be accessible from the IFE. I am sure there is a rigorous protocol for making sure this is properly secured and certification for airworthiness. I think the parent comment was more making the point that we don't need a flight full of people scanning ports for fun and profit, and the consequences of doing so are unknown and could lead to things like no wifi or IFE on the flight you're on and hopefully not worse

<comment><USER5> This is obscurantism. Port-scanning a networked system, even aggressively, must be considered typical environmental hazards that any network-attached system must be able to weather (preferably with no degradation in service).

<comment><USER6> The point is not that the system is fine, the point is that the method used to identify the flaw is dangerous. This needs to be fixed but the ends do not justify the means.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's really quite useful. I changed my zsh prompt a while back to show me the status of the internet connection on board, remaining time, flight number and from where to where the plane is going.

[https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/867043286128656384](https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/867043286128656384)

<comment><USER8> Very cool. I saw that you handle Lufthansa as well, now.

Tiny nitpick:

In my understanding, ETA denotes a point in time, e.g. 22:50h, that is the estimated time _at_ which you arrive. (Absolute)

If you want to specify a duration in this context, i.e. how much _longer_ until arrival, e.g. 0:53h for another 53 minutes until arrival, you'd speak of the ETE (estimated time enroute). (Relative)

See (in German) e.g. [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_time_of_arrival](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_time_of_arrival)

tl;dr: use "ete" instead of "eta"

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's a lot of posts mentioning that a scan shouldn't cause any trouble, however there's no way of knowing how the services are configured on the other end, or how they are set up to respond to certain packet types, or how the server will respond to certain data within those packets if said data does not conform to expected lengths etc. A lot of assumptions are made that non- conforming data will be ignored in a closed proprietary system, and that the system will handle all packets across all protocols gracefully. Anyone who says sending packets to a port running an unknown service (or implementation of said service) can't cause any issues with the service is throwing quite a wide net. Running a port scan or trying to interface with any of the systems on an aircraft while it's in flight without knowing how the systems operate or interact with each other is incredibly irresponsible, if not downright stupid.

<comment><USER10> I remember about 20 years ago, you could crash any Windows computer you had the IP address of by sending a particularly crafted package to a certain port. Oh, those were the days.

<comment><USER11> Port 139, maybe?

[http://insecure.org/sploits/windows.OOB.DOS.html](http://insecure.org/sploits/windows.OOB.DOS.html)

<comment><USER12> Also, ping of death:

[http://insecure.org/sploits/ping-o- death.html](http://insecure.org/sploits/ping-o-death.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > I did a port scan on the System Control Unit

Is that still white hat? Did they also check to see if the cockpit door is locked?

<comment><USER14> Scanning should be fine; trying to access them becomes dubious; bruteforcing the login could lead to arrest.

<comment><USER15> I had a projector firmware freeze up hard on me during a port scan. There is some risk there.

<comment><USER16> So what does that say about the wisdom of port scanning a machine your life is currently depending on?

<comment><USER17> If that plane ever plans to enter US or EU airspace, there is a literal air- gap between the IFE and the flight systems.

<comment><USER18> Then how is it showing the flight metrics?

I wouldn't guess they would add double sensors for all that information.

Or did you mean well protected, instead of literal air gap?

<comment><USER19> Optoisolators are a prolific and an extremely cheap electrical component that performs the "air-gap" functionality.

<comment><USER20> Electrical safety airgapping and information security airgapping are different, and entirely unrelated. If data can pass from one side to the other it's not airgapped (from an infosec perspective).

<comment><USER4> Fiber needs transmitter and receiver transducers. If each side has only one of those, data can literally flow only in one direction. So it's still infosec- airgapped in the other.

<comment><USER20> No, data diodes are a different (but related) concept. An airgap implies no information transfer, either in or out. Use an airgap when information leakage must be stopped (as well as remote attacks), use a data diode when information can be released but you need to stop remote attacks.

Fiber optic connections aren't required, anything with separate transmit and receive lines can be turned into a data diode (as long as the protocols used permit it). RS232 null modem cables with the RX lines disconnected are a classic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The decompression flag is interesting, I would've poked around the Javascript to see if that flag is ever read. If they were thorough, the web frontend would show a red screen with words like "Decompression! Put on your oxygen mask!"

Otherwise, passengers could be so distracted with the electronic entertainment that they might not notice that it got very breezy all of a sudden...

<comment><USER22> This is actually a good idea. Or at least activate the PA system and stop videos. Not sure how easy it is to notice masks falling down if you wear noise cancelling headphones and look down on your tablet.

<comment><USER23> I imagine it would tangle onto your hair or you'd notice the confusion around you ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Were the in flight entertainment touchscreens really capactive? I've found that such designs have almost exclusively been resistive. The resistive designs are cheaper, but also tend to be designed with a high threshold. The two put together makes a lot of resistive touchscreens feel sluggish. You feel like you have to mash the heck out of them to get them to act sometimes. On the upside they don't require human capacitance to work, just screen pressure.

<comment><USER25> I've often thought the genius who thought it was a good idea to put a crappy low sensitivity touchscreen directly behind my head needs to be kicked squarely in the nuts, repeatedly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> All fun and games until someone remembers that there is no air gap on Boeing's in-flight network

> There are places where the networks are not touching, and there are places > where they are

Boeing's Lori Gunter

[https://www.wired.com/2015/04/hackers-commandeer-new- planes-...](https://www.wired.com/2015/04/hackers-commandeer-new-planes- passenger-wi-fi/)

</comment><comment><USER27> Not a pilot, but Regarding flight phrase, actually airplane can detect FLARE easily (Airbus even has a FLARE flight law governing the aircraft during flare).

