The physics of infinity - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-018-0238-1.epdf?shared_access_token=nhIyZJldj4QzWZs7LvZIttRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PMOaEWTfe0Iq_Ol3Eo9bd6Lh9xyPK-ya44kxWDxYi4IQo2Zqj-Ymd6yZVANNbW9FXmT1HwoVMnEtM00qpXT48gLDqpQXX3mvS3gRH22aRhLs-Cf_4dd6NkVcLZZP3rPbg%3D <comment><USER2> I don't get the dual argument about zero, for which the impossibility of a completely empty region of spacetime is given as an example. That may be so, but a region empty of countable things like atoms seems physically conceivable. I am writing from a room containing zero elephants.

<comment><AUTHOR> Rules of the macroscopic world do not apply to the subatomic (or even molecular) world. There are no two identical elephants in the world. On the other hand, you will have a hard time to tell two electrons or even two molecules of the same configuration apart from another.

A total empty region, void of any atoms etc., still contains 'quantum noise' and thus virtual particles. The world, the universe as we know it so far has become inconceivable without this observation, known as the uncertainty principle.

I find the argument quite convincing.

<comment><USER3> > The world, the universe as we know it so far has become inconceivable > without this observation, known as the uncertainty principle.

Not really, deterministic interpretations of QM don't require such mental contortions.

<comment><USER4> I'm far from an expert but any deterministic interpretation of QM (including the popular De Broglie–Bohm) is required to still maintain the uncertainty principle - otherwise it would be falsified by showing it conflicts with the results of hundreds of known experiments.

<comment><USER3> Yes, but it violates the original claim that rules of the macroscopic world don't apply in this realm. de Broglie-Bohm is a classical theory with a extra term to account for quantum behaviour.

The field theory covering "quantum noise", the existence of virtual particles, and the vacuum is also completely different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> From the article:

> There is a duality between zero and infinity, expressed in the elementary > identity 1/0 = ∞.

I understand what they're saying here - but I was always under the impression that, rather than yielding infinity, division by zero was undefined. Wikipedia [1] says that this is true "In ordinary arithmetic", but goes on to say that it is "sometimes useful" to think of a "formal calculation" involving division by zero as evaluating to infinity. A formal calculation seems to be one that ignores whether the result is well defined.

Would anyone care to comment on whether the mathematical perspective above carries over into the physics domain?

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

<comment><USER6> Division by 0 is not possible in _fields_ [1], which are the algebraic structure most commonly associated with "ordinary arithmetic." For example, the real numbers comprise an ordered and complete field. You cannot divide by 0 in a field essentially by definition, so it's undefined.

However, you can define meaningful algebras in which division by 0 is not only trivially allowed, but also equal to infinity. This is possible by extending the complexes, for example. More generally, see [2].

Note I'm speaking strictly of the math here. I can't comment on this usage in physics specifically. But there's no issue with defining 1/0 = ∞ if the rest of the theory remains fundamentally consistent.

______

1\. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_\(mathematics\))

2\. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory)

<comment><USER7> I disagree, only because infinity is not an element of the real or the complex numbers. You can make extended number systems (the hyperreals, for instance) but it isn't commonly done. Infinity as a notation in the limit is not the same thing as infinity as an element of a set.

<comment><USER6> Can you clarify what you're disagreeing with? I don't think I stated anything controversial.

No, ∞ is not an element of the real or complex _fields_ , that's correct. But it _is_ an element of the extended real and complex number systems, according to the following rules:

        for all x ∈ ℝ:
            1) - ∞ < x < + ∞,
            2) x + ∞ = + ∞, x - ∞ = - ∞,
            3) (x / + ∞) = (x / - ∞) = 0,
            4) x > 0 ==> x(+ ∞) = + ∞, x(- ∞) = - ∞,
            5) x < 0 ==> x(+ ∞) = - ∞, x(- ∞) = + ∞

Infinity is not just an artifact of limit notation, because the algebraic rules defined here formalize the analytic theory underlying calculus. This set is distinct from the hyperreals for a number of reasons (most importantly, it's not a field). But just because it's not a field doesn't mean it's not a coherent algebra. Which really circles back to the original point: you can usefully define an algebra such that division by 0 is not undefined.

In particular, note that by augmenting ℝ with +∞, -∞, we can derive (x / 0) = ∞ from the third rule. This behavior is only very slightly pathological because 1) it's (mostly) contained to the infinities, and 2) it still mostly preserves the order, completeness, addition and multiplication properties of the real numbers themselves. It's just not a field because we cannot do some propositional things that follow from Peano arithmetic (e.g. cancellation) and we can't e.g. take square roots of infinity.

To make this point even more technical, we can choose to define numbers as cardinalities of sets under Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory instead of under Peano arithmetic. This allows us to neatly define arithmetic involving infinities via operations on infinite sets.

<comment><USER7> Upon rereading what you are saying, I realize I am not disagreeing with you. I am, however, easily triggered by this as an armchair student of math, because I think infinity forms a kind of a trap for amateurs like me. "Actual" infinity is not a member of the reals and it is not necessary to augment the reals to have a functioning real analysis. But you are right that it can be done, it can be added to the reals to form interesting algebraic structures and there are even books on nonstandard analysis that start from here (Elementary Calculus, which I have read part of but not finished).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The more sensible question, IMO, is "Is the universe fundamentally quantized?". Can you concretely say where the boundary between an apple and the surrounding air is? Is a particular electron on the boundary part of the apple or the air?

