What ISIS Really Wants - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> This article has been posted enough now:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=What%20ISIS%20Really%20Wants&s...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=What%20ISIS%20Really%20Wants&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0)

Indeed, by HN's criteria the current thread is a dupe. But we won't kill it, since discussion is ongoing.

</comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash Everyone is so caught up in the theological discussion I'm almost wondering if most posters read only half the article before commenting.

In the end I think IS will fail, it's just a question of how and when. There was an article in the New York Times the other day that detailed how little room IS has left to expand without digging into Syria (and facing the Russians), or Turkey (which feels more threatened by the Kurds and uses the instability as a political smokescreen but has more than enough capacity to fight back), or pretty much anywhere else but pockets of Libya. Basically, they only formed and grew so prolifically because their enemies were exceptionally weak and unwilling to fight for sand dunes, let alone the ones that contain oil.

I think the best way to deal with IS is to understand the historical and religious underpinnings to get a sense of why people flock to it, then divorce the religious aspect from the dangerous entity that follows the same rules of economics that everyone is a part of. Starve the state of revenue, undermine its ability to provide for its citizens, and make it clear to supporters of the Islamic State in the Middle East and elsewhere that IS cannot effectively function any better than a Tunisian democracy or an Egyptian dictatorship.

Instead of baiting their desire for an apocalyptic conflagration, slowly drain their strength and appeal. Let supporters across the planet see a strict caliphate in action and how little it accomplishes adter the easy deserts have been claimed. A weak loser that doesn't go anywhere doesn't sound exactly like the fate chosen by God.

</comment><comment><USER3> It is important to get a diverse set of opinions about this situation. Here is a response to the article: [http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/wha...](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/what- muslims-really-want-isis-atlantic/386156/)

<comment><USER4> I read both. I wish the article you linked to had more substance. It provides no argument that ISIS is misinterpreting Islam, only assertions. If someone has an article that actually makes that case, citing texts and explaining the misinterpretation, I'd like to read it.

<comment><USER5> If you'd like to read how they are misinterpreting islam, here is the longer version in the book : [http://www.amazon.com/No-god-but-God- Evolution/dp/1400062136](http://www.amazon.com/No-god-but-God- Evolution/dp/1400062136)

the gist is, They are interpreting things literally without any history and context of what a verse of Quran meant and revealed for, one would argue that should have been fine, but it isn't because it reduces islam to their interpretation.

Arabic is a very diverse language, with tens of meanings for a word (often contradictory) and which one you pick and choose depends upon what type of a person you are, if you are a hate mongering terrorist, you would find those meanings to justify your terror like isis is doing, if you are a peace loving feminist, you would find plenty to justify that (using the same verses). This would mean that their interpretation would depend alot on their socio economic status, the kind of society they live in, the world view they have etc.

People often judge islam by the norms of 6th century arabia, Islam has a evolutionary process in place called ijtihad, which the intolerant people don't seem to use. But if you would have to judge islam, you would have to either assume yourself to be in 6th century to see why they were relevant at that time, or to remove them so to understand the general direction islam gives.

<comment><USER6> > _If you 'd like to read how they are misinterpreting islam ... They are > interpreting things literally_

That is an odd definition of "misinterpreting".

Biblical literalists are generally not accused of "misinterpreting" the Christian Bible. They are commonly accused of being antiquated, crazy, or dumb, but it's hard to accuse someone of "misinterpreting" something because they follow its literal meaning.

It similarly seems incorrect to say ISIS is "misinterpreting Islam" by reading the Koran literally. It may not be the popular interpretation, and it may not be a pleasant interpretation, but that doesn't mean it's an incorrect interpretation.

Christian groups like to accuse each other of misinterpreting the Bible. Church of Christ members say that Catholics have misinterpreted the organization of the church. Catholics say that Baptists have misinterpreted the apocalypse. Etc. These accusations in reality say very little about the validity of the accused's interpretations, and merely serve as a way for the accuser's to assert the correctness of their own interpretations. "Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong" has no more validity than "Your choice of religion is wrong" in general.

<comment><USER7> > Biblical literalists are generally not accused of "misinterpreting" the > Christian Bible.

Yes, they are. Particularly by other Christians.

> but it's hard to accuse someone of "misinterpreting" something because they > follow its literal meaning.

No, its quite easy: outside of the context of religion, we see it all the time when people are accused of misinterpreting something by treating either one- off metaphors or colloquial figures of speech as if their meaning was what is suggested by the literal meanings of the individual words. Or when one of many possible literal meaning (words often have more than one nonfigurative meaning) is chosen, despite the fact that the context (possibly very broad context) suggests a different interpretation, whether a different literal interpretation or a nonliteral one.

Its no harder to accuse people of misinterpretation for pursuing a particular literal interpretation when the thing being misinterpreted is a religious text.

<comment><USER6> > _Yes, they are. Particularly by other Christians._

You're making my point for me. Yes, some Christians accuse biblical literalists of misinterpreting the Bible. But Christian groups frequently assert that other Christian groups are wrong for many, many reasons. There's generally little compelling reason to take any of them as "more correct", though. It's just one group arguing that their religion is more correct than someone else's religion. It's not one group interpreting correctly and the other group misinterpreting. It's just two (or more) groups that disagree, and they typically have no sound reason to assert their beliefs over others'.

> _No, its quite easy: outside of the context of religion..._

Sure, it's easy when you can provide a reason that the literal interpretation is wrong. It's not easy when the reason is just that you don't like the literal interpretation (or it's easy but not valid).

<comment><USER7> > Sure, it's easy when you can provide a reason that the literal > interpretation is wrong.

That's frequently the case with criticism of biblical literalism. While, certainly, the people making the criticism have different interpretations that they prefer as correct (that is, obviously, what it means to say that an interpretation is wrong), and those that _care_ enough about an interpretation to challenge another as incorrect are generally people for whom their preferred interpretation is also an element of the their religious belief and not just a more casual opinion, there are quite specific reasons given for challenges both to specific literal interpretations and to the doctrine of literalism itself (for the latter, the existence of flat-out contradictions within the canon when interpreted literally is one of the more common.)

<comment><USER6> > _That 's frequently the case_

In my experience that is rarely the case. The reasons given are generally only compelling to others who already hold the same beliefs. If you're arguing against biblical literalism to others who consider the bible to be metaphorical, you will of course be successful. If you're arguing with a biblical literalist, you'll find that they fail to see the logic in your arguments. If you're arguing with a non-Christian, they'll likely just not care, but they might also find your arguments no more convincing than those of the literalist.

> _for the latter, the existence of flat-out contradictions within the canon > when interpreted literally is one of the more common._

This is only compelling if you start with the axiom that the bible (or whatever text) is correct. If you start with that, and then add contradictions, then the only way to resolve the discrepancy is to say that the bible is metaphorical. If you don't take correctness as an axiom, it's quite reasonable to say that the bible is mostly if not completely literal but that parts of it are simply wrong. It's not a question of correctness of interpretation, then, so much as a question of correctness of the canon.

<comment><USER7> > This is only compelling if you start with the axiom that the bible (or > whatever text) is correct.

Which would perhaps be a serious problem with criticizing biblical literalism with that argument if the literalism being criticized ever failed to included a strong form of inerrantism; since, as a doctrine, Biblical literalism is _always_ tied to strong-form inerrantism (which _is_ the axiom that the Bible is, in every particular, both moral and factual, correct), and subsidiary doctrines on matters of fact and/or morals can only be derived from it through its intersection with inerrantism, it really isn't a problem that challenges to literalism rely on arguments that are valid in the presence of inerrantism.

> If you don't take correctness as an axiom

Without inerrantism, whether something is a correct or incorrect interpretation of the Bible doesn't have any significance. Literalism or not only has any meaning in the context of inerrantism.

<comment><USER6> Those are good points. I concede that arguments against literalism that rely on one's belief can be useful and valid for believers. I'm not sure this is sufficient to demonstrate that, e.g. ISIS's interpretation is any less correct than other Muslim's though. When ISIS says the scriptures demand that apostates be crucified, I'm not sure that it's sufficient to point to another passage that says, hypothetically, to love everyone. You might argue that these are in contradiction and therefore the crucifixion is metaphorical or out of context, but they could as easily argue that the two are not in conflict, or that the love part is the metaphor (or taken or of context).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Read this a few days ago. So good. Everything I've heard otherwise in the media has been superficial by comparison.

