JavaScript Will Finally Get Proper Asynchronous Programming - <AUTHOR> http://thenewstack.io/async-officially-coming-javascript-year/ <comment><USER2> Server-side JavaScript has benefited from "proper" asynchronous programming for quite a while now. Promises (or the slightly more exotic choice of generators + promises) make a very nice asynchronous programming experience.

async/await will surely make that easier but I don't know about "proper", as it would imply that the current solution are mere hacks, which they're not.

<comment><USER3> I'm hoping async/await improves performance over current generator implementations [0]. If implemented as Anders suggested (async/await gets translated to callbacks under the hood) they may even reach or outdo the performance of plain callbacks, especially if done natively.

[0]: [http://bluebirdjs.com/docs/benchmarks.html](http://bluebirdjs.com/docs/benchmarks.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> How do you cleanly handle mixing streams and promises/await in code?</comment>


Study Shows One Overheated Laptop Battery Could Down an Airliner - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-01/study-shows-one-overheated-laptop-battery-could-down-an-airliner <comment><USER2> > The FAA tests found that the anti-fire halon gas installed in airline cargo > areas wouldn't extinguish a lithium battery fire, but it prevents the blaze > from spreading to adjacent material such as cardboard or clothing.

Is halon toxic or used in high enough concentrations to cause suffocation? I know sometimes people transport large pets in airplane cargo holds, and I'm wondering if they'd be safe or not.

</comment><comment><USER3> It boggles my mind that we still haven't figured out a good consumer battery technology that isn't flammable.</comment>


Rakuten Acquires Viki for $200 Million - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20130901/exclusive-japans-rakuten-acquires-viki-video-site-for-200-million/ <comment><USER2> I really like what Rakuten is doing, they are leveraging the profits that the Rakuten marketplace in Japan brings in the acquire what I would term as second tier marketplaces around the world.

Buy.com in the US appears to be slowly being overhauled and Play.com in the UK is aggressively expanding out into new categories for 2 examples.

<comment><USER3> Didn't they end up destroying the name recognition buy.com had in the US? Had they kept the name the same and put more money into the business it would have made sense. I don't understand their business.

<comment><USER4> They say that the CEO of Rakuten is a really weird and eccentric person. A few years ago he instated a company wide policy that all staff must use English for any and all business within the company. Since most Japanese people can't speak English, he ended up creating a really weird atmosphere where people pretend to use English but really end up secretly (or not so much) conducting business in Japanese.

In short, he's a weirdo, though a successful one.

<comment><USER5> My wife works for one of their companies here in the US, and yes, they do all meetings in English, which really doesn't affect their US companies,but does make company wide meetings quite odd, painful at points.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The world's biggest fund is run by a computer - T-zex http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/10430951/The-worlds-biggest-fund-is-run-by-a-computer.html

<comment><AUTHOR> To those outside the UK - do not take the telegraph seriously. Read the comments before you read the article.</comment>


Ask HN: When's the best stage to join a company? - <AUTHOR> We hear a lot about early employees at Google, Facebook who went on to become leaders at the firm, found their own startups, become VCs etc. What about 500th employee? 5000th employee? To optimize for growth, is there some heuristic to determine the best stage to join a company? <comment><USER2> There are too many variables to say when exactly. It depends on how much equity you get as an employee.

[https://www.realfinanceguy.com/home/2018/7/21/joining-a- star...](https://www.realfinanceguy.com/home/2018/7/21/joining-a-startup- after-series-a)</comment>


Incomplete List of Mistakes in the Design of CSS - <AUTHOR> https://wiki.csswg.org/ideas/mistakes <comment><USER2> This doesn't even address the fundemantal design flaw with CSS: (paraphrased badly from a quote by Casey Muratori)

Layout is about the relationship between TWO THINGS. If you have a layout language that deals with only one thing at a time, then you have failed.

<comment><USER3> Html is tree structures right? Every element is default positioned relative to the previous element.

<comment><USER4> Unless if you think about it, layout is positioned in a 2D plane (with z-index, it's a 3D space, don't mention time), not a tree structure at all.

<comment><USER5> Except a tree structure is the only conceptual model that works for composing a user interface (out of simple, largely stateless components). See, for example, React and JSX.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This doesn't even get to the overall design of css in the first place and the problems it has... [http://blog.vjeux.com/2014/javascript/react-css-in-js- nation...](http://blog.vjeux.com/2014/javascript/react-css-in-js- nationjs.html)

<comment><USER7> The whole idea of using (at least) three separate languages (HTML, JavaScript, CSS) would seem weird if it were proposed _de novo_.

Consider that LaTeX manages to carry out all of those functions (layout, styling, and computation) using only one language.

<comment><USER8> In your latex equation, you are missing where the data goes. The idea for html/css/js is that data goes into the html, layout and styling into CDs and interactivity is defined in JavaScript.

That makes sense. The problem is that we never got anything close to that.

<comment><USER9> The problem is it doesn't really make sense in 2015.

Or rather, it only makes sense if you accept the technical debt inherited from HTML, which is itself the simplified stepchild of SGML, which was a 1960s idea and firmly rooted in paper publishing.

Separating content and presentation isn't a bad idea. The badness happened because JavaScript - or some other web programming language - didn't appear until HTML was established. So instead of a generic object model, with tagged content containers linked to an updatable library of presentation and layout code that could be standardised and refined continuously, some semi-standard version of a sort-of-working layout library was pre-compiled into browsers and accessed through a not very coherent DSL.