If the universe is not truly quantized, then there is nothing to count. By extension, mathematics is not related to physical reality, and it makes no sense to apply mathematical notions of infinity to the universe in such speculative ways.

<comment><USER9> Even if the universe is not discretized, there is no reason to completely discount the value of mathematics. Continuous probability distributions of particle locations still have meaning, individual entities can still be disambiguated as local maxima of density gradients, counting can still be built up from raw axioms and set theory.

Even for people don't accept the "monism" (to use a metaphor to the monism/ dualism debate of the human mind and body) of physics and mathematics, these same people cannot avoid accepting that correctly applied theoretical manipulations of mathematical symbols jive perfectly well with the predicted, physical outcome they represent. Does claiming that the numbers don't mean anything mean anything?

<comment><USER8> I don't know where you read that I "completely discount the value of mathematics".

>"...cannot avoid accepting that correctly applied theoretical manipulations of mathematical symbols jive perfectly well with the predicted, physical outcome they represent."

Close, except for "perfectly". Mathematics and other scientific models are approximations of reality and nothing more. They are fantastic tools but don't be misled into thinking they give a "perfect" picture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > David Hilbert famously argued that infinity cannot exist in physical > reality.

This statement reduces the problem to the definitions of "existence" and "physical reality" which of course may have quite different interpretations. For example, the existence of particles (with finite mass and finite coordinates which can be "touched") and the existence of waves are rather different notions.

<comment><USER11> It seems to me that something can only have existence for us if it can have a transitive causal influence upon us, and surely both particles and waves exist in that same sense.

<comment><USER12> If by existence you also mean, "something that continues to exist upon closer inspection," then neither particles nor waves exist, you can always design an experiment to refract something around a corner and meausre individual quanta of it when it gets to the detector.

<comment><USER13> The comment gave a meaning of existence: "...if it can have a transitive causal influence upon us", so there is no need to imagine up straw ones.

<comment><USER12> Zeus and Sherlock Holmes could both be argued to have had transitive causal influences upon us - so in order to make that statement make sense there must be some other implied constraints on what is considered to "exist."

<comment><USER13> The fictional character Sherlock Holmes certainly exists.

<comment><USER11> It all depends on what you mean when you say "The fictional character Sherlock Holmes". I believe that thoughts, memories and knowledge "about Sherlock Holmes" exist and are physical details, as are Sherlock Holmes books, etc. And that there's no other reality to "Sherlock Holmes", above and beyond these things.

But really, this discussion is too large to satisfactorily deal with here.

<comment><USER14> Try this then:

[http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/02/31-flavors-of- ontology.ht...](http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/02/31-flavors-of- ontology.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "There is a duality between zero and infinity, expressed in the elementary identity 1/0 = ∞ . If one side of the duality does not occur in nature, also the other side ought not to."

It wasn't clear to me that the second sentence was sufficiently proved. At first glance it seems reasonable, but the authors went a bit too fast past that claim for me.

<comment><USER16> I don't think it's proved at all. "Ought" is an appeal to symmetry. At the same time I don't think that necessarily undermines the argument.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> AFAIK, p-adic quantum mechanics has shown some promise in treating aspects of the "physics of infinity".

It is the application of p-adic analysis to quantum mechanics.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-adic_quantum_mechanics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-adic_quantum_mechanics)

</comment><comment><USER18> The article doesn't load for me in Firefox or Chrome. It's stuck at 'Loading enhanced PDF...'.

<comment><USER19> Doesn't load for me either. Stuck at 'pay us money'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Statements like this always bring me back to Goedel's incompleteness theorem...

</comment><comment><USER21> Infinity in nature sounds like an untestable argument. If space was infinite, by definition we'd never be able to measure it's boundary to verify the claim. The closest we could come is "we still haven't discovered a boundary to the volume of space".

Basically the claims "beyond the farthest point you can measure there is more space" and "beyond the farthest point you can measure there is nothing" are equally plausable and untestable.

<comment><USER22> If you had read the article, you'd learn that the problem is much richer and more complicated than the way you stated it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> 1/0 is not infinity, it's undefined.

For the function 1/x as x->0 from the positive side the function tends to positive infinity, while as x->0 from the negative side the function goes to negative infinity.

The function cannot be both plus and minus infinity at the same time.

<comment><USER24> While you are technically correct, that's pedantic and doesn't impact the conclusions of this article one bit, nor does it really add to the discussion. It's written for the layman, and chose to purposefully ignore technical details such as lim x->0+ 1/x = +inf and lim x->0- 1/x = -inf.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I find the article a bit pointless. The concept of infinity is made up by men. Just like the concept of numbers or logic. There doesn't exist something like a 'four' in reality, this only exists in models that we have created.

Therefore it goes without saying that there is no 'infinity' in physical reality. On the other hand, nothing is keeping me from creating some model of reality that has infinity in it.

<comment><USER13> The point in contention isn't that infinities can be imagined, it is whether they are useful - specifically in the context of cosmology.

Numbers are clearly useful, otherwise it would be difficult to explain the importance we ascribe to the value of our bank balances. However just because you can formulate a model of reality including infinities it does not therefore follow that this model must be useful, or that infinities must be useful.