TL;DR ISIS is a doomsday cult analogous to David Koresh's. They interpret the Koran exactly literally and any deviation from it is punishable by death (this includes AQ and all shia for modernization offenses). They believe they are a primary actor in the prophecy that'll bring about the ultimate battle with "Rome" at Dabiq, Syria and the judgement day.

My take is that while modern mainstream Christianity laughed off the Branch Davidians as crazy people who offered nothing, mainstream Sunnis see IS as similarly crazy with the important exception of "well at least they're fighting the Shia". In other words, there is some tacit support for IS based on millennia-old factionalism, (edit: which is how they've grown from a small cult into a significant movement).

An interesting point in the article is that while AQ can hide underground and never be fully eradicated, IS has to maintain land and provide government services under the caliphate to remain legitimate (according to the Koran, of course). This makes it an entirely different enemy that _can_ , in theory, be destroyed.

Further, no peace can ever be negotiated because the borders of IS have to keep expanding or the caliphate is no longer valid. That is, Muhammad says all non-believers have to be converted, full stop.

Anyway, the article is outstanding. Take an hour to read the whole thing.

<comment><USER9> It does create a _non sequitor_ in my mind that such cults are so implacably opposed to modernisation or adoption of contemporary culture, but will happily fire a captured M16 or fly an Mi-24 in support of their objectives...

<comment><USER10> My understanding is that it's not modernization in that sense but re- interpretation of scripture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This article was really helpful for me in developing a better understanding of ISIS. I found the dependence on possession of land particularly interesting. That fact seems particularly important in any global strategy for taking power away from ISIS.

<comment><USER12> During soviet invasion there was Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen. Sympathizers of that group founded al-Qaeda. Sympathizers of Al-qaeda founded Taleban. Sympathizers Al-qaeda founded ISIS.

Muslim extremists have shown potential to go international, local or underground. Name changes, people change, methods change. Bullshit continues.

ISIS has predicted it's own downfall in near future, so they will appear to be right if they are stripped off land. Given internet is more widespread than ever, Muslims are more widespread than ever and secular Muslim leaders are in tough spot.

Imagine ISIS will turn into international underground terrorist organization like al-quaeda? But with more vengeance, credibility and supporters. To me confiding the problem into poor part of middle east seems like the best option.

<comment><USER13> You make a causal relation, that in my opinion is correct, between the Mujahideen and ISIS but you only mention the invasion of Afghanistan as it was circumstantial.

It's a more correct theory, I think, to say that the Mujahideen were caused by the invasion of Afghanistan and the support of the CIA in order to mess with the Russians. And we could follow from there.

Islam could be a religion of war or only an excuse that those that want to do war use, I have not the answer. But I feel dismay reading the discussion that there is now in Europe and the States. From the comment sections of HN or the NYT to the discourses of the politics, the majority of the commenters forget to talks about, for instance, why there is a "land of nobody" where the creation of a Caliphate is possible. It's like if Irak, Iran, EUA, Europe, Arabia, Israel has nothing to do with what is going here. As if it all the violence comes from something in the water in the region.

How is it possible that the Islam nature is our main concern?

To those that are so worried about how violent is the Islam I would like to remember that is the destruction of Iraq, Syria, and in general all the area, with uncountable deaths, by the way, what allow those crazy fanatics to be in a position of create a country.

Surely some people would like to excuse all that saying that "mistakes were done". Ok, but, at least, we should talk about those mistakes.

<comment><USER12> Personally I avoid talking about those mistakes because they were not my mistakes. Nor mistakes of my country.

I have absolutely no qualms with Iran, and never had. You could call me nationalist and cultural relativist. I really think any nation should have the option of forming a state. While I really don't agree with some stuff happening in Iran, it's really not my responsibility.

I think the best option would be to have the daesh to transform into Sunni version of Iran. That's not going to fly because everybody is angry with them. But that seems to be the only way how things could realistically settle down in the long run.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This article misses a major point, which is that there are many sects within Islam, the author (and non-Muslims in general) only know of or acknowledg Sunni vs Shiite, when in fact there more sects that claim to be Muslim than are in Christianity and Judaism combined. The one that ISIL, Al Qaeda, and almost all terrorist groups follow is called Wahhabism [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism). To understand what this group preaches you need to know the history of the region. I'll spare the details and just mention that this group was supported by Muhamed bin Saud (the ruling family in Saudi Arsbia which the country is named after). Wahhabism preaches much of what this article describes in the senseless killing of hummens, which what bin Saud needed the justification for when killing the Muslims of the region while rising to power. They have many devious teachings with deeply rooted evil that true Islam rejects.

</comment><comment><USER15> Attack the head and albeit slowly the body will wither. Starting point: is there a single person anywhere, with a shred of intellectual credibility, who supports ISIS? The negative answer should be used to publicly paint its followers as the intellectually barren though extremely dangerous barbarians that they are. No need to spell out why this does not happen though properly handled, I think it could.

</comment><comment><USER16> aaand another article about what isis wants. How can they all be so conflicting?

he Atlantic concludes that ISIS = Islam, while The Nation concludes that it's just another group of poor, abused people. [http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from- inte...](http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing- isis-prisoners/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Such a loaded article (Quote from article "The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. ") making its way to the top of Hacker news (which shuns political articles like the plague) is very troubling to me as a Muslim.

Seems like the Muslims of 2015 are basically moving to the position of the Jews of 1915.

<comment><USER18> >Seems like the Muslims of 2015 are basically moving to the position of the Jews of 1915.

Except that the Jews of 1915 were not blowing up, mas-murdering nor terrorizing people, nor were they waging war on non-Jews. Also, Jews were prosecuted throughout the world and eventually deported and/or killed, while Muslims are not in any way.

Concluding, it is not alike in any way.

<comment><USER7> > Except that the Jews of 1915 were not blowing up, mas-murdering nor > terrorizing people, nor were they waging war on non-Jews.

Yeah, the rise in Zionist terrorism in Palestine was about 20 years after that.

<comment><USER18> That is one similarity between Jews and Isis Muslims, they both claim a country based on their religious texts.

I don't know what you try to frame as 'Zionist terrorism'. I am not a fan of many Israeli actions, but as far as I know there were no structural attempts of structurally terrorizing and brutalizing Palastinians by Israel that are in any way similar to what we see Isis doing today.

<comment><USER7> > I don't know what you try to frame as 'Zionist terrorism'.

Acts of terrorism, including deliberate bombings, gunning down of civilians, etc., carried out by supporters of an independent Jewish state within what was then Mandatory Palestine by groups such as Irgun (a direct linear ancestor of the modern Likud Party.)

> I am not a fan of many Israeli actions, but as far as I know there were no > structural attempts of structurally terrorizing and brutalizing Palastinians > by Israel

Israel was largely built by people who engaged in terrorizing and brutalizing Palestinians in the name of the goal of creating the State of Israel. (To be fair, there was terrorism on both sides and organized terrorism on the Arab side against the Jewish side started first. But if we accept that targeting innocent civilians for terror is acceptable as long as someone did it to you first, well, _most_ terrorist groups in history could point to someone who they saw as terrorizing the population they purport to represent first, and characterize their own terrorism as retribution against the group from which those attacks came, and supporters and sympathizers.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This response article misses a major point, most likely deliberately, that ISIS are following the actions of Mohammed himself, who they see as the perfect man. In the same way that Christians (in theory) would like to emulate the life of Christ, fundamentalist Muslims want to emulate the life of Mohammed. But Mohammed was not a man of peace. He was a warrior, who killed his enemies, targeted the Jews, kept slaves, encouraged rape of female captives, beheaded prisoners, took territory by force, treated non-Muslims as second-class citizens, and had a child bride. Therefore many of the verses in the Koran and Hadith are about these topics, and as they are a core part of the founder's life, they cannot be removed or reformed.

[1][http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu- home.htm](http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm)

<comment><USER20> I think I will take the word of the billion Muslims who don't believe Islam is about war, slavery, and rape over the word of you and ISIS.

Judaism is not about emulating Abraham, David, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, or Isaac all of whom did at least some of the terrible things you mention. So why do you presume to speak for Islam, rather than listen to the vast, overwhelming majority of its followers?

<comment><USER21> I don't think he is speaking for Islam. He said that ISIS is attempting to follow the life of Mohammad. He did not say that what ISIS is doing represents the views of most Muslims.