Typically FLARE would be RA (Radio Altimeter) < 50ft, flaps/slats extended, speedbrake armed, and weight on wheel = 0 or something along this line.

</comment><comment><USER28> Reading through the post it didn't seem like he found any security issues. Their map has javascript variables which isn't a security issue. It doesn't seem like SCU had many open ports. It was running a relatively new version of Linux.

<comment><USER29> Didn't find anything of interest at all + did a foolish, possibly illegal thing.

Why is this blog post being upvoted?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> > I did a port scan on the System Control Unit

Scanning during flight is not really responsible at all.

</comment><comment><USER31> Awesomely entertaining (hah!) read. Very interesting, thanks. Also, welcome to every no-fly list on the planet. If you are going to find that you are increasingly seeing more scrutiny, this is why.

</comment><comment><USER32> Beside a scan is good or bad, how would they go about finding the source? There wont be an IT officr at landing collecting logs/mac address from any wireless card. I've scanned those systems many times and nothing ever happened - i am just pointing out to the issue that catching a real attacker it is hard not just technically but in practice

<comment><USER33> Also, don't use a typical *nix terminal that looks all hackerish (black background, green font, something like that). Someone non technical is bound to notice that, even if out of the corner of their eye.

<comment><USER4> Actually my experience is that fellow passengers were often intrigued by all the colors on the screen (from your usual syntax highlighting) rather than worried by the dark background!

Unfortunately nowadays "Arabic" is what worries people, even if that turns out to mathematical notation. [1]

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/07/professor- fl...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/07/professor-flight-delay- terrorism-equation-american-airlines)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm not too keen on the idea that I'm now supposed to watch on a laptop. If I wanted to go to that kind of trouble I wouldn't be confining myself to whatever crap was on the in-flight entertainment system in the first place.

<comment><USER35> I'm not too keen on having a screen I don't control ( and never use anyway) in front of me for an entire flight. I _hate_ being shown ads, and the only place I still regularly encounter them are airplane IFE systems I can't turn off during certain phases of the flight, and poorly chosen gas stations. Interestingly neither of those used to be significant sources of advertising.

<comment><USER34> I've never seen one that couldn't be turned off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> >td_id_decompression:"0"

Well that's just...awesome..

</comment><comment><USER37> Welcome to the no fly list, sir!

</comment><comment><USER38> Some domestic Chinese airlines I have flown sidestep most IFE problems completely. As you enter the plane, you are issued a sturdy, fully charged Android tablet computer that is fully loaded with entertainment content. You return the tablet as you exit the aircraft. If something is going wrong with your tablet they give you a fresh one.

So many good things with this approach: cost, easy upgrades, no complicated certification or hardening needed.

I have no idea why no other airlines use this method, it seems so much easier to me.</comment>


How to Build a Medieval Castle (2016) - <AUTHOR> http://www.historyextra.com/article/premium/how-build-medieval-castle <comment><USER2> For those who are really interested in how to build a mediaval castle, there is one building at the moment in the french countryside called Guedelon. It is modeled from french castle of century XIII. Using tools from middle age. the goal is to validate, correct or invalidate archeoligist theories aboyt medieval building techniques. By the way you can go there, participate and learn a ton. Myself i really enjoyed the experience.

<comment><USER3> The BBC made a series showing the techniques in use there: [https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B00PYMP7WA](https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B00PYMP7WA)

<comment><USER4> The BBC are supposed to have an online shop now for past shows that aren't on iPlayer .. but that show isn't available, which I find amusing-annoying considering you can get it on Amazon. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04xshqd](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04xshqd) has some clips.

<comment><USER5> I've just found it on the BBC download shop thingy:

[https://store.bbc.com/secrets-of-the-castle-with-ruth- peter-...](https://store.bbc.com/secrets-of-the-castle-with-ruth-peter-and- tom)

Cheaper by half compared to buying the DVD.

<comment><USER4> Cool. That price differentiation is really grating. I understand they can charge more for HD (38%), but when it's a supposed non-profit enterprise ...

<comment><USER6> > but when it's a supposed non-profit enterprise ...

...that's already paid for by the British public...

<comment><USER7> Sales like these are a huge revenue generator for the BBC, and help keep the licence fee down.

As you say, it's already paid for by the British public, I see no reason to give it away overseas.

<comment><USER6> But it's not just about overseas. I as a British citizen who has paid his (last) TV license have quite literally already paid for this content - yet to watch it outside of the iplayer window, I still need to buy it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That castles are best situated near communications routes (water or land) is mentioned, but not quite why. The purpose of castles was primarily interdiction of supplies. Armies could bypass them, true - but then sorties from the castle later would cut their supply line. In a time when disease and pestilence were the greatest enemies of every army, and good roads and convenient navigable rivers rare (before canal locks got to the West), castles were very effective cripplers of enemy armies.

<comment><USER9> Also, you need a butt-ton of supplies to build a castle. Back then, it was probably impractical to build them anywhere but a river or land trade route.

<comment><USER10> "...anywhere but a river or land trade route"

Or on top of the plug of an ancient volcano!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here's the French castle building project in Guédelon: [http://www.guedelon.fr/en/](http://www.guedelon.fr/en/) Since 1997, they are constructing a castle from the grounds up using medieval techniques. Quite impressive...