<comment><USER26> "The point in contention isn't that infinities can be imagined, it is whether they are useful - specifically in the context of cosmology."

Going the other way may be more useful; is it possible to create a correct model of reality that does not at any point use infinities? You could have alternate correct models that do, but if you can create one without them you'd have a reasonable basis to call the infinities in the other models unnecessary and nonexistent.

(I would suggest before anyone rush to correct me that they read what I said carefully. For instance, "reasonable basis" != "undeniable proof", which experience leads me to believe is a difference a hypothetical replier might, in their rush to reply, overlook. Also note the _two_ clauses in the question; if it is simply impossible to create a correct model of reality at all, we may never get to the "infinity" portion of the question.)

<comment><USER13> If you could do that - create a correct model of reality - at all infinities or not, there's a Nobel Prize with your name on it. :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Service Fabric is going open source - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/azureservicefabric/2018/03/14/service-fabric-is-going-open-source/ <comment><USER2> I used to work on the comp-app team at Microsoft, which was semi related to service fabric. It's not a bad little platform will be interesting to see how it fairs in open source.

<comment><USER3> Thanks. I was curious on how this relates to Kubernetes, but haven't used either of the two. Are they comparable?</comment></comment>


Project Valerie – The world's first triple display laptop - <AUTHOR> http://www.razerzone.com/project-valerie <comment><USER2> Wow, when I went to hit the back button in my browser, a jarring "HEY, BEFORE YOU GO" pop-up appeared on the page, prompting me to do whatever. Haven't seen that trick before! Nice to see annoyance-delivery is still an area of active innovation.

<comment><USER3> Oh man, I see that all the time. Mouse leaves the window and I get a fullscreen ad begging me to sign up.

Half the time, I'm still reading the damn article, I was just playing with the mouse. Now I have to find your hidden Close button to keep reading. Go to hell, marketers.

<comment><USER4> FWIW, the Esc key normally gets rid of these. Regardless, it is such an annoying marketing trick. Who knows... it must still provide a positive ROI if so many sites are still using it, unfortunately.

<comment><USER5> The esc key is about 50/50 for me, at best. I usually find that the back button is more effective.

<comment><USER6> cmd+w tends to work well. As for ROI, as a former ecomm product manager I can tell you that our marketing department's reasoning for requesting the feature was not based on ROI, rather, herd mentality. And, once a feature is there, it's extremely difficult to remove.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> At first, I thought "damn, I want one right now."

But then I realized something - most of the time, when I use a laptop, I'm fairly space-sensitive. You can't use one of these on a train, tram, bus, plane, or in any situation where there are people next to you.

And even when there _is_ enough room, you pretty much instantly give up any semblance of privacy. Even though 99.9% of the time what I have on my monitor isn't something that I'd mind a random person seeing, sometimes it is. My current laptop's an Ideapad Yoga, 13" screen, and if I close a window and a sensitive document, or picture, or what have you is on the screen it's not a big deal. My body easily hides the screen from anyone behind me, and since the laptop is so small it's usually kinda tricky to see stuff on the screen from the sides anyway. Besides, I'm one of several people in the (train car|bus|plane|area) that have a laptop open, so usually nobody's watching my screen anyway. If someone's got one of these things? I'm going to take a look at it, probably look at what they've got open and what they've got on the screens. So are the other 40 people around me.

When they say "mobile desktop", that's exactly what it is, to me. If you use the 3 screens anywhere you wouldn't use a desktop PC, things become awkward. The problem is that the vast majority of places where I use my laptop aren't places I'd use a desktop PC.

<comment><USER8> I think there is a comedy routine in there somewhere. Imagine the passenger in the middle seat of a crowded flight and suddenly their laptop keeps growing and growing :-).

IBM did a similar idea with a dual screen thinkpad, it was not very successful. My impression was that it just didn't make a lot of sense. Imagine a couple of USB-C connected displays on either side when you wanted them, no need to lug them around when you didn't. That would seem to be a bit more sensible to me.

<comment><USER9> Apple actually marketed their computers this way once… I don't think they meant it to be funny: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQWjxAdSsHE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQWjxAdSsHE)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Reminds me of Lenovo's dual display laptop, and its truly awful advert:

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

<comment><USER11> Isn't the W-series business-class? This seems pretty out of place for marketing towards corporations.

<comment><USER12> You'd be surprised before 2000 or so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> They really should walk over to LGs booth and take a look at their small, flexible OLED screens. These babies would make great panels for foldout screens as they are crazy slim.

Even the TV-Size ones are only 2.57mm thick.

(I badly want slideout screens, although at a 13 inch formfactor. My Dream would be something like the Surfacebook, with the option to slide out screens on both sides)

</comment><comment><USER14> It looks nice and all, but Razer's customer support and driver software is abysmal - that cannot be overlooked.

<comment><USER15> Let's not forget build quality. They're the only¹ brand of mouse I've ever had die on me — multiple models, within 6 months of use.

A Boomslang or whatever it was called back in the day, then _two_ Diamondbacks within a year, in like 2007.

I've had friends say their Naga and Lachesis or whatever die within a year too, usually the buttons or entirely.

I've now used a Logitech G1 since 2007 or so, with extremely heavy gaming abuse, and no problems at all. I am considering buying several more off eBay just so I can use it forever in the case this one breaks.