This made it fast enough to be usable - a very good thing, given 1990s processing speeds - but it also made it much harder to develop and fix.

In 2015 CSS shouldn't really be necessary. So much layout and presentation is done with JavaScript anyway that it would make just as much sense to get rid of CSS and extend and standardise on something like jQuery-but-better to create an evolving cacheable layout library that bypasses browser quirks and uses exactly one common versioned codebase.

This might seem ambitious, but writing good code that works across all common browsers now is such a nightmare for everyone that too many devs are either not bothering, or their bosses are telling them not to bother because it's too expensive.

As a user, I keep finding sites that simply _don 't work_ in Chrome or Safari or IE or whatever. That's not good, especially when there's a business at the other end trying to sell things.

I don't doubt the web will creak along, and some people will do amazing things. But it's still frustrating when it could be simpler, more standardised, more consistent, and much more reliable.

<comment><USER10> As a web dev of 11 years, I don't find writing cross browser code a nightmare. And any web site that doesn't work cross browser is by amateurs at best.

I don't know what web sites you visit where you have such issues but I haven't seen them in years except for the occasional goofball site.

<comment><USER11> As someone that had to support IE6 and Chrome at same time, I can't agree with this statement.

<comment><USER10> Are you seriously trying to throw IE6 into this to attempt to prove your point? We aren't talking about antiquated browsers no one should be using today.

<comment><USER11> Are you seriously trying to deny IE6 isn't there in the wild? It was a job I had to do. I was paid to do it. It was awful. This happened circa 2013.

For contrast I now support IE8 and IE9. Without jQuery. It's bad. Really, really bad. Like, there isn't indexOf on Array and asking for polyfill is forbidden.

<comment><USER10> You're one-off job is nothing to be holding up as an example of current web development. My company has 23 active clients and I can't tell you the last time, many years ago, we saw IE8 in the visitors logs much less anything less than that.

<comment><USER11> I wasn't holding it as example of current web development. I was holding it as a sample of web development that happened semi recently. It is also why web dev can be a nightmare - Legacy systems and browser incompatibility.

It's great if you never had to deal with them, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Note: It wasn't a one-off job either. There were multiple jobs, government sector.

<comment><USER10> I never said it didn't happen, I dealt with IE4 and Netscape (briefly), and that you mention "government center" is exactly the area I knew you were talking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Box-sizing should be border-box by default.

Didn't older versions of IE do precisely that, leading to endless frustration? I hate to say it but MS did something right for once.

<comment><USER10> Not exactly. The W3C spec stated the box model should work one way and everyone but Microsoft/IE did it that way. This is a new part of the spec which didn't exist back then.

However, since IE had 95% market share, everyone marked up their site according to Microsoft's model instead of the W3C. It's affectionately called "quirks mode" and really screwed people up, remnants of which I still see today.

<comment><USER13> MS thought the spec was wrong and the W3C actually intended the more logical model, thus following that assumption when they implemented IE; and why the W3C didn't change the spec, or why other browsers didn't follow, is I think more of a political issue.

<comment><USER14> Well if MS thought they had a better model, they could have proposed it to the W3C and introduced it as -ms-box-model or something. Even if IE's model were superior, it was disastrous to have two contradicting models in different browsers. Maybe whole debacle with 'quirks-mode' could have been avoided.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is a totally crazy out-there idea, so be kind:

Rather than trying to create a layout system that can adapt to any window or screen size, as with CSS/HTML, Java, iOS, etc., what if instead we had settled on a small number of permitted aspect ratios for screens? I'm carrying the analogy from paper sizes: A4, A5, A1, etc.

So probably we would have gotten this wrong when we first defined them (see iPhone aspect changes), but presumably after a while they settle down and then we can stop testing for the old aspect ratios.

Monitors, laptops, tablets, phones, would all standardise to a set of options just like most books and magazines standardise to a given size.

I know there are downsides, but imagine how much easier this would be for designers. Cross-platform UI design would be much simpler.

Just a radical thought I had.

<comment><USER16> Aspect ratio isn't every thing in design. The size of the window is just as important. A 3x2 21" screen needs very different UI approach than a 3x2 3" screen. And standardizing screen sizes is not really a sensible option.

<comment><USER15> > Aspect ratio isn't every thing in design. The size of the window is just as > important. A 3x2 21" screen needs very different UI approach than a 3x2 3" > screen.

Good point.

I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that design tools and tech that enable adapting to an arbitrary screen size are unlikely to be as easy to use and expressive as those targeted for a specific aspect ratio (for example, you could use absolute positioning).

> And standardizing screen sizes is not really a sensible option.

Suspend disbelief for a moment, or consider only from the POV a single large corporation / group (e.g. Apple or Android).

<comment><USER16> It's really about the burden of the effort, it can either be easy for the users and a pain for the developers or it can be the other way around. We can standardize the ratios and sizes and that would make things easy for devs sure but then that would decrease the variety and innovation for the user. If there really were a handful of fixed sizes and ratios then that would make things like google glass, smart watches, galaxy edge or any other kind of unconventional device with non standard display that much more difficult to ship to the masses.

We don't know what kind of display size and aspect ratio the next contact lens display or the next building sized display will have. So I believe it's better to keep our self open to new possibilities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> When do we get to throw the whole thing out and start again?