</comment><comment><USER12> If nobody's brought it up, "Castle" by David Macaulay:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_(book)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_\(book\))

(also made into a PBS program in the '80s)

Very nice book; also he has ones about building Cathedrals, Pyramids, Roman cities and New England water-mills.

</comment><comment><USER13> There's a castle that someone built in Tennessee of all places: [http://www.tnhomeandfarm.com/tn-living/castle- gwynn/](http://www.tnhomeandfarm.com/tn-living/castle-gwynn/)

It wasn't done with nearly any of the requirements listed in the article, nor one the scale required for an actual castle, but it was pretty cool to visit and see.

</comment><comment><USER14> Wales has some amazing Castles. Edward the 1st almost bankrupted England building them. Come visit!

<comment><AUTHOR> Got any in specific you'd like to name? I'll have two weeks to see the english countryside coming up soon and was going to make a point to visit Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. I'd love to add some actual castles to that trip to wales.

<comment><USER14> Check out Harlech, Conwy and Caernarfon. They're pretty epic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Pro tip they forgot to mention: if you expect to need a medieval castle at some point in the foreseeable future, build it now, while concrete's available and cheap (and while construction efforts don't involve impressing a quarter of the skilled laborers in the country).

And don't use reinforced concrete; steel, even stainless steel, rusts over time, and the goal is to have something still serviceable a millennium later with ordinary maintenance.

</comment><comment><USER16> Prompted me to play some Citadels this morning. [http://store.steampowered.com/app/238870/](http://store.steampowered.com/app/238870/)

Thanks... broke my no gaming before 11pm or kids asleep whichever comes first rule... Good thing I'm on a mini-sabbatical. (ie between contracts)

<comment><USER17> Ouch -- only 13% favorable reviews on Steam?

<comment><USER16> Yes, I think it was very very buggy when it launched. And at a much higher price then today. I bought it on a steam sale recently for only a few quid and it has had many patches over the years so it is now quite playable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There's also one being built in the southern part of Austria: [http://burgbau.at/burgbaufrie/?page_id=428](http://burgbau.at/burgbaufrie/?page_id=428) (unfortunately not every part is translated to English but only available in German).

</comment><comment><USER19> Be really weary of what you see: most castles were made entirely at first, then partially of wood. A lot of castles were rebuilt and embellished with stones at the end or after the middle ages. It's one instance were we have to trust the documentation but not our eyes.

<comment><USER20> Depends on the period. Part of the problem is that the popular imagination tends to see the Middle Ages as a uniform period of technological stagnation, when in fact there was great change and progress throughout the period. Early medieval castles were indeed wood-and-earthworks fortifications, but stone castles were active fortifications for a long time that would be considered "middle ages".

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Here's a short writeup on James Sachs' (game programmer) attempt to build his own custom home.

[http://castleonthecheap.blogspot.com](http://castleonthecheap.blogspot.com)

</comment><comment> ju-st If you want to know more about castles watch this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhzsM2SFoeQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhzsM2SFoeQ)

</comment><comment><USER22> This is a treat. I'm currently reading a book about Longshanks (Edward I); so many of these castles, places, and people are relevant to me.

</comment><comment><USER23> What was this all about? Didn't found anything new in it. It just listed every widest ideas in an order, that's all. I don't think this one would help anybody in building a castle!

</comment><comment><USER24> How to Build a Medieval Castle 1\. Start up Stronghold: Crusader 2\. Build a massive edifice to handle your ginormous army! 3\. ??? 4\. Profit.

</comment><comment><USER25> Very disappointing. I reached the bottom of the page and there was no solicitation for Medieval Castle Building services.

<comment><USER26> try [http://www.castlemagic.com/](http://www.castlemagic.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This would make a great game!

<comment><USER28> It has already been made: Stronghold. Also Castles is an old but fun one.

<comment><USER24> Wonderful series of games!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Very vague article, barely describes the steps.

Didn't give up on my dream though!

(geez, some don't get jokes)</comment>


The 10 Commandments of the Social Web - <AUTHOR> http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/07/social-web/ <comment><USER2> Please, no more lists.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why no lists? This is a good one :)

<comment><USER4> No it's not. It's a ton of filler that doesn't apply anywhere. You can name successful sites that defy every one of these rules.

Lists in general are never good. People with decent ideas write ARTICLES. Not LISTS.

<comment><USER3> Well obviously they dont need to follow every rule but these are good ones to listen to ... Just because the site is successful doesn't mean they shouldn't use this.

"Lists in general are never good" ... Why is that? Are lists generalizations?

<comment><USER4> Yes. Usually they are.

Especially "Top 10" lists, because packing lists into such a cookie cutter format means you tend to skimp on at least a few of the list points.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ryan Singer's talk at Future of Web Apps 2010, London - <AUTHOR> http://vimeo.com/15772341

<comment><AUTHOR> Ryan's talks change the way I work. Glad to learn all these at the early stage of my career.</comment>


The possibility of a small studio apartment for $50k in San Francisco (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/9/22/the-50000-san-francisco-studio-apartment <comment><USER3> I live comfortably 6 months of the year in a cab-over camper (about 90 square feet). True, I lounge outside a lot reading and working on the computer, but that's still practical in a balcony overlooking a pedestrian street. The other 6 months I live in a 3000 square foot house, and I'm constantly dealing with maintenance and other hassles. A small studio apartment within walking distance to shopping and public transportation would work for me, but not for everyone. Actually, I'd pay $100,000 for such a studio if it were within walking distance of a university.