¹: Okay, I had the wheel go out on my $20 "Logitech Wheel Mouse" from 1999 after 10+ years of heavy use, and a $10 Dell generic mouse at the office after 5 years of heavy use. Just the wheel though. Might have just been dust, really, and fixable for both. The Logitech was used to death in gaming for at least 5+ years.

<comment><USER16> My Razer DeathAdder (which I bought because it was the top pick on the Wirecutter) lasted about a year before it started giving me phantom clicks. I bought the DeathAdder after a similarly priced Logitech bricked itself after about six months.

These days, I just buy cheap wired mice, because I don't really trust the expensive ones.

<comment><USER15> > These days, I just buy cheap wired mice, because I don't really trust the > expensive ones.

Yea, that's why I like my G1. It's built to last abusive clicks and has only 800DPI, which is perfect for me.

<comment><USER17> I still have my MX500 - love that mouse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> That is awesome! I cant wait to see one of those in a coffee shop.

<comment><USER19> I can't wait to see one of these on an airplane... just hope I'm not the poor sod in the next seat!

<comment><USER18> That would be a hell of sight. Bonus points if they have all the displays folded out while reading their kindle :p

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Finally, I can program on the go :^)

</comment><comment><USER21> Good on them for calling it a "Mobile Desktop" instead of a laptop.

</comment><comment><USER22> Reminds me of the Dell XPS laptops which were like bricks, incredibly heavy. Not to mention the battery life was awful and the power brick was huge. Two of my college roommates had them and I remember they had huge backpacks and lugged them around campus.

I guess the people who would want these laptops don't care too much about portability or battery life?

<comment><USER23> I imagine this Razer "laptop" will have a price-tag of _at least_ $5,000 and will have a battery life of less than a movie. This is a dogshow hardware to give to a few enthusiasts, industry people, and trade floors to build up the brand; it's more of a "we're enthusiasts too" brand pitch than it is a product.

<comment><USER24> Maybe not at that price point, but I would consider buying one. I normally use 3 screens and I like to travel.

The segment of the population that requires a real GPU to get work done buys desktop replacement laptops and probably always will. Not everyone is a "digital nomad" or whatever. Sometimes you've just got to show a client a few tens of millions of polygons of art/CAD and you want to apply the finishing touches on the plane ride over cause you're way behind.

Though admittedly it's more likely to be a Dell Precision or a BOXX than this monstrosity I think there's more room in this market segment than you might think.

<comment><USER23> I wouldn't bet on a lower price point or any sort of portability with a GTX 1080 (the lightest 1080-equipped single-screen laptop I could find is over 7lbs).

> I think there's more room in this market segment than you might think.

I have an external display that I bring along to try to bridge the gap in loss of productivity of working in annoying places, but it (asus mb168+) has garbage drivers (can't adjust brightness on OS X or windows 10; crashes OS X), which is why I'd even consider a native multi-screen device. I think there's more room in the "external displays that aren't terrible" market than the big/heavy performance desktop-replacement market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I never seem to have been able to purchase a razer laptop. I recall there was one with a built in touchscreen at one point, possibly a keyboard with a built in touchscreen too, but have never seen it for sale. Do they ever come to fruitition? :(

</comment><comment><USER26> Only the hugest of laps will do for Project Valerie.

[https://twitter.com/egypturnash/status/817111039519010817](https://twitter.com/egypturnash/status/817111039519010817)

</comment><comment><USER27> Oooh, a laptop with the touchpad next to the keys, not underneath! I want one!

<comment><USER28> Shit! I didn't realize that until I saw your comment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Looks heavy. And fragile.

<comment><USER30> Props on them doing something new, I guess.

But also yeah, looks like a hinge can easily snap off... and knowing Razer's wildly fluctuating quality in its products, this thing is "Hingegate" in the making. Calling it right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This might be when calling something a notebook instead of a laptop and making a big deal about the name is worthwhile.

I can't really imagine trying to use this on my lap.

<comment><USER32> Opposite meaning today?

I went to check and 9 years ago laptops were bigger then notebooks.

Back in 2008 - What is a Laptop Computer? (n.) A laptop is a small, portable computer -- small enough that it can sit on your lap. Nowadays, laptop computers are more frequently called notebook computers, though technically laptops are somewhat larger in size than notebooks, in both thickness and weight. \- [http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Hardware_Software/laptop...](http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Hardware_Software/laptop_notebook.asp)

<comment><USER31> Interesting. I was never aware of any actual distinction between them, I always assumed they were alternative names for the same thing. A niche technical marketing failure, at least in my case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Its got a GTX 1080 so they can ditch the screens and bundle a VR headset and give you virtual screens through Big Screen!

<comment><USER34> You can't read in VR for very long and it's probably the number one thing you do with your screen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> The first thing it reminded me of was the ThinkPad W700ds, but I didn't remember the second display was that small.

<comment><USER36> I wonder if something like that was the reason they keep calling it "the world's first AUTOMATED triple display laptop" (emphasis added). Is/was there another triple display laptop for which you had to manually extend the screens?

<comment><USER35> I previously ran a quick Google search and found no other triple-display laptop, but I must admit I didn't spend too much time looking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> really not feeling that keyboard layout. I really hate an off-center keyboard on laptops (like ones with a number-pad). I actively seek out machines that have the keyboard centered. Otherwise really interesting concept.