<comment><USER22> I understood his point to be implying that Islam inherently and uniquely among religions gives rise to the sort of radicalism we see with Isis. If I'm not misunderstanding, I hope he expands on what he thinks the implications of this worldview are.

<comment><USER23> The problem with the whole issue is that all of us need to talk much more about religion in general.

Many people feel the need to believe in something which extends beyond physical reality and that's the reason we have freedom of religion.

Time again history has shown though that religions often tend to go overboard in terms of violence so most modern societies have taken a pragmatic approach to offer freedom of religion _under certain checks_ (i.e. not infringing on the freedoms of others from a secular perspective).

That said Einstein believed in god so don't belittle someone because of their religion and most importantly don't let fear take over your humanity (most people never got asked if they wanted to be "a muslim", "a christian" or "a jew").

What we need is more dialogue, not wars - those usually just create even more suffering and pain.

Talk to people - especially to the ones you don't feel comfortable talking to - we are all together on this pale blue dot.

<comment><USER24> So, this is probably going to get touchy, but I think the more fundamental issue is that religion, both from epistemological and functional perspectives as a movement, is incompatible with democracy.

In the sense that one cannot simultaneously hold the following two sets of beliefs:

Religion: knowledge by authority, submission to authority, authority by appeal to ex-human grantor, otherwise ignorance until submission before authority

Democracy: knowledge by inalienable and intrinsic human nature, authority as composed of the will of individuals, pluralism as a path to better decisions for the whole society

I personally believe religion is a powerful force for good in the world. But, if we're being really honest, a lot of times that's because of the stuff we're leaving out or bending rather than the strict interpretation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So this is Hacker News, is it ?</comment>


Ask HN: Should email verification be mandatory during the registration process? - <AUTHOR> I am building an authentication system for my website and am trying to figure out whether I should force the user to verify their email address before they can be fully authenticated so the user can perform actions like posting, commenting, purchasing etc.
Most people online seem to suggest that email verification should be a mandatory step in the registration process, because if the user were to ever miss type their email address then they would be at risk of losing all their data when they logout or if another user were to login with the miss-typed email address.
But in practice, most websites like indie hackers, reddit, airbnb, twitch, never enforce email verification during the registration (or even purchasing) process. So how do companies like these handle situations where a user has miss-typed their email address? I'm pretty sure this has happened quite a few times on their platforms given their large user bases.
sources:
- https://ux.stackexchange.com/a/111023
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianmorris/2017/08/01/when-companies-dont-verify-email-addresses-this-is-what-happens/#a393d1d148ea
- https://www.theseventhsense.com/blog/email-verification-and-why-its-important <comment><USER2> People keep using my mac.com address to register for various things, including one bank account. For Instagram I had to register all the mac.com/me.com/icloud.com variations as new accounts simply to stop people from creating accounts using that address.

So, please verify the address. You can decouple it, ie allow someone to go through the flow they're in, but only lock in the transaction (commerce, comment, whatever) once they've verified the address. If they don't verify the address in N hours or days, cancel the transaction.

</comment><comment><USER3> I say yeah. If your site has any user generated content, or has a payment required. Allow the user to work for a few hours, or limit their ability to do things while un-verified.

</comment><comment><USER4> It depends. For HN, an email is immaterial, but for Amazon shopping you want to be very sure you have the correct email.</comment>


Why Enterprises Prefer Java Over .NET - <AUTHOR> http://www.javascriptstyle.com/5-reasons-why-enterprises-prefer-java-over-net

<comment><AUTHOR> ^ Pretty sure this is Satire. It was a pretty funny read.

<comment><USER2> I just hope this was satire, just the first paragraph including the picture of Javascript & the Java-logo wanna make me cry otherwise.

Anyway, +1 for bashing .NET.</comment></comment>


Video.js - HTML5 Video Player - <AUTHOR> http://videojs.com/

<comment><USER2> Id be interested in hearing how this compares to mediaelementjs

<comment><AUTHOR> Hope this helps: <http://html5video.org/wiki/HTML5_Player_Comparison>

<comment><USER2> thank you very much for that. ME.js has keyboard controls, and this doesn't use jQuery. Considering this is less than a third of the size of mediaelement, once it gets keyboard controls, this seems like a clear champion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Much lower CPU usage than the Flash equivalent on Linux (no real surprise). Extremely snappy performance. Great interface. Well done.

</comment><comment><USER4> Very nice.

Some UI things: Clicking on the video pauses/resumes fine on HTML5, but not Flash. Pressing space doesn't pause/resume. I can't unmute in Flash by pressing the mute button. The mute button doesn't cause the volume slider to move in HTML5. Dragging the seek button doesn't go smoothly in Flash.

</comment><comment><USER5> Looks awesome. One really minor nit (only bringing it up because it's odd / looks like there's a +1 floating around somewhere): In the HTML5 version (latest Safari, Mac OS X) there's a small black band to the left of the video that is NOT in the flash version. Guessing offhand looks like it's 2-3px.

</comment><comment><USER6> That's great! Will be handy for lot of devs. Out of curiosity, what is the video that they play on their home page (fish, sharks and birds); it's fascinating.

<comment><USER7> The link under the video that says "video clip from" points to <http://disney.go.com/disneynature/oceans/>.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> You convinced me when I turned on captions :-)

</comment><comment><USER9> i've been using it for the past 2 months and it has random crashes i can't explain. the error messages are not helpful. i will probably be switching to mediaelement in a few days. i think mediaelement has a broader device support. if you look at the issues tab on html5js you see a lot of problems with ipad and other mobile devices.

<comment><USER10> Have you seen the new Flowplayer? <http://flowplayer.org>

<comment><USER11> Wow, this seems good. I've been using VideoJS for the last couple of months and the biggest problem with it is, that they do Classes, Events end everything themselves. The Components system is good though, but VideoJS needs some rewrite to use jQuery or Ender, or some libraries from microJS.com...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I get weird static and pixelation in fullscreen on Chrome -Ubuntu 12.04

</comment><comment><USER13> The captions on the video are epic. Don't miss a watch with the CC on.

</comment><comment><USER14> Has anyone managed to use this with any lightbox plugin/code?</comment>


Parallelism For The Win! How Golang kicks Ruby in a real life usage. - <AUTHOR> http://areyoufuckingcoding.me/2012/08/16/parallelism-for-the-win/

<comment><USER2> It was odd to read "Ok, let's leave trolling aside" in the middle of the article.

Do we really have to behave like 5 year old kids?

</comment><comment><USER3> Any decent language runtime with lightweight threads will have the same effect...

</comment><comment><USER4> This made my brain hurt. Terrible article.

> Lots of rubyists defends this aproach with arguments that GIL makes single > threaded apps faster and makes writing of the multi-threaded apps easier. > You know what… that's total bullshit.

No, it's not. It's a fact.

Article also confounds parallelism and concurrency all over the place.

</comment><comment><USER5> Being 8x faster than a GIL'd Ruby is not exactly going to win you any awards.</comment>


How to succeed or fail on a frontier (2006) - <AUTHOR> https://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-to-succeed-or-fail-on-frontier.html <comment><USER2> This guy's metaphor completely and totally breaks down when he begins comparing today's space agencies to China and Portugal of the 15th century.

Apollo and the shuttle weren't caravels and galleons. To extend the aquatic metaphor here, Apollo was our most sophisticated floating log at the time, and the Shuttle was our first real attempt at tying some logs together so we could ferry supplies back and forth to a little sandbar (the ISS) we created 15 feet off shore. If we ever try for Mars, we'll probably be sending our first dug- out canoe.

China and Portugal knew how to create decent and practical sailing ships. We barely know how to get into space, much less have anywhere near the technology available to exploit it properly.

And most importantly: THERE IS NO ONE AND NOTHING OUT THERE TO TRADE WITH. No developed resources and easily-available goods we can just pluck out of the metaphoric ground and take back. Everything up there has to go through a very complicated and expensive process of development before it becomes useful and profitable.

The better metaphor for the current state of space development may be if Portugal was the only human settlement in all the world, and its only watercraft were floating logs. The China vs Portugal argument might work in two hundred or more years, when we actually have the space-going equivalent of caravels and galleons, but for right now just finding a decent oar we can paddle with is quite an accomplishment.