You don't have to please everyone for this to be viable.

<comment><USER4> > I'd pay $100,000 for such a studio

Illustrating why they aren't available for $50,000.

<comment><USER5> No, what he would pay sets a maximum price for him. This has nothing to do with supply and demand which is the combination of all potential tenants and all potential landlords.

<comment><USER6> A good point. Most people would spend many thousands on a smartphone given how useful they are, but yet we don't have to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting - 120sqft is just over 11sqm which, in NZ, is smaller than the minimum recommended size for a double bedroom. But perhaps a better comparison is with a small to medium sized caravan which can be be pretty comfortable at around the same size. I was just reading about the new Airstream Nest caravan which is roughly the same size and looks pretty comfortable. A single person (or a close couple) could probably easily share that for a couple years without going too crazy. Interestingly the Nest is about the same price - roughly $50k.

<comment><USER8> $300k for 66sqm would still be pretty good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Because property taxes support the needs of residents, and because the density of residents would increase, the property tax obtained per acre would need to increase.

Thus you can't just shrink lot sizes by 90% and expect to shrink per-lot tax bills by 90%. The average tax, in dollars per acre, must increase in order to compensate for the extra people.

<comment><USER10> Not in California. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13)

<comment><USER9> Yes in California, or the proposal can't happen.

The limit of 1% of the property value looks to be a deal killer here. Cities have an incentive to zone for very low density.

The limit of 2% increase per year is also a huge problem, but not specific to small lots. If inflation ever goes above 2%, disaster strikes all California cities.

Well, there is one other way. Forget about property taxes. Set them all to 0%. Get the required 2/3 majority vote to raise income taxes, then grant a big chunk of that to the cities based on the number of people living there. Perhaps a UK-style council tax would also work.

<comment><USER11> The real incentive for cities is to encourage turnover, or at least not long term holding -- sales reset property tax to current market value. Even in 2010, in the depths of the housing bubble burst, most California counties were seeing growing tax rolls as turnover would reset to higher values more often than not.

I'm not an expert, but I would think that holding period for smaller, less expensive, 'starter' homes is shorter than larger homes. If that's the case, you want to zone for that. But, zoning is more about not upsetting voters than grand fiscal planning, in my understanding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This seems to operating in a different universe than the one I inhabit.

120 square feet is a prison cell, not a home.

<comment><USER13> But it's only 50k!! If your goal is to come here short term and extract wealth, it's perfect.

<comment><USER14> If I'm going for short term wealth extraction, it's either gonna be couch surfing, sleeping in cars or malls, or maybe renting a room in an apartment with like 7 other pre-existing people.

Sinking 50k into SF for a prison cell ( that for most house guests is socially unacceptable ) is a bit of a tough sell for me!

<comment><USER15> I personally would prefer 120 sqft in solitude to sharing an apartment with 7 other people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This article presumes acres for $420,000 in San Francisco. Not sure where the author is finding land values like that in the Bay - certainly not in San Francisco, where land is closer to $100/sqft at the low end ($4.5M).

<comment><USER17> The _very first_ plan, and the one clearly worst-suited for a city with pricy land, needs a $420k/acre.

The next proposal, "low rise" apartment block:

> Let's assume a 6000sf building footprint. This would contain twenty 250sf > units per floor, with some shared space. Four stories means eighty units. > With 80 units, we have 80 x $10,000=$800,000 budget for land. Our 6000sf > building footprint sits on a quarter-acre (10,500sf) of land, so the land > costs could be as much as $800,000 X 4=$3.2 million per acre.

And next, the "medium-rise" plan:

> Next, we have a six-story structure, which is about the upper end of the > Traditional City or "low-rise" format. We will step up here to a better > standard of construction, such as brick or steel-frame, with a cost of > $200/sf. This reduces our unit size to a fairly tiny 120 square feet, plus > some common areas. Our footprint is still 6000sf, but since the unit size is > smaller, we can get 40 units per floor, or 240 units for a six-story > building. At $10,000/unit for land, that gives us a budget of $2.4 million > for land. We will use more of an "attached" format here, with a little space > in the back, or a 7000sf (sixth of an acre) plot. This translates into $2.4m > x 6=$14.4 million per acre land and other costs.

The author is saying something about the density required to support affordable housing in San Francisco.

<comment><USER16> Sure, but then he's building for $100/sqft in SF, which is laughable. Going rates right now are closer to $400/sqft at the low-end, without permitting. I get aiming for smaller units to improve affordability, but the assumptions aren't grounded in reality.

<comment><USER18> According to a recent report the _average_ total cost is $330/sqft: [https://www.spur.org/news/2018-05-09/it-all-adds-growing- cos...](https://www.spur.org/news/2018-05-09/it-all-adds-growing-costs- prevent-new-housing-california)

I imagine the low-end is substantially less than the average, or _could_ be if SF zoning and permitting wasn't so screwed up and we were actually building more low-end housing. The point of the article is to show what's financially viable if the system weren't so screwed up; that low-end housing is viable even in the face of absurd land-value prices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> _Our per-unit budget looks like this:

$30,000 construction costs

$10,000 land & other non-construction costs

$10,000 profit margin_

The cheapest lot I can find in San Francisco is $200k, not counting the lots that are being _foreclosed on_ because land is so expensive there.