</comment><comment><USER38> Call it "The Homer"

</comment><comment><USER39> Does razer do Linux at all?

</comment><comment><USER40> AWESOME. I want one. :)

Now if they only did it in the 12" and 15" as well....

</comment><comment><USER41> Please support vPro (VT-d, TXT and TPM) and lots of RAM for security virtualization use cases, e.g. Qubes secure compositing desktop with colored borders around VM windows, or Windows 10 Enterprise virtualization-based security.

</comment><comment><USER42> Quick, @TimCook... look here.

</comment><comment><USER19> 3x 17.3 inch screens < one 40" screen

The 40" will have double the surface area. And can be had for under $500!

[http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-usage/pc- monitor/best](http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-usage/pc-monitor/best)

<comment><USER16> That's a misleading metric.

You could just as easily say this laptop has the equivalent of a dozen 1080p screens, but at that pixel density, it's misleading too.</comment></comment>


Obama wants to tax oil companies $10 a barrel to pay for clean transportation - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/610494/obama-wants-to-tax-oil-companies-10-a-barrel-to-pay-for-investments-in-clean-transportation/ <comment><USER2> Oil just dropped in price by more than $70 a barrel, a $10 tax isn't going to cause economic trouble.

It's the perfect time to enact a carbon tax, even if it is limited to oil. This will boost the ROI of new energy technology and open up more private investment dollars.

One way to get bipartisan support may be to put the tax on imported (not domestic) oil.

<comment><USER3> Here's what we need to do to get support for a carbon tax: don't make it a tax.

Add $x to each unit of carbon and put it in a fund that the federal government has no access to. Then, at the end of each year, empty the fund completely by sending checks to each citizen.

<comment><USER4> How much to each citizen?

(1) According to income or need? Then it's just wealth redistribution.

(2) Exactly the same amount for each citizen? The farmer who needs his truck pays a lot, and gets back $x. Stock broker who lives and works in Manhattan and doesn't own a car pays little, but also gets back $x.

(3) Exactly in proportion to how much carbon each person used? This accomplishes nothing except adding a layer of bureaucracy (you pay $n in carbon tax and get back $n-20% after government processing).

<comment><USER3> 1) Same amount to each citizen.

2) The farmer would either pass the cost along to the customer, including the stock broker, or would ideally switch to low carbon alternatives. Over time, lower carbon emitting farmers would be more cost efficient and would gain marketshare.

3) A carbon tax would be largely invisible to most people. It would be collected from oil refineries and power plants, primarily.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My biggest reservation with oil/gas taxes is that consumption taxes tend to be very regressive. Car ownership is already a tremendous burden for the poor in the US that isn't present in other countries - in all but a handful of US cities a car is pretty much required to hold down a job.

So while I like the idea of raising money for clean energy, I would be more supportive of a policy where the burden isn't disproportionately shouldered by the poor.

<comment><USER6> So tax consumption at the pump progressively. Your first 10 galls are taxed normally, then progressively add more tax every whole gallon above that.

Poor people will buy in 10- gallon instances, less poor people won't bother and will just fill it up.

Or tax on displacement at the DMV. Anything from this year on above 1.3 liters gets taxed progressively more so that gas gas-sippers pay relatively little and gas guzzlers pay lots more at the DMV (registration).

[edit] fixed word usage.

<comment><USER7> Displacement taxes are a terrible idea and lead to unintended consequences. Displacement has only a weak correlation with carbon emissions. Which is worse: a 1.3l engine driven 30000km per year or a 5.0l engine driven 3000km per year? And if the manufacturer adds a turbocharger to the 1.3l engine the real-world fuel consumption will rise significantly even though displacement remains unchanged.

<comment><USER6> But people aren't trading trips. People have to go where they need to go. It's better to have the person travelling 30000 year do it in a less polluting vehicle over the person driving 3000.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What is point of Obama at this point proposing anything unless it can be implement by executive order. Congress won't pass anything he suggests.

<comment><USER9> I would guess that Biden wrote this bill and wanted to propose it one last time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This isn't a tax on oil companies it is a tax on everyone.

<comment><USER11> Exactly. The oil companies will just pass that tax right along.

<comment><USER12> The price of the oil drums costs more than the price of oil per drum, although they are reused. A tax on oil will certainly be passed on to the consumer. If the end game is to discourage oil use, not to keep the planet clean, it still will not work. Look at the high price of tobacco even in the face of the risk to health issues. People will continue to use oil in the same quantities unless the price goes up by an order of magnitude. The government wins both ways: higher tax revenue, or they can claim they saved the planet.

<comment><USER13> Except that smoking rates have dropped to one third of their 1965 levels. If this tax gets those kinds of results, I think the pro alternative energy community would be ecstatic

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This'll go over like a lead ballon - now oil companies are not only feeling pressure from clean energy; they're being asked to actually pay for it?

<comment><USER15> It's a "fuck you" to the oil industry, but the oil industry isn't exactly filled with Obama supporters anyway, and besides, he's never seeking election again.

It'd be pretty hard to get it through Congress, but it could potentially work, given that both the tech & financial industries have made some pretty big investments in renewable energy and their power is rising while the oil industry's power is declining.