<comment><USER18> I always found it interesting that style tags were designed as


OpenSource Nano Quadcopter Kit - <AUTHOR> http://www.seeedstudio.com/depot/preorder-crazyflie-nano-quadcopter-kit-10dof-with-crazyradio-bccfk02a-p-1365.html?cPath=170_172 <comment><USER2> I got a quadcopter as present for Christmas but I didn't enjoy it much - it is too hard to stabilize. I can't do anything with it. By comparison, a Syma 107 helicopter was much more fun.

So, quadcopter designers out there - please make them less fragile, less crash prone. Can you mount sensors in all directions to keep it from bumping into walls and hovering at the designated location without human intervention? That would be useful.

<comment><USER3> Isn't the point of a quadcopter that it's supposed to be _more_ stable than a helicopter?

<comment><USER4> While it's easy to automate level flight with four rotors, it's difficult to prevent horizontal drift.

<comment><USER5> I would've thought we'd have consumer fly-by-wire by now.

<comment><USER4> There is for $hundreds, but not for $tens. The Syma helicopters and quadrocopters mentioned are less than $40.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you like this, also check out <http://openpilot.org>. It's an open source autopilot project.

<comment><USER7> With a megalomaniac leader who has already dispatched two key developers, setting the project back months in the process? I suggest you don't. Instead, check out the <http://diydrones.com> site founded by former Wired editor Chris Anderson, and particularly the open source / open hardware Arduino based Ardu Pilot Mega (APM) flight controller, and software <http://code.google.com/p/arducopter/wiki/ArduCopter>.

<comment><USER8> I can vouch for ardupilot. Out of 6 flight controllers I've flown (KK, Mikrokopter, Multiwii and variants) it is the most advanced and stable flight platform under active development.

OpenPilot looked promising but I haven't seen any proof yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> These things are so cool, but also a little scary. Someone's gonna make one of these things assassinate a public figures or steal your keys.

<comment><USER10> They are un-ignorably loud, have battery life < 10 min, and are flown by line of sight. So if you tried to harm someone with it, you wouldn't get away.

<comment><USER7> Correct on the first two points, but larger hobby UAVs can be flown FPV at a range of several kilometers. Not legally in many western countries countries, but then norm is harming people.

Edit: Line of site restrictions, maximum heights, and the maximum power of radio communications permitted without additional licensing are typical limiting factors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> These guys were at Øredev in Sweden back in November - there's a video of their talk here - <https://vimeo.com/53073656>

Had a play with a Parrot at the same time and the CrazyFlie was much more nimble but relies on user control.

Felix Geisendörfer did a talk on hacking a Parrot AR at Øredev - <https://vimeo.com/41836614> and it was great fun too.

</comment><comment><USER12> Here are some papers that might be useful for budding quadrotor hackers and pilots: [https://fling.seas.upenn.edu/~dmel/wiki/index.php?n=Main.Pub...](https://fling.seas.upenn.edu/~dmel/wiki/index.php?n=Main.Publications) and a video made by that school: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQIMGV5vtd4>

</comment><comment><USER13> I cant wait to see the price drop enough on these so I am able to have my personal quadcopter army.

</comment><comment><USER14> This'll make a mean spycopter (i.e. for having fun with collagues).

I suppose putting a camera on it should be doable - but wth 250kbit/sec @ 80m, is it enough?

That'll probably give you 320x240 video (assuming that anything more than that will be too intensive to encode), which might not give you enough visual acuity to remote maneuver the quadcopter. Any thoughts?

<comment><USER15> If you watch the video on the site you'll see that they fixed a tiny camera to it, though no info on range / data transfer rates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> When's the Raspberry Pi of quadcopters coming? Would love a £40 quadcopter with a basic video camera.

<comment><USER17> I think most of the cost in quadcopters are in the sensors. I looked for cheap arduino copters and found this <http://code.google.com/p/quaduino- ng/wiki/ShoppingList>

<comment><USER7> That's silly. You can buy a complete arduino based flight controller with 3-axis gyro and accelerometer for less than $13. (For the best value I'd recommend the KK2.0 for $29, and for more comprehensive sensors one of the APM based boards, but you get the point.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm picturing putting two little prongs on the front of this and having it use image recognition to fly up to electrical outlets and recharge itself while hovering.

Then it could fly indefinitely.

I guess you'd need it to carry an AC/DC transformer though? Too heavy?

<comment><USER19> I've heard ideas for flying robots that would hook themselves onto power-lines like birds (or maybe more like bats I guess) and charge themselves with induction from the line.

Probably _several_ kinds of illegal, but it would be pretty neat.

<comment><USER20> There are examples of wireless recharging [1], and UAVs perching on power lines for recharging [2]. Apologies for the self-indulgent links -- I wrote the articles, so they were easy for me to locate. ;-)

[1] [http://www.hizook.com/blog/2012/04/17/wireless-power- transfe...](http://www.hizook.com/blog/2012/04/17/wireless-power-transfer- ground-sensors-using-uav-quadrotor)

[2] [http://www.hizook.com/blog/2010/07/20/gliding-uav-perches- po...](http://www.hizook.com/blog/2010/07/20/gliding-uav-perches-powerline- recharge)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Really looking forward to seeing more and more of these nano quadcopters hit the market. I funded one on Kickstarter a fair number of months ago (still waiting on delivery) and can't wait to start playing with it.