[https://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/land/](https://www.zillow.com/san- francisco-ca/land/)

I mean, I love the idea. This is the sort of thing I wish we could do. But this does not sound realistic to me. The numbers look like they were pulled out of thin air.

<comment><USER17> That's the _per-unit_ budget. These ideas all involve many units per lot.

<comment><USER8> It's telling that this is such a foreign concept to people (presumably from the US).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> By the way, does anyone have any ideas about why the new generation is having fewer kids?

</comment><comment><USER21> That image of the street in Norway was absolutely gorgeous. I'm not the biggest fan of cities, but I would love an area like that, designed for humans.

If such a thing came to be in San Francisco I'd absolutely move.

</comment><comment><USER22> I have no desire to live in a 250 s.f. unit. What does my future look like? How would I raise kids, if I wanted to have them? I don't know how anyone outside of the top 3-5% pulls it off in San Francisco.

<comment><USER23> Okay, but other people clearly do and this article is strictly about solving the housing issues in SF creatively. Also, you're presenting a false dichotomy - many people don't have kids, or don't yet have kids(Not to mention don't want them). Many people live somewhere for a short amount of time, or a few years, and then leave. I really honestly don't even see the point of your comment other than to cast shade against someone's lifestyle choice that you disagree with, or maybe to comment on the absurdity of the housing market in SF, with regards to the former I choose to mind my own business.

And to your main question - if you are somehow blessed with the opportunity to make a buttload of money and live on the (relative)cheap for a little while in SF, then your future is probably looking pretty good. We are fortunate to live in a country where you can go wherever the heck you want at any point that you want, especially if you're financially able to do so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Just for comparison, back then a one-room apartment in a 1960's Khrushchev _plattenbau_ offered 30 m^2 of living space. This is what progress in the US look like?!

</comment><comment><USER25> Maybe people could live in the apartments in shifts. Be at work 16 hours per day and sleep in the apartment for 8 hours. 3x the people. $50,000 apartment is now only $16,666.66.

<comment><USER26> When my father moved to his current apartment he noticed a peculiar thing: His neighbors, who worked at a nearby 24/7 take away bar would move in threes in and out of the apartment at certain hours.

This meant that there were at least six of them in a 25m^2 (277-ish sq ft) studio. While it was physically possible to fit three bunk beds there - <USER2> barely, they would have no space left for a wardrobe.

They spent two years like that and I imagine it was hell.

<comment><USER8> How do you need more than 6sqm for 3 bunk beds?

<comment><USER26> I've checked the dimensions of a typical bunk bed and it's around 120-140cm x 200cm. But you'd also need two 30cm lanes for access to those three, so eventually it's at least:

(120cm _3 + 60cm)_ 200cm = 8.4m^2.

<comment><USER8> Am I crazy, or are bunk beds the stacked kind?

There is absolutely no reason for stacked beds to be queen size.

[https://m.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/art/50269029/](https://m.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/art/50269029/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It's ridiculous all thru Cali One bedroom==1k Even in the outskirts towns Edit, that's per month</comment>


Why Doesn't Twitter Rev-Share Ads? - <AUTHOR> http://gist.io/3383601

<comment><USER2> huh, I've been wondering the same thing lately. I'm curious how these recent moves will affect companies that do similar things by offering "tweet ads" like 140Proof. Will twitter disallow 3rd party apps/clients from displaying other ad networks' ads as part of their display TOS, effectively killing those companies main business model?</comment>


Ask HN: What are some good small cities in the US? - <AUTHOR>

Anyone have any suggestions on good small cities in the US? I currently live in a medium sized city in the southeast but would love a change of venue. I'm looking for a town with low crime, progressive politics, reasonably affordable cost of living, and decent nightlife and tech scenes. Some of the places I've been considering are Madison, Boulder, etc, but I'd love to hear of some more suggestions. <comment><USER2> Speaking of Austin....

Lincoln, NE

(I know, I know, but give me a chance.)

Home of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln (UNL), it is often referred to as "the next Austin." It isn't there yet, but it is going there. For instance, it was recently ranked happiest city according to Gallup's index. ([http://journalstar.com/news/local/lincoln-is-the-happiest- pl...](http://journalstar.com/news/local/lincoln-is-the-happiest-place-in-the- u-s/article_33db256b-16d0-50ce-99ec-fbe7fc048ff6.html)) Additionally, the university recently made a huge land purchase to start "Innovation Campus." A new arena is being developed which isn't the biggest in the area, but is big enough to attract the bigger names. Commute times are low, buses are available, and bike trails are being built all the time because the city is repurposing old railroad paths as bike trails. With respect to the latter, it is easily possible to bike from downtown to the city's limits without having to venture onto main streets (though you'll have to cross a couple in crosswalks)

With respect to Austin, you get some of the best parts from the proximity of a nearby university, while getting things Austin can't offer such as a smaller size, a lower cost of living, etc.

Ten years ago I couldn't haven't recommended it, now I could easily recommend it. It is on the up and up.

</comment><comment><USER3> My vote is Austin, TX.

Crime is low, very affordable, and politics are progressive (but the rest of the state is staunchly conservative). Nightlife is good, due to the large University of Texas being nearby and the tech scene is really exploding. Weather is pretty hot though, so you need to be prepared for that.