<comment><USER16> It would in fact be impossible to get through the Republican Congress presently. Not an exaggeration, it will not happen under any scenario so long as the Senate and House are both Republican held. This is nothing but a political stunt on the part of Obama, he gets to say that the effort was made and it appeals to the base.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Gas should be more expensive in the USA. Sounds like a good idea.

<comment><USER18> The price of gas is linked to the price of everything through shipping and transport. The lower the price of gas, the stronger your buying power. There's no upside to a high price of gasoline.

<comment><USER19> Except for decreased usage of gasoline and thus a decrease in the externalities of using gasoline.

<comment><USER20> No one stopped buying gas at $4 a gallon but they did stop spending money elsewhere to make up for it.

<comment><USER21> That's not true! I specifically remember reading, back when gas broke $4 a gallon, that we had finally discovered the price at which drivers change their habits. Below $4, rising prices just made them complain. But above that price, we started seeing statistically-significant changes in demand.

<comment><USER20> I think you're right there is a tipping point. I do feel that there is a flex point where drivers change recreational driving but they will still need to get to work and the grocery store. They won't go on fun trips though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Can we just institute a revenue-neutral carbon tax ($15-35/ton) and let the market figure out the solutions?

<comment><USER23> Try running for office on that platform.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> holy shit. that's a 30% tax at current prices.

We have recently seen 110/barrel so consumers could easily deal with it. But given the elasticity of demand for something like oil, this will negatively affect the oil glut recovery by slowing demand.

Speaking as an Alaskan where our entire economy is driven by oil, our government is running a HUGE multi billion dollar defecit due to revenue shortfalls stemming from oil prices. We would like to see increased demand for oil to burn through the supply glut quickly to get prices back to at least $70 per barrel. Regardless of Obama's plan it's going to take years and years to get back there if ever.

The real issue is our state government can't afford to operate without levying any new taxes on the general population. The cost of living here is already astronomically high, plus we've been in a recession since 2012, and a tax like this is not going to help our situation at all.

give it a few years and alaska may look like a ghost town. The fact that I am a programmer who works on federal stuff, my position is not really in jeopardy but the majority of my friends are engineers who depend on oil and gas. Worst case scenario I can take a remote job and probably get a raise for doing so. Maybe then I'll be able to afford a house up here haha.

Bottom line is the USA now produces as much oil as Saudi Arabia (albeit with more than double the operating costs). We are much larger than they are and far more diversified, so as a nation we are able to withstand this sort of thing but if you examine places like Texas, Alaska, North Dakota, Oklahoma etc this oil price situation is going to financially destroy hundreds of thousands of people and dramatically affect millions of us. Gas prices also are somewhat less elastic when sliding left on the supply demand graph. so even though prices are 1/4 what they were, we're only seeing gas prices at 1/2 the rate they were. This means there is not as much of a benefit to consumers as you would think from these prices.

Worth it? who knows. No matter what alaska is in a world of shit.

<comment><USER25> 30% is not a "holy shit" level of fuel tax. The federal fuel tax in 1993 was 18.4c per gallon (and remains at that level), while crude oil that year cost as little as $13/barrel. That's a 57% tax. Of course the real value of the federal fuel tax has monotonically declined through inflation, since it remains at a nominal 18.4c/gallon.

In civilized countries the fuel tax is generally well over 100%. In Switzerland for example the tax is .75/liter, or about 120CHF (~$120) per barrel.

<comment><USER26> <The federal fuel tax in 1993 was 18.4c per gallon (and remains at that level), while crude oil that year cost as little as $13/barrel. That's a 57% tax.>

Your math eludes me. National average gasoline price for 1993 was $1.10, yielding less than 17% tax.

<comment><USER25> This article is using the price of crude oil as the denominator. In 1993 Brent Crude Oil varied between $13 and $20 per barrel.

<comment><USER26> But the fuel tax figure you quoted was for gasoline, not crude. You were comparing apples to Orangesicles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> At what point is our ROI on clean energy negative?

</comment><comment><USER28> I wonder if you could just place a tax on premium gas, the type that fancy cars take - so that it minimises any potential affect on low-income households.

<comment><USER29> That would be counterproductive. A lot of the more efficient engines require premium too because they use the higher compression to get decent performance out of a smaller package. So it would end up discouraging people to get more environmentally friendly engines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Yep. Let's implement possibly the most regressive tax possible on working- class people. Because every penny of that tax is going to come out of our pockets at the pump or at the grocery store.

<comment><USER27> Isn't that a flat tax? And definitely not regressive if you assume rich people buy more gas.

<comment><USER31> I think it's regressive because people with less income spend a larger proportion of their income on gas.

I disagree with him; for the record. Just trying to see his viewpoint. Personally—I think this tax is a great idea. I think the government has two jobs: (1) to build and maintain effective infrastructure for the common good (roads, firefighters, etc.), and (2) to apply pressure to rectify forces where the tragedy of the commons would otherwise apply (global warming, etc.). This is an example of the latter.</comment></comment></comment>


2018 the year of the Linux desktop - <AUTHOR> https://www.linuxnewssite.com/2018-year-linux-desktop-24122017770.html <comment><USER2> Not worth the click; it's a weak summary of Christian Schaller original article "Why hasn't The Year of the Linux Desktop happened yet?" that was previously discussed on HN at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15987060](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15987060).

</comment><comment><USER3> Every OS is just one of many. There is NO 'one true way'.