<comment><USER7> Just go out and buy one:

<http://www.google.com/search?q=hubsan%20x4> <http://www.google.com/search?q=walkera%20ladybird> <http://www.google.com/search?q=wltoys%20v929>

To name just a few of the better known / more flyable ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> If you're interested in serious quadcopters, check out the stunts these guys are doing: <http://team-blacksheep.com/videos>

</comment><comment><USER18> Can a quadcopter fly on 3 motors if one dies, or does it crash?

<comment><USER23> It wouldn't be able to fly on three motors only. Opposite motors essentially stabilize each other, both on a horizontal plane and in terms of rotating the quad. So if one motor dies, it would do a combination of spinning out of control, similar to a helicopter without its tail rotor, and rotate on the axis of the two opposite motors that are still running.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> How about swarms of these designed to fan out and seek out any humanoid mammal in the area and deliver a taser/ tranquilizer charge? The batteries will run out in a few minutes, but not before everyone in the area has been incapacitated or telemetry data has revealed the location of all people encountered by the swarm. This could be the basis of a new counter-terrorist weapon.

<comment><USER24> I didn't realize we had so much terrorism that we need to program swarms of these to do what you described. Or by terrorism do you mean legitimate activist groups that threaten existing power structures?

<comment><USER5> _> I didn't realize we had so much terrorism that we need to program swarms of these to do what you described._

You didn't realize because you aren't in command of all the facts, or you knew and didn't correlate: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis>

Using gas in a situation like this isn't like in the movies. Dosages vary tremendously with physiology and interactions with other drugs, so dosing everyone is very likely to produce fatalities. Swarms of TASER-bots would avoid this.

 _> Or by terrorism do you mean legitimate activist groups that threaten existing power structures?_

That's largely a matter of point of view. Is your point of view that anyone who even thinks of the weapons implications of technology automatically is for the oppression of dissent? If so, then this reveals your prejudices. For myself, I think that these sorts of _gedankenexperiments_ about potential military use are interesting and valuable, because they allow for concerned parties to become aware of these possibilities, which is constructive. The automatic tarring of people doing such speculation has the opposite effect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wonder if it's possible to find another battery about a third of the capacity that's a third of the weight (or less if the quality is higher). Then there would be considerably more weight for a camera or other things.

</comment><comment><USER26> Amazing! I've already preordered a set. How do you think it'll rank up against my current model? (A Parrot AR Drone 2.0)

<comment><USER27> The AR Drone is bigger and has cameras, wifi, ultrasound sensors etc... Most of the software (outside the kernel) is also not open source. It's also more expensive. Not the same kind of product really.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Finally! I've watched the Crazyflie project for quite a while and not finally I'm able to order one!

</comment><comment><USER29> Sold! That's just what I wanted to play with :)

I reckon I'll bust the PCB in about 5 minutes though.

</comment><comment><USER30> What's the danger level on this? Will it chop off your fingers?

<comment><USER7> That thing? Not a chance. The motors have no power, and the props virtually no inertia. A newborn pinkie would stop it in its tracks.

A full size quad, hex or octo on the other hand can do some serious damage, from serious cuts to digit reduction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This. Is. Gorgeous.

</comment><comment><USER32> Quadrocopters FTW.</comment>


Show HN: Get all public images accessible on Facebook via one command (CLI) - <AUTHOR> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/facebook_image_search/0.0.3 <comment><AUTHOR> Code is available at: [https://github.com/tusharmakkar08/Facebook_Graph_Search_Imag...](https://github.com/tusharmakkar08/Facebook_Graph_Search_Images)

<comment><USER2> Awesome... Its a great tool

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Good stuff.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks</comment></comment>


Tiny Linux distro that runs the entire OS as Docker containers - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/rancher/os <comment><USER2> This is starting to smell like a system on top of a system to fix something that could be fixed in the system. Kind-of like implementing a filesystem on top op a filesystem... or putting a database on a filesystem to run another filesystem inside the database, or using a webbrowser as a runtime instead of an operating system.

<comment><USER3> This kind of thing happens when the base system is ubiquitous and therefore hard to change. It's easier to layer something on top of the base, where people can "opt in" and there's a large preexisting compatible audience.

Changing the base layer itself at a minimum requires people to upgrade, and now you don't have that advantage of the preexisting audience anymore. If your improvement requires a _breaking_ change, then you're in a real pickle. So people will stack on more and more until it becomes more or less unbearable.

<comment><USER4> There is an advantage in layering components, or building new software on top of existing components.

However, a minor improvement or bugfix should be done in the component that is responsible for it. Creating another layer instead of fixing the problem is just creating more problems.

<comment><USER5> You can go whole hog with "containers" by just adopting unikernels.

But, unless you are willing to abandon Linux/Unix, this is kinda where you are left.

<comment><USER6> How would that work when containers make kernel calls?

<comment><USER7> Where containers would make kernel calls, unikernels make calls to the VM hypervisor. (Not exactly, but kinda.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Creator of RancherOS here. Thanks for the interest in our tiny distro. RancherOS was created the beginning of 2015 and at the time was quite a novel concept. We strived to not just use container technologies in a Linux distro but actually package everything as standard Docker containers. Fast forward two years, what we were doing back then is now becoming the accepted practice. Most major distro are adopting more container packaging approaches in the form of flatpak, snap, and containerd. RancherOS 1.0 LTS was just released a couple weeks back and we have started development on 2.0. 1.0 was a bit ahead of the time and honestly had to employ a lot of technics to make it work that we didn't like. With 2.0 we will shift the focus from Docker to containerd, OCI, and LinuxKit which will allow a much cleaner design.