<comment><USER3> "Each expedition pushing farther south was a humble affair involving tiny numbers of small ships."

small, iterative steps

"Soon after the middle of the century, the Portuguese learned by repeated experience how to navigate out of sight of the (northern) Pole Star."

learn something new and integrate

the benefit of expedition was not only about trade, they also learned how to navigate

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Broader metaphor aside, the size of Zheng He's ships is heavily debated. There's very little historical evidence for their size, and the larger estimates are considered unrealistic by most.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He#Size_of_the_ships](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He#Size_of_the_ships)

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

</comment><comment><USER5> It is fantastic that space is becoming profitable and I very much hope Spacex and the like grow exponentially.

But it's hard to imagine space technology would advance faster if NASA and JPL suddenly ceased to exist. It's even harder to imagine space tech would be anywhere near as far along as it is now if they had never existed in the first place. Besides that, the Apollo program supported almost the entire semiconductor and even transistor industry for a decade. Our world today would be unrecognizably more primitive with out that.

And while "useful" military applications gave us the V2, and then the space race to build suborbital missiles capable of carrying nuclear payloads, the "socialist" non military NASA projects involve less city destruction or risk of nuclear annihilation. A future orbital arms race will presumably move some land based missiles into orbit and cut down crucial retaliation decision time to seconds. "Useful" though it may be, military expansion would be the kind of development best avoided

So China did not fall behind because of Zheng He, it fell behind _inspite_ of him. It fell behind because an overly restrictive, incurious, overly frugal leadership prematurely _stopped_ exploration, both government and private. A similar thing happen to Japan without ever having a costly initial government expedition.

Conversely, Norse exploration failed even though it which was low cost, benefit driven and not central subsidized. Overall, Europe was lucky in that it was so balkanized that a few countries were bound to send/allow ships into the unknown. "Lucky" also was that a gold filled North American blocked Columbus on what would have been a suicide trip across Pacific + Atlantic. Which trip, incidentally, was government funded.

<comment><USER6> > It is fantastic that space is becoming profitable and I very much hope > Spacex and the like grow exponentially.

Where to start with this ...

SpaceX has no future, since there aren't enough satellite launch customers to justify 5,000 full-time staff to run it.

Hence their pollution of LEO with thousands of microsatellites.

The worst thing SpaceX ever did from a business standpoint was reusable rockets. When you have limited customers, you need to maximize revenue.

And the sooner that piece of junk ISS is de-orbited, the better. Of course, not much reason for SpaceX to continue staggering along after that.</comment></comment>


Show HN: A new blockchain that can do email on-chain - <AUTHOR> Dear HN,
As a long-standing member of this community (2007!), I'm really pleased to announce the launch of the Saito project here.
http://saito.tech
Since you probably haven't heard of us, Saito is a terabyte-level blockchain designed to support email, social networks, payment channels, distributed forums, and other big-data applications directly on-chain.  We achieve scale for this by solving the fundamental economic problems with the proof-of-work and proof-of-stake consensus mechanisms. If you look into the network design, we think we'll blow your mind!
Anyway, we've been reading the discussions here for the past several months about whether blockchains are useful and... well... hopefully Saito is going to end that debate! So if you're interested in blockchain technology or just open-minded, I really hope you'll check us out and let me know if you have any feedback or suggestions or questions. Right now we have an online demo, downloadable code on Github, and some resources explaining how Saito works and how to get started building apps with it.
Also, I should probably also mention that we're hiring, with the caveat that we're in Asia so anyone interested in joining the team should either be in this part of the world already or happy to work remotely. <comment><USER2> I think all .gov needs to use blockchain email so they can't erase e-mail metadata. Not sure if we should be able to read the contents, but by court order it could be revealed (political scandal). Otherwise, just the metadata of time, from, to, etc is on the blockchain. No way to erased e-mails you sent.

<comment><USER3> I've been saying that about everything related to government. Their phone calls, their sms, their email, office visits, etc.

The thing about government is that no one, not even government can be trusted. Government however, has power. For obvious reasons, no one can govern the government, so all we're left with is improving visibility, heavily.

Absolute power corrupts, and without oversight, they basically have absolute power right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> does your chain carry all historical data forever? because that will be costly. Do I, as a node, keep copies of emails that weren't sent to me or forum posts that I'm not interested?

<comment><USER4> interesting! you said in the whitepaper that you can delete history. I need to read further.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Bill,

Yes -- Saito is the first "transient blockchain" and everything will technically fall off the network eventually unless someone acts to preserve it.

It _is_ possible to maintain data on-chain, although in most cases the users sending transactions and the users receiving transactions will not want to pay for that and will prefer bear the burden of archiving them. There is no reason for the entire network to backup my email inbox, for instance. So "permanent storage" will only really be needed for tokens that represent monetary value.

We do have two ways to maintain data on-chain in perpetuity though:

1\. applications can manually rebroadcast transactions whenever they near the end of the chain. This is dirt-cheap and helps preserve the security of the network for complicated reasons that you can read up about in our explanation of how Proof-of-Transactions / Proof-of-Relay works.

2\. nodes creating new blocks are forced to rebroadcast transactions that meet consensus/code-level criteria qualifying for rebroadcasting (i.e. their "rebroadcast" flag is set and they have enough money to pay for it. We intend this as a fallback rather than the main mechanism -- it will be more expensive.

Generally though, shifting to a transient chain is important as it is one of the steps needed to "fix" the economics of existing consensus mechanisms. It allows us to price the cost of storing a transaction forever by dividing infinity up into manageable chunks during each of which storage costs are accurate and market-driven and fees are handed over to the nodes that are actually doing the work in that point at time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> congrats. I wanted to do this for a long time but I lacked the skills. This is definitely needed

</comment><comment><USER6> Hey u/trevelyan, any particular reason why the site isn't secured over https?

<comment><USER7> Oh the irony in releasing a service that depends on cryptography..

<comment><AUTHOR> hey craftyguy -- thanks for the reply and for taking a look at Saito. You can access the server over https if you'd like at [http://demo.saito.tech](http://demo.saito.tech) (this runs through a reverse proxy that layers on SSH) although this may break some links in our live demo.

The reason the demo defaults to plain http is that the server that feeds out the applications is part of the full-node software and it does not support HTTPS yet. We are intent on fixing this, but it didn't seem like a critical thing to worry about for this dev release, which is focused on getting people a working version that can be run on localhost and give people the tools to build genuinely distributed applications. We hope to get this fixed in the next two months before launching our public testnet and DNS system. Right our biggest dev focus is overhauling the network code for multiclient connections.

With that said, in the long-run it won't matter if users http or https to connect to the blockchain. Saito is not vulnerable to MITM attacks and users can use Diffie-Hellman key exchange mechanisms to swap keys directly over the blockchain. We can think of it as an improved version of TCP/IP that is actually secure but that will cost a few fractions of a cent for every message we need to send to unknown and anonymous peers.

<comment><USER6> Wow that sounds pretty damn great, I look forward to seeing the dev happen as time rolls. I will always call out non-SSL specifically when discussing all crypto-things but clearly you and the team have thought this out as per your detailed reply. Good luck on the project, I am for sure going to give the demo a test run.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This looks promising and worth keeping an eye on. Good luck with the project!

</comment><comment><USER9> Seems great, definitely keep us updated!

</comment><comment><USER10> Cool.This is something new.</comment>


AMZN drops 15% after hours - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AMZN

<comment><USER2> So? Doesn't seem out of the ordinary.

<comment><USER3> Seems pretty big to me. Here is they why - [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-22/amazon-com- misses-e...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-22/amazon-com-misses- estimates-as-web-spending-weighs-on-earnings.html)</comment></comment>


Lithium-ion batteries are a literal trash fire, and getting worse - <AUTHOR> https://www.ifixit.com/News/lithium-ion-batteries-are-a-literal-trash-fire-and-getting-worse# <comment><USER2> related information for those looking to buy a fire extinguisher >> [https://resources.impactfireservices.com/how-do-you-put- out-...](https://resources.impactfireservices.com/how-do-you-put-out-lithium- ion-battery-fire)</comment>


Sony launches universal remote control with e-ink screen - <AUTHOR> http://home.bt.com/tech-gadgets/tech-news/sony-huis-remote-control-e-ink-11364040192256 <comment> mike-cardwell I use my phone as a remote control occasionally. It's terrible, because there are no physical buttons, so you have to keep looking at the phone screen instead of the thing you're controlling. There's an interface that lets you use swipe gestures as well, and that's still far inferior to a simple remote with physical buttons.