So tell me, when is the "Year of the Mercedes Highway" going to happen? The fact that it hasn't happened yet must mean that Mercedes is a failure as an auto company, OR DOES IT?

Actually there are many, many Mercedes drivers happily using the highway, just as there are many, many Linux users happily working on their desktops.

</comment><comment><USER4> $new_year the year of the Linux desktop

FTFY

<comment><USER5> Please don't post unsubstantive comments.</comment></comment>


Facebook Is Trying Everything to Re-Enter China–and It's Not Working - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/mark-zuckerbergs-beijing-blues-1485791106 <comment><USER2> WSJ still doing paywalls?</comment>


The Next Mission - <AUTHOR> https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next-mission/ <comment><USER3> When I first heard the news, I was very angry and confused. After reading the Recode[1] writeup, it made a little more sense. The key point was the interviews where he refused to back down from his opinions or apologize. Some could find that respectable (and ultimately I do), but if you take on the position of CEO you need to be prepared to eat your words. It would have been very easy for him to just apologize and have everyone go back to their business. It's sad that people are so shallow, but that's just the way it is. I'm not upset that he was fired.

That said.

I have nothing but fury for the people instigating these kinds of senseless whichhunts. The key point here is that Eich has been CTO of Mozilla for years. CTO to CEO, while a big transition, is much smaller distance in executive representation than this controversy calls for. What I suspect is somebody in the Gawkerati saw a news piece on "somebody something new CEO of Mozilla", Googled his name, and dug up one political contribution from 5 years ago to create a controversy out of thin air. This kind of behavior sickens me -- not just the media publications that stir this pot, but the individual people boiling at the seams to crucify everyone with a different opinion. In 2014, people that contribute nothing to society other than digging up controversies have the power to bring down historic figures from pushing the envelope of innovation and opening the Web to allow to allow this very kind of expression.

At the end of the day, that is the ultimate irony. The technology that Branden worked his life on gave voice to those who destroyed him. The entire point of the web is to allow this kind of radical expression, and the moment we get it we use it to tear down and villanize the people who make it run.

Absolutely disgraceful.

If you're glad Eich resigned, I really only have one question for you: What do you hope to gain out of this? Do you think this will push the envelope toward greater acceptance of homosexuality? Is the idea that if we villify ideas enough and those that express them, they will eventually go away? Or does it just, I don't know, feel good?

[1][http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan- eich...](http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich-resigns- as-ceo-and-also-from-foundation-board/)

<comment><USER4> All my life I've considered these goons talking about "evil homosexual lobby" and "reactionary liberals" to be basically wacko mad bigots. For the first time I find myself thinking there might be something to that.

When you find that your movement excuses means like lynching ("consequences" to your opinions and your freedom of speech) and persecution as long as they help your goals, then maybe your movement has lost the plot. I'm seeing truly scary comments that would have made McCarthyists cringe. In an environment where I'd never have expected them.

<comment><USER5> Wait, what? This is the fault of the "evil homosexual lobby" and "reactionary liberals?"

The guy's a bigot. (Unless he's made a statement disavowing his contribution in some way.) Being against equal rights for gay folks is being a bigot. Sorry.

If you don't want to catch shit for being a bigot when you're placed in a position of public power and trust, don't act like a bigot. Or give money to bigoted causes.

<comment><USER4> Make no mistake. What happened here is the strongest point one could have against full disclosure and transparency in the electoral system.

What we are seeing here is a person being harshly punished for his campaign donations. Basically for his political opinion (and an opinion that passed with a strong majority in California to boot).

This is enormously destructive for democracy. It's McCarthyism of the highest level. Both the fact and its staunch defence by many in the forums.

Never had the gay community been casted so intolerant before, or not that I know of, at least.

<comment><USER6> _Never had the gay community been casted so intolerant before, or not that I know of, at least._

Why would the gay community ever be tolerant of someone who supports anti-gay legislature? I mean, come on, it seems pretty rational for LGBT supporters to be intolerant of individuals who want to prevent them from having the same legal rights as heterosexuals. It's not as if there is some reasonable excuse to oppose gay marriage, this whole thing exploded because the position is unambiguously indefensible. That doesn't mean it's the worst thing in the world, you just come off as a petty asshole when you try to prevent people from living their lives in a way that has absolutely no affect on your own life whatsoever.

<comment><USER4> That's your opinion, and that's fine. The problem starts when people start rallying active boycott on a person because his opinion is different. It's particularly delicate when it's a prop campaing donation (a prop that passed in California, by the way, so maybe it's not just a bunch of wackos).

<comment><USER6> _The problem starts when people start rallying active boycott on a person because his opinion is different._

Why is that a problem? People have the right to boycott whatever they want, it's really one of the only peaceful and effective forms of dissent available to ordinary citizens. That "difference of opinion" manifested itself as a financial contribution to an anti-gay cause, what kind of reaction would you expect from those who were exclusively targeted by said law?

 _a prop that passed in California, by the way, so maybe it 's not just a bunch of wackos_

And then it was overturned by the supreme court as unconstitutional, so maybe it is "just a bunch of wackos". Either way, I don't think the fact that a law passes lends any credibility to the substance of the law. To quote the court:

 _DOMA's unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States._

In other words, the only practical effect of the law is to disparage and stigmatize homosexuals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is very sad and unfortunate. Brendan was basically forced out of his own job because of a political view he supported. No matter whether you agree or disagree with someone's views, a discussion should be reasonable and fair, not a lynching in the court of popular opinion. We should respect others views, and their freedom to support any political position, if we wish those same freedoms for ourselves.