<comment><USER9> Will there be an ARM version?

<comment><USER8> We released some versions for ARM but in the end ARM requires too much effort to support right now. As ARM64 matures and Docker gets full multi arch image support we'll revisit this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is clearly a trend, though it remains to see if it will garner enough acceptance to actually be "the future". systemd supports launching container- based services via nspawn and already namespaces "legacy" services very heavily. In fact, systemd et al were among the heaviest early drivers of cgroup technology for cleaner starting and stopping of groups of processes.

<comment><USER11> I am starting to wonder, why not just execute processes directly with cgroups commands?

      $ cgcreate -g memory,cpu:groupname/foo
      $ cgexec    -g memory,cpu:groupname/foo bash

[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/cgroups](https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/cgroups)

It's the bare basic that libvirt and Docker et al are based anyway. So if you want to run just one process per "container" it seems rather logical to keep it simple and use cgroups commands directly. (Similar on Windows, using just sandboxie is so simple. Or do it like Android, execute every app/process with a different user.)

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

<comment><USER12> systemd already puts each service in a separate cgroup AFAIK, so commands like cgexec aren't even needed. I suspect people are more interested in namespace separation, but recent versions of systemd can also do that [1]. I don't think systemd has image management so that's still a reason to use Docker.

[1] [https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.exe...](https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.exec.html)

<comment><USER13> Systemd creates three "slices": system, user and machine. Daemons started by systemd go in system, user processes in user and virtual machines go in machine.

Each process is placed in a hierarchy so you end up with system-httpd which makes it easy to assign or limit resources based on the slice.

Redhat covers it extensively in their performance and tuning class.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've been using RancherOS for a few weeks now and I'm quite delighted with it. A confusion that occurred at first for me was the distinction between Rancher (the project/company), Rancher (the application) which can be used for installation and distribution, and RancherOS, which is the concept of replacing the Init process with Docker. Docker is used in separate instances - one to manage the containers that make the OS, and one for the remaining containers that make your apps.

I think the advent of Docker Swarm probably put a crimp on development and use of Rancher (the app). To me the way forward is Docker's own clustering tools, and the ease of standing up a cluster of Atom processors at www.packet.net where they install (as an option) RancherOS is very attractive.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'd really love to see some of this stuff transition to the desktop too.

Like, for example, containerize Skype, so that it can't read my home. Or contain Firefox to just read `~/.mozilla` and `~/downloads`.

For binary blobs I don't trust that much, I'd really value this.

For FLOSS stuff, it still provides protection from bugs.

<comment><USER16> Look at [http://flatpak.org](http://flatpak.org) for precisely that.

<comment><USER15> Nope, it does a lot more: it re-packages software, and basically shoves a second package manager down my throat; one that actually bundles dependencies within in package, carrying along all the issues that that flow brings with it.

I want to isolate data, no libraries. Libraries are there to be shared.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't understand why running software on bare metal is viewed as a problem to be solved.

how many layers of abstraction are necessary, and why?

Obviously virtualizing serves a valuable purpose.

Making development more accessible is great. Simplistic dev services like this mean reliance on others infrastructure, and being bound to cloud.

Doesn't seem forward thinking.

Can you imagine if Google had decided to run their search app on Microsoft servers?

<comment><USER18> The basic thing is that we have ended up with a world of rock star code monkeys. And those rock stars can't be held back by some admin or exec saying no to using some hot new language or framework...

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> CoreOS works the same way. All containers. You can run `toolbox` to get into a systemd-namespace'd Fedora container (any other container can be specified; it's just Fedora by default), from which you're supposed to do all your troubleshooting/analysis (caveat: systemd-namespace does not seem to support `auditd` well).

I still strongly dislike "containers". It's not worth the complexity or instability. Two thumbs way down!

<comment><USER11> The concept itself is simple. The complexity is added by the API layer.

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

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

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

(more general: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security- Enhanced_Linux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security-Enhanced_Linux) , [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_(computer_security)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_\(computer_security\)) )

<comment><USER19> Yeah, I agree and I think that FreeBSD jails in particular are much better (to be fair, I am not very well informed on Solaris Zones, so maybe they're the best). They are certainly much less ostentatious and do not try to redo everything for their own little subworld like Kubernetes does.

I sat down one day to try to write down what would make Linux containers/orchestration usable and good, and realized after about 20 minutes that I was describing FreeBSD jails almost to a T. The sample configuration format I theorized is very close to the real one.

However, I think that there's good reason for actual deployments of containerized systems to remain niche, as it did until the VCs started dumping hundreds of millions into the current Docker hype-cycle, and the big non- Amazons jumped on board as a mechanism to try to get an advantage over AWS.

What people really want are true VMs nearly as lightweight and efficient as containerized systems. In fact, I think many people wrongly believe that's what containerized systems are.

<comment><USER20> _What people really want are true VMs nearly as lightweight and efficient as containerized systems_

Like what QubesOS is trying to do?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Probably it was not the vision of these types of projects, but this reminds me a lot of Qubes OS[1]. I actually have occasionally used docker (lxc) to run some applications that I was not trusting, and I was controlling them using cgroups. Right now my chrome browser is running like that.