<comment><USER4> Austin isn't small, though. It's got more people than San Francisco.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Denver's got a club with a Funktion-One sound system in it- those are the best sounding you can get on Earth. A very good club scene since before the 90's, from what I understand- although I haven't been there since 2002. It's a half hour from Boulder, which I hear has a thriving tech scene. Some VC clubs in Boulder. The weather's great, sun all the time, & when it snows, it's sunny & melting the next day or so.

</comment><comment><USER6> How small is small? Portland is nice, as is Austin. Boulder and Madison are both nice but full of hippies. Boston, Pittsburgh and Philly are all pretty cool if you are thinking mid-Atlantic/northeast; Charleston and Savannah are great if you want to be further south.

<comment><USER7> Well Philly is the #5 biggest city in the U.S., so I'm guessing it's out.

I'd say you have to be less than ~350k to be considered a small city.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think you'll find this post interesting: [http://blog.ometer.com/2011/01/04/asheville-off-the-tech- hub...](http://blog.ometer.com/2011/01/04/asheville-off-the-tech-hub-grid/)

</comment><comment><USER9> Huntsville is small, affordable and has a lot of technology companies associated with defense and aerospace. I don't know about the nightlife.

"Rocket City Rednecks" is not an inaccurate characture.

</comment><comment><USER10> i didn't even finish your post before suggesting madison in my mind. so one vote for that. just make sure to consider the winter weather though.

<comment><USER11> Seconded. I was thinking Madison too then saw it in the post. Also its spitting distance to Chicago so there's a fair bit of tech scene 'bleed over' from there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Ann Arbor, MI

</comment><comment><USER13> For affordable with a tech scene, you need to look at cities in Texas. I knew someone with a Best Places book and cd who was looking for affordable places and IT jobs and Texas cities dominated the top ten. Other affordable places lack IT/tech. Other tech places are expensive. He did not want to go to Texas so he kept tweaking his criteria but Texas continued to dominate the listings. This was a few years ago but that is where I would start the search.

Edit: And you can look at info here: <http://www.bestplaces.net/></comment>


We could have an open, user-controlled, ad-free Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://scripting.com/2015/02/10/weCouldHaveAnOpenUsercontrolledAdfreeFacebook.html

<comment><AUTHOR> We're working on it! [http://indiewebcamp.com](http://indiewebcamp.com)</comment>


The Sun's New Trans-Neptunian Planet (1930) - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencenews.org/archive/suns-new-trans-neptunian-planet <comment><USER2> The English in that paper is beautiful. Also it contains a full two paragraphs of personal background on the discoverer. The background seems a lot more humble that we're used to today. "The family moved to Kansas in 1922, where I assisted my father in raising wheat."

<comment><USER3> Tombaugh came up a lot when doing Famous Kansan reports in school :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Perhaps Pluto [https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/nh...](https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/nh- pluto-7-11-15.jpg)

<comment><USER5> One small note: these images are kind of weird to me.

It seems they have been artificially sharpened and enlarged

The other pictures NH took of the Jovian system look more natural to me

(or maybe they're really weird features of Pluto that will become clearer one bigger res pictures are taken)

<comment><USER6> The CCD used in LORRI (Long-Range Reconnaissance Imager) takes 1024 × 1024 pixel monochrome (350 nm to 850 nm wavelength light) images. Currently Pluto is still quite small on that sensor, but rapidly getting larger.

You can see the original (sort of, see below for more information) images here: [http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto- Encounter/](http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/)

On the image linked in the comment you are responding to, Pluto has been enlarged about four to five times its size (from 120 pixels across to nearly 600), but I don't think whoever did that used anything more than a bog- standard proportional resampling algorithm, the kind everyone uses when they enlarge photos.

Expect images where no one will feel the need to resample and enlarge them in a couple days.

Oh, and here is the promised section, directly copied from that website, on what kind of processing has been done to those images before posting them to the web:

"The images posted at this website have been processed by ground-based LORRI calibration software, which removes the CCD bias level, corrects for CCD readout smear (LORRI does not have an aperture shutter, which creates smear as the image is transferred from the optically active region of the CCD to the storage region of the CCD), and corrects for pixel-to-pixel sensitivity variations.

"LORRI images typically contain a handful of cosmic ray strikes, which are not removed by the calibration processing. These often appear as single, bright pixels, but sometimes they produce streaks of several bright pixels. They are usually fairly easily distinguished from the images of real astronomical objects (e.g., stars, planets, or satellites).

"LORRI images are recorded on the spacecraft as 12-bit integers with light level values from 0 to 4095. The groundbased calibration processing converts the images to 32-bit double-precision numbers. For display on this web page, the calibrated images are then converted to 8-bit JPEG files (i.e., images with 256 intensity levels) using a linear scaling stretch that maps the minimum intensity in the calibrated image to 0 and the maximum intensity to 255. Thus, the web images do not record the actual CCD signal level; nor do they retain the full dynamic range of the original images. As a result, some images that appear blank on this page actually have important data in them, but this cannot be seen in the automatically-converted 8-bit JPEGs posted here.

"The following ancillary information is provided for each image posted: the date of the observation in coordinated universal time (UTC) at the New Horizons spacecraft, the exposure time of the image in milliseconds, the name of the target, the range to the target in kilometers (i.e., the distance between the New Horizons spacecraft and the target; for example, 12.1M km means 12.1 million kilometers), and the root filename of the image."