<comment><USER3> Totally agree that an ergonomically well designed remote with a small number of functions will provide a superior 'eyes off' UX. But it has sadly been quite some time since that description applied to any of the remotes I regularly actually use.

<comment><USER4> You know, I think the Roku remote comes close: [https://image.roku.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2014/11/Roku-...](https://image.roku.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2014/11/Roku-3-remote-with-headphones.jpg)

Unfortunately, their remotes are inconsistent between Roku devices. For example, some come with this layout: [http://ecx.images- amazon.com/images/I/41WCaJRUARL._AC_UL320_...](http://ecx.images- amazon.com/images/I/41WCaJRUARL._AC_UL320_SR180,320_.jpg). Why the hell is it a good UX to include these proprietary buttons on there? I have an older version of it that includes Block Buster!

They also have a phone app that I use frequently. It's not bad, but lacks the * button, making it impossible to turn off subtitles.

Lastly, their remotes really need a way to control the TV power and volume. I _hate_ having two remotes, one of which is just to turn the TV on/off. I believe the new Apple TV does have this feature, but of course it doesn't have Amazon Video so that's a no-go for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "It vibrates and makes sound when you use it, so if feels similar to a conventional remote."

I had to laugh at this. What kind of remote have these people been using?

<comment><USER6> I think maybe they mean what used to be a physical button click sound and feel, some feedback is important :)

<comment><USER7> It can be incredibly convincing too, for example using the steam controller with headphones. I've had it for months and only just realized what I thought was a physical detent in the trigger was actually adjustable haptic feedback.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yes, this is an expensive product with a niche market, but you are missing the fact that:

"The Huis is part of Sony's new business creation program, First Flight [1][2], a crowdfunding program for new products designed by Sony employees."

Google Translate is not working very well for the page, but it seems that the product has been crowdfunded, and therefore pre-sold. This is not a regular Sony product, and it may never make it out of Japan.

If you can forget about its price, this is a beautiful product, seems functional and I wouldn't hesitate to give it a try it to replace all of my remote controls (2) if it was given to me for free.

[1][https://first-flight.sony.com/](https://first-flight.sony.com/)

[2] [http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/1/8874943/sony- crowdfunding-p...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/1/8874943/sony-crowdfunding- platform-first-flight-launch)

<comment><USER9> It's nice that they have stuff like this going on, I miss 'Weird Sony'.

<comment><USER10> I was wondering if I would be the only one to use the phrase "weird Sony" (first I ever heard it was from the Verge, describing...well, weird Sony)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I can see lots of benefits in using e-ink for this kind of ambient interface. But the price point is just appalling and consumers should just reject this out of hand. You could get a Nexus 7 for that price. Why is e-ink still so expensive?

<comment><USER12> Welcome to the world of high end remotes. I have a pair of fifteen year old MX500 that cost about that new. The current MX850 model lists at $400 MSRP but you can buy online for around $275, that's about one tier more expensive and fancy.

Full customization is expensive no matter the display technology. A lot of work goes into the software.

(edited to add, if you look at an ancient MX500 or a modern MX850, you can also see tactile vs display is a long solved problem ... just put rows of buttons along a column of displayed names. This has been solved so long, that any patents have probably run out by now. Basically hand held aircraft MFD.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Please come out with reasonably priced e-ink monitors soon. It would really save our eyes and allow us to work outside. I swear there's a conspiracy against them. The only one I've been able to find is this and its almost $1000. [http://www.dasung.com.cn/](http://www.dasung.com.cn/)

</comment><comment><USER14> I wonder if they'll do state management like the Logitech Harmony series does. For example if I tell it to switch to PS3, it will ensure the TV is on, set to the correct input, and that the receiver is on, also on its correct input. The remote knows what it already did, so it only takes the minimal actions to reach the desired state. Similarly I can press the off button and it turns off everything it turned on.

<comment><USER15> This is probably my biggest problem with the Harmony remotes—since there's no feedback, the state management gets out of sync. Which usually means drilling into the menus to get it back into sync or getting into the troubleshooting wizard and answering a bunch of yes/no questions.

After 3 different Harmony remotes this is really what killed it for me.

<comment><USER16> In an ideal world, this is where HDMI-CEC would come in. A device can broadcast requests up and down the chain based on remote inputs, so it can request different links be turned on (TV and/or AVR, for instance), handle switching inputs, and handle other elements like menu navigation and volume.

Sadly, the spec sucks and most OEMs don't ship fully-compatible equipment (for example, the PS3 reliably will not turn off my TV, but will turn off my AVR).

<comment><USER14> The Harmony approach is only a problem if you use other remotes at the same time. Even then it works out fine if the devices have "absolute" codes - <USER2> separate codes for power on and power off, separate codes for each input (vs a "next input"). Many do have the codes, even if the remote control doesn't apparently show them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> In a world where everyone can have a personalized remote in their smartphone, smart remotes are a tough product to justify making. A Bluetooth IR blaster and app should win on capability and usability and be much much cheaper.

<comment><USER18> > _A Bluetooth IR blaster and app should win on capability and usability_

Without physical buttons, phone-based remotes won't win on usability.

<comment><USER17> Physical buttons are one dimension of usability that hasn't been decisive in any other product domain where smart mobile devices have replaced dedicated buttons in UI. On the other hand, smart mobile devices add multi-device sync, personalization, persistent configuration and preferences, memory of where you left off, etc. Music players, snapshot cameras, GPSs, etc. all had dedicated physical user interfaces. None were important enough to save those product categories.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I use my phone as a remote, but I'll always miss the feel of physical buttons on a tv-remote. I like to adjust volume, channel, browse etc. etc. without having to take my eyes of the screen.

</comment><comment><USER20> I went out and got a ray:

[https://www.ray.co/](https://www.ray.co/)

It is pretty, but they use swiping for moving around/changing channels on Roku and it's infuriating. It becomes a workout to do even the most basic of things.

In my experience, swiping is nearly universally horrible UX.

</comment><comment><USER21> I had a Sony touch screen LCD remote, maybe 15 years ago. I used it for a couple of months and eventually broke out the original remotes - just so I could have actual buttons to push. Looking down at the screen all the time to find the buttons was a hassle.

</comment><comment><USER22> I keep wondering why TV control is still mostly IR based. How have we not graduated to Z-Wave/ZigBee style control yet? Especially on the high end with all the hubs around the house.

<comment><USER23> An IR LED is super cheap compared to even the cheapest radio chips. Also you need to have some sort of bonding between the remote and TV or you risk messing up customers with multiple copies of one device in range and that's an extra annoying step.

<comment><USER22> I understand, but were talking dollars on to an already likely expensive TV. Especially with the market that these remotes live in. Also, all those Z-wave/zigbee type devices are unique ID correct? Shouldn't be an issue with multiple copies.

I'm just thinking we could be so much better at controlling our TVs from a 'connected home' perspective.

<comment><USER23> It's also dollars with every replacement remote too and means basically every existing fancy remote would need to be replaced. Also if you tie TV to remote what happens when someone inevitably loses their remote?

There's definitely a lot that could be done to integrate TVs etc with connected home but moving everything to radio controlled has it's own small heartaches.

<comment><USER22> Technology changes over, you can't use the fear of replacing old remotes as the reason not to do it. If that was the case we'd all still be using CRT monitors and VGA only.

Choice is just as good as stability. There is also no reason you can't do both.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This would be a breakthrough device if nobody invented the smartphone. If I want a universal remote, why don't I just use the device I have to carry around with me all the time?

<comment><USER25> So your friends/family/whoever can use it if you're not there? So somebody else can use it while you are?

I have remote apps on my phone, but never use them. I'd much rather use my Logitech one (or even the one the device(s) came with if needed).

<comment><USER26> So sync to a server that stores your remote layout based on your wifi name/some other criteria?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> £169 for a remote control ? it doesn't seem to be aligned with the functional value. But maybe they're just trying to sell it to wealthy people, as another status symbol.

</comment><comment><USER28> Slightly OT: Would love to have a notebook or computer screen with e-ink just for Vim, the console and coding, assumed it's fast enough. Is there anything like this?

<comment><USER29> Maybe one of the large e-reader. For example there is an Onyx Boox not released yet that is supposed to be 13.3" 1600x1200 and running Android. Maybe it can be repurposed. I doubt refresh rate is going to cut it though.