[1] [https://www.qubes-os.org/](https://www.qubes-os.org/)

</comment><comment><USER22> I have to say this enrages me. The system services are still privileged containers and we are now basically emulating a micro-kernel (very badly I might add with a monolithic kernel). If you want to use a micro-kernel then use a fucking micro-kernel. Hacking a micro-kernel with docker is not the right approach, especially given the stability track record of docker itself. It's a hack and aesthetically unpleasant on all sorts of levels. Not the least of which is that docker itself is one giant hack.

<comment><USER23> You have serious problems if this enrages you. Let other people hack in peace. Go do your own "right" thing and leave the rest of us alone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Didn't Docker release this themselves (different project) just a week or so ago? I forget the name, and can't seem to find it on their site.

<comment><USER25> There's definitely overlap in functionality between RancherOS and LinuxKit, but there are also a few pretty big differences.

\- LinuxKit seems designed to be a piece that can be used to build a Linux distro but isn't a full distro out of the box like RancherOS

\- As far as I know LinuxKit is still based on Alpine whereas RancherOS is custom and doesn't have much of a host filesystem

\- LinuxKit is based on containerd and RancherOS is still based on Docker (though this is likely to change soon)

We're definitely interested in collaborating with LinuxKit since we do have similar goals. It's probably a good idea for us to write a more detailed blog post comparing the two since we've been getting this question pretty often lately.

<comment><USER26> LinuxKit is not based on Alpine - earlier versions before open sourcing were. We build our system containers from Alpine though, so there is still a connection. (I work on LinuxKit).

<comment><USER25> Thanks for the correction! That's good to know.

We considered using Alpine as the base image for our system containers for a time. They're still built using Buildroot currently, though we're playing around with another project that we might use instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I guess RancherOS is not something "new". First time I use it was in 2015...

Anyway, it seems it's design has inspired some people recently.

</comment><comment><USER28> for the ignorant, why would I want to wrap docker inside docker?

<comment><USER19> This is not Docker-in-Docker. This is an OS that acts like a "container hypervisor". It provides the bare minimum for hardware interfacing and hosting containers, just as conventional hypervisor provide the bare minimum for hardware interfacing and hosting virtual machines. The benefit is that more system resources are available for your clients (containers, in this case).

I haven't used RancherOS but CoreOS works mostly-fine. However, I would avoid using these things altogether because containerization sucks.

<comment><USER28> I'd suggest that containerisation as a principle is fine, but its not what most people want.

What people want is a mainframe where a lump of code is guaranteed to run the same everytime, regardless of the machine state, and if something goes wrong with the underlying layer is self heals(or automatically punts to a new machine, state intact).

What we have currently is a guarantee that the container will run, and once running will be terminated at an unknown time.

Mix in distributed systems(hard) atomic state handling (also hard) and scheduling(can be hard) its not all that fun to be productive for anything other than a basic website.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> That's ungodly.

</comment><comment><USER30> I predicted this last year: [https://twitter.com/kissgyorgy/status/783825879348744192](https://twitter.com/kissgyorgy/status/783825879348744192)

<comment><USER31> congrats, you predicted years after its inception.

<comment><USER30> Thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


The phenomena of forming very real relationships online - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/lessons-learned/dee600b3c9aa

<comment><USER2> Phenomenon. Phenomena is a plural noun.

/nitpick</comment>


Re: [IndexedDB] Design Flaws - <AUTHOR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/1053.html

<comment><AUTHOR> "I can understand how [...] would lead to less work on the part of the spec committee. There seems to be some perverse human characteristic that likes to make easy things difficult."</comment>


Show HN: Cmd-line info/countdown to SpaceX launches (golang parser lib) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/kristoiv/spacexstats <comment><AUTHOR> This is sort of my attempt to get Elon to make a public JSON API with upcoming-mission-data. Preferably something more up to date and specific than the spacex.com webpage that talked about the Jason mission as "Upcoming" long after it was launched.</comment>


The Lean Startup Methodology - with Eric Ries - <AUTHOR> http://mixergy.com/eric-ries-lean-startup-interview/ <comment><USER2> I'm so grateful that you guys like this interview!

As I prepped for it, I thought of the HN community and said, "Those guys heard all about the Lean Startup methodology. How the hell am I going to bring them anything new and make it useful for them?"

I almost psyched myself out by worrying about it. Then I put HN out of my mind completely and tried to just focus on the material.

That's why I'm stunned & appreciative that you like. Thank you.

<comment><USER3> Keep up the good work Andrew. Premium subscriber here. Totally worth it.

Video, certainly is the future of content. And you're leading the way, for us hackers.

\-----

I've gotta say this. Your interviews have evolved since when you'd started -- true signs of progress.

Also, I've noticed a consistent enthusiasm and energy in your newer interviews. Passion is contagious.

\-----

One more thing... I'd love it if you'd do a little 'here's something thing I'd love to see built' segment. (like Fred Wilson often does)

Where you could elaborate on ideas you'd love to see improved/built. And the hacker community would respond, with swift ferocity.

<comment><USER2> Thanks! It's so good to see that it shows.

The other thing I'm noticing is that guests trust me more. Founders who aren't as experienced as Eric will let me spend up to an hour pre-interviewing them so we can hunt for the right ideas to include.

And thanks for the AVC idea.

<comment><USER3> Interesting. Well, you've built up a lot of authority over the years. That they trust you more, has been well earned.

I'm baffled by the 'pre-interview' concept.