Quoted from [http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto- Encounter/lorri_about.php](http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto- Encounter/lorri_about.php)

<comment><USER5> Thanks, this is a very good explanation

I had checked the site and really, the LORRI images are still tiny

For example this one [http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto- Encounter/data/pluto/level...](http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto- Encounter/data/pluto/level2/lor/jpeg/029889/lor_0298893504_0x630_sci_1.jpg)

It looks more natural when seen in its real size.

Can't wait for the close-up pictures

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If only Clyde Tombaugh could have lived to see where we are now...</comment>


List of strictly necessary cookies (BBC) - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/usingthebbc/strictly-necessary-cookies/ <comment><AUTHOR> OP here: why does a page like BBC strictly need so many cookies. I'm not a logged in user and still parts like loginCookies is needed etc. It should be able to run a page like BBC without any cookie whatsoever.

This approach is questionable under the renewed EU court statement and one can only set cookies after agreeing to the banner.

<comment><USER2> I agree most of these don't appear necessary, have you thought to contact the DPO, wait 28 days and if no suitable response, contact the ICO?

Also, do you have a link to the EU court guidance?

From what I've read before, some functionally necessary and expected cookies don't need consent, but the user may have a right to be informed.

For instance, a login cookie might be fine, but arguably only if you have logged in - if it remains after you've logged out then that's a bit worrying.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Dr. SaaS – Metrics and diagnosis for a healthier software business - <AUTHOR> https://drsaas.md/

<comment><USER2> This is pretty cool. Overall I like the product and it is easy to use. I have some feedback too.

For the runway calculation, it would be great if I could add an estimate for upcoming expenses to see how that changes the calculation. For example, I am getting ready to hire a contractor and would like to have some sense of what the runway is after hiring the contractor. I could of course change my current bank balance, but I would prefer to have another field for upcoming expenses.

I really like the cost per user to serve, but I would like it to go further: cost per user based on all operating costs, cost per user for free users, cost per user for paid users. The idea being I can get a better sense of whether the pricing structure is correct. Are free users costing too much? Is the margin with paid users enough to cover the costs of free users? etc

Lastly, some way to automate data input would be great. Even a simple API would be a good start and then integration with services which have this sort of information would be even better.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> And a blog post introducing Dr. SaaS: [http://rowansimpson.com/2014/11/06/dr- saas/](http://rowansimpson.com/2014/11/06/dr-saas/)</comment>


Google Barge Sold For Scrap - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/01/google-barge-sold-for-scrap/?ncid=rss

<comment><USER2> Does anyone know if they are still working on the barge in San Francisco?

Apparently they bought 4 barges, so they had big plans for this project (which doesn't seem smart without at least testing it out once first, also doesn't allow them to use lessons learned from the first build on the second barge).

Here is a good video of the one in SF: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLueLIcUrwc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLueLIcUrwc)

Here is a closeup of one side: [http://www.vosizneias.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/Google-...](http://www.vosizneias.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/Google-Barge_sham.jpg)

What a crazy project, kudos to Google for thinking outside the box. Even if it doesn't work out I'm sure they've learned a lot from this build. Hopefully they'll share some construction video, designs, and lessons learned someday.

<comment><USER3> For a company the size of Google, 4 barges probably DOES count as a tiny initial test. I suppose 4 simultaneously has some advantage over 1 at a time because it allows you to do A/B/C/D testing.

<comment><USER4> Anyone else would have a striped + mirrored RAIB. But I suppose at Google's scale, they need geographically distributed barges to cover for a failure at one port.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't know if the whole idea is dead yet, but it did seem pretty tone-deaf to do luxury party barges as a way to showcase an already hated exclusive product.

<comment><USER6> It was a bizarre idea, in step with the tone-deaf nature of Google's leadership which seems to exhibit traits of megalomania. I like ambitious projects, I like people creating new things, but some of the words that come out people's mouths about creating places in the world to experiment without regulation, and that people's expectations of privacy are wrong, etc. It's just off-putting and some day when some other startup starts eating Google's lunch this barge will come across as the early signal that Google just had too much cash than was good for it.

<comment><USER7> Au contraire - I think we need more ambitious / divergent projects, and I think with this ambition and divergence comes the likelihood that you're going to piss a lot of people off, and I think that's okay.

"creating places in the world to experiment without regulation, and that people's expectations of privacy are wrong, etc."

Both of these sound like divergent and large scale, but they don't seem unreasonable.

People let the world in front of their eyes convince them of its permanence / correctness - when in reality we need to break some of our cherished beliefs to move forward.

<comment><USER8> What if we like our cherished beliefs because they work for us and don't really want someone else's beliefs to trump that?

<comment><USER9> Then don't move to their seasteading platforms or use/buy products run from them?

<comment><USER7> ra-men

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm missing something here. Why would barges be a good place to host events? Why not one of the many traditional land based locations that are always used? Is there something particular about being on the water? Or is it just being funky? Are we to believe that they were in areas that available space is so scarce that going to the water was truly sensible. If so, why weren't others doing it already?

<comment><USER11> Target has occasionally floated a barge off of Manhattan to let the locals shop during the holidays. More of a P/R thing than a profit center.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I remember seeing a google talk on data center innovations; efficiency and environmental impact. Specifically mentioned was the purchase of barges for a prototype datacenter. The advantages were free cooling from the ocean which would be maximized by submerging all the servers in oil to conduct heat. Sorry to lazy to pull up the source, but I thought that was what all these barges were for.

</comment><comment><USER13> Maybe the barge in Portland got hit by a Google wave.