<comment> semi-extrinsic > I doubt refresh rate is going to cut it though

You could probably make it quite usable by running xterm in Tektronix emulation mode. Old school vector displays and new e-ink screens behave somewhat similarly, in that you can add content to the screen without actually refreshing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm keen to get rid of my overprice logitech remote, but at first blush I'm not sure this will do the tree. You need at least some physical buttons.

</comment><comment><USER31> Apart from your aircon - how many people have more than 2-3 IR remotes (TV, PVR & DVD)

TV is dead. IR remotes are awful - but good enough.

<comment><USER31> And no-one looks at the remote when changing channels.

<comment><USER32> No one changes channels any more.

<comment><USER33> The top pay-TV providers account for 94.0 million subscribers [0]. Unless they're all turning on their sets and settling for whatever happens to come up, many people are changing channels.

[0][http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/111615release.html](http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/111615release.html)

<comment><USER34> I think what the parent comment is saying is that channel surfing is no longer common. For me, it basically died out when we switched from ~100 analog cable channels to a zillion coming in over a STB that takes forever to change from channel 10 to 11, and then to 12...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This looks like a very slow gadget, thanks to e-ink screen.

<comment><USER36> Well, as a remote I'd expect you'd not have to CHANGE the screen often, which is where eink excels. I don't sub-sub-sub-menus on my remote. I want everything directly available, and presumably some sort of mode switch to toggle between my different devices. If you combine details from one devices (TV power on, volume Up/down) with another device (roku controls) on a single control screen, then I would only rarely have to switch modes at all.

I've been waiting to see eink used in more places - I recall reading that India had non-smart cell phone handsets that used it for the screen, which seemed a great purpose (display time/date, incoming call number, outgoing call number, none of which require rapid changes in display), but not hearing that it had really gotten anywhere else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> e-ink? So you can't see the buttons in a dark room?

Hope they did some usability tests in this.

<comment><USER8> The kindle has a built in light, similar to the one on the old Casio watches. E-ink is highly usable in the dark.</comment></comment>


Chris Dixon's Graphs presentation - <AUTHOR> http://cdixon.org/2011/03/03/graphs-presentation/

<comment><USER3> Just awesome. Thanks for posting. Recommend for anyone interested in building graphs or knowing about how things work.

Few things I liked are: . Geoffrey Moore's - Crossing the Chasm - start with small set of graph to be useful and then target the bigger market - <USER2> around 14min . the way entrepreneur should classify their product in heterogeneous vs hybrid vs homogeneous wrt to a buyers/sellers - video around 17min . Clayton Christensen's - The Innovator's Dilemma - how great things always start as a toy product then disrupt industries - video around 47min</comment>


Ask HN: Differences in programmer salary around the country and beyond - <AUTHOR>

I'm a recent college grad looking for my first job after finishing school. I went to school in the Boston area, and I've been looking at entry level developer positions locally but am starting to broaden my search. I'd love to live in NYC but wonder if I can afford it on an entry-level salary. I mean, there are lots of tech companies there that hire recent grads, so people must be able too, but now I'm curious how salaries differ around the country and abroad. I'm sure the Hacker News community has some good first or second-hand experience with this, so .... what's a good entry-level developer salary where you live? <comment><USER2> I can't speak to the different parts of the US, but developers in Europe get wildly different salaries, and the differences are not wholly based on the location, size or stage of the company. In the past six months, I have seen UK junior positions that start as low as £22k (approx $33 USD). Most webdevs that I have seen go for £35-40k (approx $52-60k). In Germany, junior devs start around €40k in the north and €45k in the south. I note these are all lower than US salaries listed on glassdoor.com, but this is in part because of the extensive social welfare net provided by most countries in Europe (and that extends even to foreigners over here), for which employers have to pay a larger part than in the US.

<comment><USER3> I regularly see entry level positions around £15k - often a little less. From looking around relatively recently, if you want £30k+, you need to be project managing at the very least (in a buzzword-compliant sense that is).

Things have picked up a bit lately if you're a Rubyist. Interestingly, the same companies paying £15-20k for perl/PHP coders have no problem dropping £30-40k on ruby.

<comment><USER2> Where are you looking? I am drawing from positions on Jobsite.co.uk. The lowest salary I can find in the posts of the past seven days is 22k: [http://www.jobsite.co.uk/cgi- bin/advsearch?rownum=476&am...](http://www.jobsite.co.uk/cgi- bin/advsearch?rownum=476&sess_no=1&jbe_exists=0&show_desc=Y&scc=UK&displayrows=25&ord=S&location_display=); Even the lowest one has a range up to 50k, and the next one up has a floor of 44k. These results are ranked in order of descending salary. NB: The OP did not say what kind of development post he is seeking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> In Spain most of my friends who got entry-level developer jobs used to make between €20k and €30k. It's been two years since I moved to the US, but I doubt things changed much.

</comment><comment><USER5> After my first job search, I noticed in Canada entry level positions are between 60 - 65 a year.

</comment><comment><USER6> Glassdoor.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Glassdoor is a great site, and I've been looking at it a bunch recently. It still doesn't really specify entry-level vs non entry-level. Most of the jobs are just 'Software Engineer'. I'm also interested in start-ups, and Glassdoor obviously doesn't have many small start-ups listed.

<comment><USER6> startups usually pay 20% higher then those listed on glassdoor. From my small experience. and biased to bay area.</comment></comment></comment>


The Numerics of GANs - <AUTHOR> http://www.inference.vc/my-notes-on-the-numerics-of-gans/ <comment><AUTHOR> I found the "Consensus optimization: taming a non-con vector field" part very enlightening.</comment>


How to Run a Con - <AUTHOR> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-moral-molecule/200811/how-run-con <comment><USER2> For those interested in this sort of thing I offer for your consideration the film: _House of Games_

From IMDB:

 _A psychiatrist comes to the aid of a compulsive gambler and is led by a smooth-talking grifter into the shadowy but compelling world of stings, scams, and con men._

Warning: Many sites that talk about this film have spoilers. If you want to enjoy the film, don't read beyond what I have quoted above.</comment>


Tell HN: Simple todo lists on your phone - <AUTHOR> http://f.jaredlux.com/todo.htm

<comment><AUTHOR> I created this so that I could easily get my shopping lists onto my phone ( like this one from 101 Cookbooks <http://bit.ly/aXX1VU> ). I'll copy and paste an ingredients list from a recipe blog, then go to my pantry and check off the things I already have. I also double check the list while at the store so I don't forget anything.

Thought some folks here might find this useful.</comment>


Ask HN: DB Hosting Choice - <AUTHOR> Hi Guys,
I have a some idea about creating web app which would require DB to store user data. i initially  zero'd on MongoDB as i was using it on machine and i knew there were managed hosting solutions for MongoDB.
Now when time came to really think about making final decision about DB (80% dev done) i am confused as MongoDB managed hosting costs $30+/month, Cassandra is another one but could not find any reliable hosting solution, DynamoDB has complicated pricing (Read/Write Unit ??). So i am asking what choice do i have?
Little bit on requirement, i am thinking per user it will take around 12kb and maybe 100,000 user then = 12gb / year (i know 100,000 is very optimistic but this is just for calculation). I am looking for DB which can store binary/blob data, so its not limited to NoSQL db's.
I am good with Unix / Linux so i can do devops job myself but i dont think i can do it round the clock, which makes managed hosting good option but its going beyond my budget as web app would be free to use. I can spend $20 a month on hosting ($5) + db ($15)
Any input would be helpful... <comment><USER2> One should never store binary data inside of a database, because those are either difficult or impossible to index properly, consume inordinate amounts of space, and can bring a RDBMS to a grind. Store the files in a filesystem and store the paths to the files in the database. Refrain from using database engines which cannot provide instantaneous atomicity, consistency, isolation, and durability. If you do not, you will experience data corruption and thus availability issues, possibly of both transient and silent nature. Refrain from using databases which do not provide ANSI SQL, as you will eventually need the SQL data manipulation mechanism, which is consistent.

To avoid the managed hosting penalty, you can start with SQLite, and do the replication and clustering within your application. For capitalizing on RDBMS capabilities, use PostreSQL Citus or Oracle RAC. Stay away from MySQL, as it silently corrupts data and has no OS authentication, making it difficult to automatically deploy.