Would love to see a candid 'behind-the-scenes' (video) peek at your process, without giving too much away. Maybe tiny interviews with your team even. Passion multiplied!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Excellent interview content-wise, and a very professional looking production. I didn't even mind the ads; it reminded me of listening to Mike & Mike on ESPN radio :) Lean definitely makes sense, and I will be checking out more of your site.

</comment><comment><USER5> Thanks! Great interview.</comment>


The future is quantum - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/6711e5c2-0e83-11e7-b030-768954394623 <comment><USER2> I hope they describe a future without paywalls otherwise some of us are going to be left behind :(

<comment><USER3> Google the name of the article and click on it,somehow you can bypass it this way.</comment></comment>


Open Source Opportunities in GIS Summer School - <AUTHOR> http://www.sigte.udg.edu/summerschool2014/ <comment><AUTHOR> Now if only I can afford to go.</comment>


Why Athiests Need Church - <AUTHOR> http://www.ajkesslerblog.com/why-athiests-need-church/

<comment><USER2> Kind of a link-baity title, but the idea is worth merit.

Note that you can replace "church" with "library", "park", "rooftop", or any other place where you can be left alone in peace and quiet.

<comment><AUTHOR> True. But, at least for me, it's pretty easy to get distracted in a library or in a park. Plus, I think there's some added benefit in the fact that other people around you are doing the same thing (ie thinking about big/important stuff). You can kind of see the same effect in study groups or even incubators like ycombinator.

If the setting really makes no difference to you, I think the routine is still beneficial. Designating a time, every week (or day, or two weeks), going somewhere, and just thinking about life is a phenomenally beneficial exercise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> One could do the same on a religion-free mountaintop.</comment>


Douglas Adams' 61st birthday doodle by Google - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww <comment><USER2> For those that remember the original tv series (based on the books, of course, which were in fact originally a radio play), you will remember the shockingly bad special effects (themselves outdone only by Tom Baker era Dr. Who effects in terms of sheer awful). The one exception to the BBC standard guy-in-a-bad- rubber-suit effects in terms of quality was the animation of the HHGG screens. I was shocked to find out that they were, in fact, _all animated by hand_.

I've seen a doc about this, can't find it online now. Here's a brief clip of an example:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uynMCvdkp0M#t=2m20s>

 _By hand..._ Reverse-Skueomorphism before it was cool.

<comment><USER3> Hmm, really?

I remember the original TV series mainly as being completely, utterly, awesome.

The effects weren't particularly sophisticated, but they fit well enough, and never detracted. You didn't really notice them.

This is more than just a good story distracting one from the visuals, I think; the effects guys did a pretty good job with their limited means, and often those primitive effects really managed to communicate the atmosphere and feeling intended. They did this much better than Dr Who's effects ever did, in my experience: With Dr Who, one almost always had the feeling "ok, this is some guys on a soundstage", but with HHGttG, often it somehow really did seem like they were stowed away on a Vogon spaceship. I'm not really sure how they managed to pull it off as well as they did, though I suppose even in the category of "low budget BBC SF efx" there's a range of budgets...

.. and the hand-drawn "computer" animations _were_ great. Together with the incredible music, they were a real highlight.

There were some lowlights, of course; I remember the scenes on the Heart of Gold as being pretty bad.

[Watching your clip really brings back the memories of the complete bliss of watching that on TV way back when... just hearing the music sends chills down my spine... :]

<comment><USER2> (Biggest orig HHGG / Tom Baker era Dr. Who fan ever, here.)

Looking back, those effects were bad (like this <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uynMCvdkp0M#t=2m10s> ), but I'll agree with you on this: back then, I never cared or noticed; the whole thing was just pure joy as far as I was concerned.

And in a way these effects just offset the glorious, labor of love animations.

 _Totally_ agree about the music. In fact I was just telling someone last night that Justice's "Civilization" always makes me think of the HHGG tv theme music (this comparison fell on deaf ears). One of the best ever intro tracks.

And the opening title sequence with the GOLD ASTRONAUT? Genius. A low budget effect but nicely executed. (for the uninitiated: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywKilWkX4jA> )

You have swayed my opinion. I hereby revised my previous comment to confirm that these BBC folks really deserve a geek hero's medal for their work. I suspect you are right that it was often scrounging sets/etc. and it shaped my taste to this day. Much love to those unnamed fx teams.

<comment><USER4> If you loved the music, have a listen to The Eagles' "Journey of the Sorcerer"...

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rOMGIbY-9s>

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the link...

[This song completely changed the way I thought of the banjo! :]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "The world is a thing of utter inordinate complexity and richness and strangeness that is absolutely awesome. I mean the idea that such complexity can arise not only out of such simplicity, but probably absolutely out of nothing, is the most fabulous extraordinary idea. And once you get some kind of inkling of how that might have happened ' it's just wonderful. And . . . the opportunity to spend 70 or 80 years of your life in such a universe is time well spent as far as I am concerned"

\- Douglas Adams on 'Break the Science Barrier with Richard Dawkins', Channel 4, Equinox Series, 1996

</comment><comment><USER6> OCD/loyalist nitpick: His name is Douglas, not Doug. AFAIK, he did not use that nickname. Can someone please change the title from "Doug Adams' 61st birthday.." to "Douglas Adams' 61st birthday..."?