</comment><comment><USER14> I wonder who's pet project this was and if there were any consequences inside the company for its failure.

It really did seem like a dumb idea from the beginning. I had a hard time seeing myself take the time to go to a pier to get on a floating flagship store. Even in SF where the port is integrated with the city I couldn't see myself doing it.

<comment><USER15> It's $4 million dollars.

[http://bgr.com/2014/08/01/google-mystery-barge- cancelled/](http://bgr.com/2014/08/01/google-mystery-barge-cancelled/)

That's a rounding error.

<comment><USER16> Definitely not a rounding error. That's a substantial chunk of money and if you waste that it gets noticed. Revenues are _not_ profits.

If it's a rounding error for you then you're in better shape then I am.

<comment><USER17> Google is definitely in better shape than you are. _Quarterly_ earnings last quarter were about $3.4B.

Put it this way: $4M is about the fully-loaded cost of a team of 8-10 engineers over a year. Projects involving 8-10 man-years of engineer time get canceled all the time.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apache Kills Off Its C++ Standard Library - <AUTHOR> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQxNDE

<comment><USER2> Not being a c++ dev, I didn't realize there were multiple versions of the standard library - are they just different implementations of the same api? Are there other languages with multiple implementations of the standard lib?

<comment><USER3> I would say most languages do. C is another one: the original AT&T C library has found its way via changes into some of the BSDs, but Linux systems typically use the GNU C library ("glibc"), which for copyright reasons had to be done as an independent implementation (the Unix source at the time was proprietary). Microsoft and IBM also have their own C library implementations.

<comment><USER4> Apple, Intel, HP, ... also have their own C library implementations, to say nothing of dinkumware and musl-libc and ..., or the various glibc derivatives like eglibc and bionic. I could go on for quite a while, now that I think about it.

<comment><USER5> Bionic is a glibc derivative?

<comment><USER6> It is not, it contains pieces of various BSD libc derivatives:

[http://codingrelic.geekhold.com/2008/11/six-million- dollar-l...](http://codingrelic.geekhold.com/2008/11/six-million-dollar- libc.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't get the complains. Apache is abandoning it, but you can still download it, host it on Github and contribute as much as you want. That's the whole point of "free as in freedom" and, if Oracle has been unable to kill MySQL, I doubt the Apache Foundation would do it.

</comment><comment><USER8> Shameless plug: If you'd like an actively developed, cross platform alternative C++ standard library (with Lakos allocators), come check out BSL: [https://github.com/bloomberg/bsl](https://github.com/bloomberg/bsl)

Sadly right now C++11 library features will lag a bit because not all compilers support them.

</comment><comment><USER9> Sun/Oracle was moving to Apache stdcxx to replace their existing awful options of a way out of date Rogue Wave STL or an almost as out of date STLport.

[https://forums.oracle.com/thread/2293516](https://forums.oracle.com/thread/2293516)

I wonder what they'll do now. The sensible thing would be to adopt clang and libc++, so we can be reasonably certain they won't do that.

<comment><USER8> Studio 13 will use the g++ runtime: [http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37069_01/html/E37071/gndfg.html#O...](http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37069_01/html/E37071/gndfg.html#OSSWNgnddm)

<comment><USER9> Not so bad. I wonder if we'll still have Solaris customers when this compiler is ready for use.

Are they planning on shipping this runtime with the OS eventually?

<comment><USER8> Yes, they took this approach because otherwise it is a pretty monumental effort to create a C++11 std lib from scratch and they didn't have any work done on the compiler side yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sorry to ask but i'm confused, is it really bad that the project got declared its end of life? The source is open and anyone interested is able to continue where it left off...

<comment><USER11> I assume this means the Apache foundation will stop providing whatever services they provided. What those are, I'm unsure, but given the inactivity on the project, I assume it won't be a huge difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Check out the status reports to the Apache Board of Directors ([http://stdcxx.apache.org/status/](http://stdcxx.apache.org/status/)):

(05/11)

          No changes. Stdcxx continues to be dormant. There was a flurry of emails
          on the stdcxx-dev list suggesting continued interest from the same two
          parties (ARM and Sun) but no new work.

\---

The Attic is where retired Apache projects go.

(02/2012)

          A vote to move stdcxx to the Attic failed. The majority of stdcxx
          contributors voted in favor of continuing to maintain the project.
          Several inactive committers stepped up to help with the project.

\---

I do not think that this was a surprise. Regular status reports stopped completely after February 2012. It's also notable that Chris Bergström was proposed for the new chair position, see [http://mail- archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/stdcxx-dev/201306.m...](http://mail- archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/stdcxx-dev/201306.mbox/browser)

<comment><USER13> Seems to have been telegraphed since at least November 2010: [http://stdcxx.apache.org/status/2010-11.txt](http://stdcxx.apache.org/status/2010-11.txt)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am not familiar with the history of this project, but why was Apache trying to re-create the C++ standard library at all? Given that in GNU/Linux systems, the canonical implementation is the one provided by GCC (G++), and Microsoft provides their own implementations.

<comment><USER15> 1) There are more platforms than "GCC" and "Microsoft". Maybe your microwave oven runs code written in C++, who knows.

2) In 2005, some existing C++ standard libraries did not follow the standard very well.

<comment><USER16> Not only that, there are many more C and C++ compilers out there than just clang, gcc and msvc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Even some people still use it, last release was five years ago, totally fear.

<comment><USER18> fear->fair?</comment></comment>