<comment><USER3> Using the file system for storage, the "index" could be code, e.g. a Python dictionary, a Clojure hash, or JavaScript Object. This might simplify building a first iteration product and avoid the technical and cognitive overhead of learning a properly implementing an unfamiliar DBMS.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the reply and tips, but my question was on more of choosing self or managed hosting?

<comment><USER2> Always choose self hosting. Not only will you learn a lot about operations and proper hardware design, servicing, and redundancy, but you will have maximum control.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Visualizing Code to Fail Faster - <AUTHOR> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/03/visualizing-code-to-fail-faster.html

<comment><USER2> This is why it's so shortsighted to say things like: "computers are so fast nowadays that everyone should be using GC/dynamic-typing/etc." A person who says this is limiting their thinking to the way we do things now. Parsers may not be on the critical path of most compilers, but if you could run a parser/linter/static-analyzer on every keystroke, you could start doing things that weren't even possible before.

We'll _always_ be able to find ways to use extra CPU cycles to make things more pleasant to use. We'll add more pixels or decrease response times or do deeper or more frequent analysis. There will _never_ be a time when computers are "fast enough" that low level languages and programming for performance become obsolete.

<comment><USER3> _We'll always be able to find ways to use extra CPU cycles to make things more pleasant to use._

That kind of thinking gave us Eclipse.

<comment><USER2> I must have been unclear, because Eclipse is exactly what I am arguing against.

The developers of Eclipse made a choice to write Eclipse in Java. Java is a language that trades performance for developer productivity with features like memory safety, garbage collection, and machine-independent byte-code. Though I wasn't there, I would suspect the rationale for this choice is that computers are "fast enough" that this tradeoff is worth it.

The choice to use Java instead of C++ favored the productivity of the Eclipse developers over the run-time performance of Eclipse, and the effects of this choice are so painful that Eclipse has become the poster child of a sluggish desktop app.

What I am arguing for is the idea that computers aren't "fast enough" to make compromises like this. Data-intensive applications will continue to be written in low-level languages. Even if a higher-level language could provide basic functionality that is "fast enough," a lower-level language will free up CPU resources that can be spent making the application even more compelling to the end-user.

I hope this makes it clear why Eclipse is the antithesis of what I believe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You've got to have big ego to write, that Bret Victor's innovative ideas are not "entirely abstract art house visualization nonsense". BV's demos set the direction in which the whole field of working with ideas, including designers and programmers should be going. In 2012 programmers shouldn't have to be really good at running the code in their heads while writing it.

<comment><USER5> +1. I think many people feel threatened by these ideas, and the potential to open up programming to a whole cadre of non-professionals who won't need them.

The opportunity is that the professionals get/have to work on Real Problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Better to just link to Bret's work than some commentary that doesn't add much to the conversation.

<http://worrydream.com/>

<comment><USER5> This comment adds the least to the conversation; why is it at the top?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> A tangent, but I like the fact that more and more people are seeing BV's video and getting inspired by it. It's made a big impact for me, and I'm seing a steady stream of folks referencing it almost a month after it was given.

What is just as interesting is that I've also heard incredibly negative reactions to his talk, which is also telling.

<comment><USER2> Wow, what do the negative reactions say?

<comment><USER8> I was disappointed by the lack of practicality in a lot of the presentation. In some ways there was more flash the substance. The ghost image/time rewind isn't realistic for any real game development. The movie making ipad app was a neat toy but totally impractical in a professional environment.

That said it was a great presentation because showing that flash gets the brain gears turning on realistic ways to increase iteration times.

<comment><USER9> I like how your handle reminds me of "forest for the trees" as it's pretty appropriate ;)

Really though, disappointed? These are prototypes for the next generation of interaction, most people aren't even close to doing just one of the 5 ground breaking ideas he presented, and you expect him to release fully baked products?

<comment><USER8> Ha. I don't expect fully baked products but the prototypes feel a little avant-garde. Cool to look at but not actually useful or practical. Given the amount of attention it's gotten I walked away disappointed.

<comment><USER10> _"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea." \- Antoine de Saint Exupéry_

Show people the flash and the substance will follow. As I've said previously, if seeing that demo pushes _me_ to try and implement it because it's painful to code after having seen it; then theres certainly many able individuals working on it right now. (I am a novice programmer in most respects, I couldn't do it. But damn if I didn't try.)

EDIT: Push does not mean I actually tried. But I'm getting there. Every time I sit down to code it nags at me that I can't see the code the way I always wish I could see it when I'm debugging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The game demo Bret uses is based on time mechanic concepts developed in the 2009 game Braid by Jonathan Blow.

I am not a gamer but I downloaded the game over the weekend because of the talk, and highly recommend it, it's a real work of art with serious production values, and easy to download for Windows, Mac and Linux.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braid_(video_game)> <http://braid-game.com/>

It is very inspiring to see such creativity and the courage to express it from people like Jonathan and Bret.

</comment><comment><USER11> Am I the only one who feels like the game demo was so awesome that it overshadowed some of the other parts of the presentation, parts that were just as interesting yet probably more feasible? I would kill to have just the algorithm evaluator part become reality.

<comment><USER10> No, your not. Personally I think that on a much more practical level the algorithm evaluator would be a godsend. The animation app and the braid demo just seemed too narrow in their application to really be useful in the real world. The algorithm visualizer? I want it; now. It hurts to do code in my head after seeing that, to the point where I almost abandon hope and try to implement it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Something I would love to have is a debugger for an interpreted language which visualises the program's state as a graph, say, and you can wind time forward and back. Then, as you make changes to the code the visualisation updates according to what the program's state would have been at this point in the program had it been running the updated code. To me that would feel like magic.

<comment><USER13> > Something I would love to have is a debugger for an interpreted language > which visualises the program's state as a graph, say, and you can wind time > forward and back.

see "debugging backwards in time" by Bil Lewis (yes, one "L" in each word.) <http://www.lambdacs.com/debugger/AADEBUG_Mar_03.pdf>

<comment><USER14> He gave a talk at google on the subject, it's a great watch: <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3897010229726822034>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> canvas demo from Tobias Nurmiranta

<http://tnlogy.github.com/tnlogy/>

( over the number CTRL + Left Click )

<comment><USER5> That combines instant preview with a playhead slider for undo.

<https://github.com/tnlogy/live-coding> (not linked from the demo)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think this also has applicability to other domains where quick iterations can be extremely useful--for example, testing data modelling--unfortunately, a lot of codes are too computationally expensive to run in such an interactive fashion...

</comment><comment><USER17> I build an interactive javascript learning website. <http://learnjs.info> tries to help see how code runs and fails

</comment><comment><USER18> Is this editor available publicly? Can I download it and use it for my Javascript coding sessions?

<comment><USER19> Here is my take on it: <http://www.gibney.org/calculator>

You type javascript on the left and get the result on the right. I use it myself all the time. You can type js right away or try the examples on the bottom to get a feeling for what its doing.

<comment><USER20> This is pretty nice. I wonder how hard it would be to import a minimal stats package. That and a table entry widget would make this a superb environment for a 1 semester probability and stats class.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Well here's one of those videos that will truly change the way you think.</comment>


A Use Of Drones Nearly Everyone Will Like - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130213/12295221966/heres-use-drones-nearly-everyone-will-like.shtml <comment><USER2> My freshman and sophomore years in college, I worked in the big cat house at a fairly prestigious zoo in the US (mostly feeding them and cleaning up their shit). But in addition to the cats we took care of, we had many programs around the world to protect animals from poachers and environmental encroachment. In almost every poaching context, the most successful experiments were always the simplest:

Pay the poachers to be rangers instead.

We found that the primary motivation for poachers was profit, so we approached them and essentially said "We'll pay you more if you protect the cats instead of hunting them." The 180s we observed were remarkable, and the money they made from poaching was usually so small that beating it was almost trivial for us. So while the price of drones (and program maintenance) are decreasing, I can't help but wonder how many ranger salaries could have been paid instead.

<comment><USER3> That approach has been tried and although there's limited success it's not workable for rhino poaching. The huge amount of money being made by criminal syndicates means that the people doing the poaching are being paid far, far more than the state could ever afford to compete with while the extra money means the poaching operations are more sophisticated with their own helicopters and pilots, paid-off veterinarians and other high-skilled and well-paid people.