EDIT: Fixed. Thank you, OP.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point, thanks. Updated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am not seeing it from here. (Australia, GMT+10 time-zone). However it is available from the Google doodle archives at: <http://www.google.com/doodles/douglas-adams-61st-birthday>

<comment><USER6> That one is static... The actual doodle is interactive. Try <http://google.com/ncr>

(requires JS)

<comment><USER8> <http://google.co.uk> works for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Pick up a tablet (Android!), connect it to Wikipedia and google's Translate service, and you're a few steps closer to Douglas Adams' universe than he had the opportunity to see. Wikipedia launched just a few months before his death.

He actually started a project along similar lines:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2005/05/gal...](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2005/05/galaxy_quest.html)

<comment><USER10> Even Douglas Adams couldn't foresee The Deletionists - people erasing parts of an encyclopaedia with nearly infinite space, because they're not worth knowing about. Or the "I undid your edit, because I don't believe you're right and I have a username, while you don't"-ists. In a way, we surpassed his vision by a large margin, though I don't doubt he always knew we would.

<comment><USER11> One could argue the editor's paring down of Earth's entry in the Guide to "mostly harmless" is an instance of exactly the same thing.

<comment><USER12> Actually he changed to "mostly harmless" from "harmless" if I remember correctly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Clicking on the keypad displays different images; anyone worked out the others?

Here's an excerpt from the Guardian:

The doodle features many of the touchstones of Adams's popular writing.

It displays a cup of tea - a reference to one of his Dirk Gently detective novels, called The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul. It also shows a towel, an item Adams wrote was essential when travelling in space).

With a click of a lift door on the doodle, one of Adams's most enduring characters from the Hitchhiker novels, Marvin the paranoid android, is revealed.

There are many references to the Hitchhiker's Guide. With many clicks, some of Adams's best fictional inventions, including the Babel Fish, which can be inserted in your ear to translate any language, are on show.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/11/douglas-adams- ce...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/11/douglas-adams-celebrated- google-doodle)

<comment><USER14> I think it's more likely the cup of tea is the one used as a Brownean random motion generator for the infinite improbability drive.

<comment><USER15> Brownian Motion.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Douglas Adams is the only author I've come across who has used recursion in fiction.

" _in short, all the paraphernalia common to all restaurants where little expense has been spared to give the impression that no expense has been spared._ "

The man was a litterary genius.

<comment><USER17> Heinlein has used it. "By His Bootstraps" is quite enjoyable for it's recursive time paradoxes.

<comment><USER18> Philip K Dick also did a kind of recursion in The Man in the High Castle, where in the story there is another story being written, which is basically the different version of the original story.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I really liked this, except the fact that - for me - it was translated into Danish.

I have only read Douglas' works in English, and the phrase is "Don't Panic" - it's not "Undgå Panik", which is a lousy translation that literally means Avoid Panic.

Sometimes this geolocalization goes too far.

<comment><USER20> Um... As far as the Internet can tell me, the Danish translation of HHGG indeed seems to use "Undgå panik", so Google does it right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Interesting is that the "Don't panic" is localized for the viewer. In my case in Bulgarian.

<comment><USER22> On google.com.tr "Paniğe Kapılmayın" (in Turkish)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Does anyone know a place to play the Infocom game online? The original is here <http://www.douglasadams.com/creations/infocomjava.html> but it requires java, and the BBC's illustrated version <http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/game.shtml> doesn't work anymore. Oh well you can always download an emulator and the original Apple II disk images! [http://www.virtualapple.org/hitchhikersguidetothegalaxydisk....](http://www.virtualapple.org/hitchhikersguidetothegalaxydisk.html)

</comment><comment><USER24> Ohh the depressed robot is in there!

The little screen can also show several things with very clever references - in fact I have not seen it repeat yet!

BBC series was so much better than the movie.

        Hey Google - your earth is spinning in the wrong direction!

        It's always left-to-right when it's facing north->south.

        Several of those little screens are incorrect.

        Unless maybe this is Earth2 and they screwed up the rotation or something.

<comment><USER25> I had to doublecheck. The only differences in Earth2 were the rarity of three- leaf clovers, peculiarly low sales of pecan-flavored ice cream, and an extra Tricia MacMillan.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I remember picking up "Salmon in Doubt" at the bookstore and reading the cover notes which referenced Adams's passing. I thought it was all meant to be a satire because I hadn't heard that Adams had actually died and he seemed too young. Even 61 is too young

</comment><comment><USER27> I met him at a book signing at the Boulder Book Store in the mid 90's. He walked to the front of the audience, and said "I'm feeling a bit wobbly today. I was recently in Texas and asked my friend: What do you do for fun in Texas?"

At this point I thought he was going to say, "And we got really drunk." But he said "So we went shopping for cowboy boots." And he proudly showed us his boots.

</comment><comment><USER28> Wow, this is probably the best doodle I have ever seen. Or maybe I just love Douglas Adams so much.

</comment><comment><USER29> I highly recommend The Salmon Of Doubt - half of the book is his collected essays and newspaper columns, and he had lots of fascinating ideas about technology, science, atheism and art.

</comment><comment><USER30> Shouldn't the letters in "Don't Panic" be green?

<comment><USER31> Only large and friendly, according to The Book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Hey.. On the towel sequence, the boot is moving the wrong way relative to the wind in the sail(towel).

</comment><comment><USER33> Today's not towel day. They done goofed.

</comment><comment><USER34> I can't stand the way that Google just gloms their brand onto every item of geek/popular culture.</comment>