Nonetheless there's a large reward incentive offered in South Africa and neighbouring countries for information leading to the arrest of a poacher or the head of a poaching syndicate, amounting to $10 000 for the former and $100 000 for the latter. It's too early to say how well it's working, but it is being supplemented by military patrols, drone and aircraft operations and sophisticated sensors and early indications are promising.

<comment><USER4> Seriously?

How much does Rhino Horn go for?

And, since its matted hair, and since it does not actually increase male virility when mixed with water, why do the criminial syndicates not just stop poaching and hand out ground up hair. I mean, they are criminials. Its not like they are opposed to lying.

Edit: 60-80K/kilo it seems - in bitcoins.

<comment><USER3> Over $65 000 per kg, significantly more valuable than Gold.

Fake horns do make up a lot of the consumer trade in rhino horns, with most made from water buffalo horns, but these have had the effect of increasing demand. High-end buyers get their rhino horns from syndicates that are able to guarantee the provenance of their horns and can command a higher price as a result.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I hate hate hate the idea of the use of drones by police fishing for crimes to prosecute. OTOH, I agree with the sentiment of the article on the notion that drones are simply a new (as in newly economical) technology, and neither good nor bad. One of my favorite ideas for drones is scouting for forest fires during drought. Finding a forest fire before it becomes too large to fight could save lives and property.

<comment><USER4> >> Fishing for crimes to prosecute

Err, if its a crime its a crime. Upping the detection rate is not a bad thing in itself - it merely hastens the day when we reduce the number of crimes because if we prosecute we manage to bang up 20% of the population.

(See the US approach to mandatory drug sentences for a tired example)

<comment><USER5> I would argue that upping the detection rate is a bad thing, given the current status quo of the relationship people have with government. Our system relies upon investing some amount of trust in individuals (law enforcement agents, prosecutors, jurors, etc.) to ensure that laws are enforced fairly, by applying them selectively (or at least that's the ideal case). As for hastening "the day we reduce the number of crimes because if we prosecute we manage to bang up 20% of the population." I'd expect that number to be nearer to 99%, and, it can't happen soon enough as far as I am concerned.

<comment><USER4> presumably the happen soon enough is the reduction of statutory crimes, not banging up 99% of the population (although that too might ... No.)

Actually increasing the detection rate is IMO a Good Thing. I would like it if violent crimes were caught on CCTV, then the MIT-derived algorithm to pick individuals from stance and gait is used to follow them through the streets out and the taxis, to their front door where a cop car pulls up.

Add to that all the white-collar crimes, the lax banking departments that move billions around for terrorists, tax evaders and criminals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If I am correct, this is a law enforcement task, so it is again police work. I think there are better uses of drones for now, for which reason our company created some ethical guidelines: <http://www.dobots.nl/ethical-policy>. One of our statements is "Helping, not harming!". It is better to first develop technologies where we can help people, and consider them as victims, rather than searching for scenarios where we can identify perpetrators. The suggestion in the article is to destroy the vehicles of the poachers, but where does it stop... There are so many situations where we can help. People that drown at sea, early detection of forest fires, environmental monitoring, crowdsourcing journalism, etc.

PS: I am the PI of the Dutch <http://www.fireswarm.nl> project in which a group of companies and universities use drones to detect a fire as quick as possible.

</comment><comment><USER7> I wonder how long it will be until a specific anti-drone gun is invented. Seems like there will be a strong market for one soon.

<comment><USER8> Oky, so I've actually had a really hard time finding out what type of drones they're using. What I did get is this report - with some pictures and stats: <http://www.iapf.org/images/documents/niassa.pdf>

Perhaps someone else can identify it, but from it's specs, it looks like it can probably fly reasonably high... if it can manage 6-8 hours at 400km range, it looks like it kind of slots in somewhat below <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScanEagle> in terms of performance (and cost).

From that guess, I'm thinking that this sucker is flying well over a mile high, which makes most gun approaches (unless they brought in a whole anti- aircraft platform...) pretty unfeasible. In any case, the cost of shooting down one of these would be pretty high - you would almost certainly need a weapon with guidance somehow (ie, a missile, which is going to really cut into your profit margins), extreme luck and patience, or lug around anti-aircraft platforms... which might not actually be out of the picture.

One of the things this article doesn't really tap into is how the nature of the poachers themselves are changing. The poachers themselves are becoming more militarized (as are the wardens now), partly due to the hilarious amounts of money poaching generates - it apparently, they represent a significant revenue stream for various African Paramilitary groups. [http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/rhino-horn-crisis-and- the-d...](http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/rhino-horn-crisis-and-the-darknet)

In any case, like most illict trades, constraining the supply rarely makes the problem go away - you gotta shutdown the demand somehow.

<comment><USER2> Wow, that's the first time I've ever seen that figure (for rhino horn). We were doing programs for totally different animals, and presumably different markets, but the magnitude of that number is completely contrary to our experience. Only further evidence that one-size-fits-all solutions are not always as generalized as they might seem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's not about drones per se. It's about giving untrustworthy governments such a powerful tool to oppress.

<comment><USER3> Both South Africa and Kenya already operate military drones, in South Africa's case dating back to the mid-1980s. The idea that a tiny number of cheap low- endurance crowd-funded drones will increase government oppression or that these governments can't already get better drones is poorly thought-through.

Plus, neither South Africa nor Kenya can be considered 'oppressive' governments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I am really looking forward ordering a pizza and getting them delivered by a drone 15 minutes later.

As soon as this happens (5 years? 8 years?) I am pretty sure there will also be a service like silk road using drones and bitcoin as payment to deliver drugs (and probably everything else) to your doorstep a few minutes after ordering it.

<comment><USER11> Oh great! ;) So I can order a pizza to my GPS coordinates paid with bitcoin from my Android on the beach? That's cool!

Only problem with an anonymous order (hey, of course it should be anonymous!) is that people might want to take the drone instead of the pizza so maybe they will have to parachute the pizza from some altitude :) … oh I love this idea :)

… ok so maybe the drone would not operate 100% automated and the pilot would drop the pizza only some meters away from any person that might want to snatch the drone?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Unfortunately while this helps it's not a panacea. I wrote a previous comment on HN [1] on the same subject, which I'll paste here as the points still apply:

 _This is welcome from Google, as focused aid of this sort can often have an outsize effect, but we must be careful to avoid believing this can solve the problem._

 _For one, sophisticated UAVs that are much more capable than those the WWF is getting are already being used to combat rhino poaching. SANParks, the state agency responsible for South Africa's state-run national parks, has deployed the Seeker II military-spec UAV[0], ground radar, thermal imagers, cameras and dedicated teams of heavily armed rangers in the Kruger National Park, one of Africa's largest wildlife reserves. All anti-poaching resources have been placed under the command of Major General Johan Jooste, a highly-regarded retired military commander and a rewards program giving approximately US$ 10 000 to anybody whose tip-off results in the arrest of a poacher and about US$ 100 000 for a tip-off leading to the arrest of the head of a poaching syndicate has been created. At the same time the South African Army has deployed units in both the border patrol and anti-poaching role in certain parks._

 _These measures are all helping, but it's important to understand just what an impossible task this is. SANParks's 19 national parks alone cover 37 000 km², that's larger than Belgium, Israel and Lebanon. Moreover those 19 parks are dispersed across South Africa's 1.2 million km² and many of them are on the border of neighbouring countries from which many of these poachers come. It also doesn't include the hundreds of private wildlife reserves across the country which have been badly hit by rhino poaching. As the US has discovered on its southern border with Mexico, trying to prevent small bands of people from crossing a border this large is impossible even with UAVs, manned aircraft and massive resources._

 _So technology alone is not going to solve this, though it and other measures are hopefully going to help reduce the rate at which rhinos are being killed. The only long-term solution is to somehow stop the demand for rhino horn from Asia and thus remove the profit motive for poaching rhinos in the first place._

 _[0] The Seeker II is a 9-12 hour endurance UAV with all the standard surveillance gear such as FLIR cameras that is being provided free of charge by Denel, a South African arms manufacturer. The intention is to supplement that with a longer-ranged model, the Seeker 400, sometime next year. At the same time they're finalising development of a much smaller UAV, the Hungwe, that can be deployed by ranger teams for short-range surveillance._

[1]<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4936947>

<comment><USER4> Interesting - replace "rhino horn" with "cocaine" or "heroin" and you have the editorial page of the Economist.

Supply and demand rule it seems.</comment></comment>