<comment><USER8> Consider what would happen to a CEO who held the political view that profits should be minimized.

<comment><USER7> Does this view conflict with the job description? If this is so, then this makes the person ill-suited for the job, just like innumerable other workers who don't have the best qualifications for their jobs. Does this mean the view is wrong? Not necessarily, but that is an entirely different question. Does this mean that we should publicly deride this person for their view and boycott the company who hired them? No. This is the job of the board of directors, who answer to the shareholders of the company, and their responsibility. Certainly anyone outside can offer advice, but only as an outsider, who has no right or reason to blackmail and threaten the company.

<comment> vertex-four I'm sorry, are you suggesting that we do not in fact have the right to choose which companies to support based on our opinions of them and their employees, and to tell others of our choices? That seems a rather more slippery slope than anything else here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is so upsetting, it's infuriating. Here we had a wonderful chance for someone brilliant like Eich to lead one of the most important organizations in defending us against looming omnipresent state surveillance, and a bunch of social justice warriors went and ruined it. Pat yourselves on the back guys, you won!

<comment><USER10> Would you support a company whose CEO was a dazzling, intelligent, brilliant racist? Or anti-semite?

I don't understand how being brilliant means that everyone should ignore that you're also a bigot. Presumably if he had no talent then he'd be fair game?

<comment><USER11> Is he a bigot? "A bigot is someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred." I don't think he does that. He just wrongly thinks the state shouldnt recognize same sex marriage.

<comment><USER12> No. He doesn't just think it. He donated a substantial amount of money to force his views on others.

<comment><USER11> It was a ballot initiative in 2008. We have a constitution to prevent the will of the majority violating the rights of a minority. Its too bad it was up to voters. But he still has a right to take a side without fear of economic retribution.

<comment><USER13> Economic retribution _from the government_ the first amendment does not protect your rights with respect to things like keeping a job. If you call your boss an asshole to his face on a regular basis, you are going to be fired.

Which is why we have laws (separate from the amendments) which ensure people can't be fired for their race/gender/etc. These laws have nothing to do with the first amendment because they don't involve the government.

<comment><USER11> Liberals would not like it if the Catholic Church used its members to lobby for a person to be fired for their stance on abortion. Don't use Firefox, fine. But actively lobbying to take away someone's livelihood is not a proportional response in this case.

<comment><USER13> I'm ignoring your partisan labelling/strawman/etc.

On the second point, that's why employers aren't allowed to ask those questions (nor use them in their evaluation of employees). Those are the protection laws I mentioned above. Which don't protect executive members, as they run the company. Hence employees shouldn't, and can't, be fired for their political opinions (unless that's somehow part of their job).

Proportional response? Sure. Here is a guy who paid money to make it so people can't see their significant others when they are dying, so that they don't have the recognition of the government as being married, to institutionalize oppression, and the untold misery which comes with it. He didn't apologize, he still holds the same views now. Yes, people should lobby a company, any company, to remove someone who would inflict such misery on his fellows. Yes, people should lobby a company like mozilla which says its an avid supporter of freedom to remove someone who would not support equal freedoms for every single person. These companies are corporate citizens, and their opinions are shaped by their executive board, and we can tell them we won't do business with them because of their opinions.

Edit: If you read the above, the response to the question should be obvious. Is it a board member? Then sure, good luck with that though, considering they would loose business if they followed the complaints, but not loose any if they ignored them (yea hospitals don't really care about customer retention). If it's an employee, and that employee didn't do anything wrong (like say, perform an abortion when not asked to; or badger someone with their political view) then no.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Another perspective that I'm surprised hasn't been voiced:

Brendan had the _privilege_ to climb to the rank of CEO, if only for a few days. But it is because of views like his that many don't get a chance _at all_ to climb to _anywhere near_ those heights. I know many qualified, talented, awesome people who, if they _were_ straight and able to marry the loves of their lives, could become American citizens and pursue meaningful opportunities here (arguments about whether moving here is such a good idea these days not withstanding.) And marriage is just _one of many_ ways in which we as a society diminish, limit or actively dehumanize those not a member of the majority.

I tolerate your views right up to the point where they make someone's dying moments hell because their husband or wife can't visit, or bar someone from working for someone else because of their gender or skin color. At that point, yeah, I'll gladly be a biggot against biggots.

Perhaps the reason we don't see more minorities in positions of power is that so many of us exercise our influence, be it via rhetoric or $1000 donations, to keep them out of those positions. I can't bring myself to feel bad when someone who does that is brought down.

</comment><comment><USER15> Well, it's not going to be a popular opinion but I think it's a shame he's been forced out. Simply having the wrong views shouldn't make him ineligible for a job.

<comment><USER16> depends on the job. being cto is one thing; being the ceo is a far more people-oriented role with a far more significant impact on how people who work for mozilla are potentially treated.

and this is not about his views; he actually donated money to help ensure that people would not get equal rights; _even though those rights did not affect him in any way_.

<comment><USER17> So today I learned the CEO is much more people-oriented role because everybody knows "technical" people aren't really people.

He voted for prop 8 which means he doesn't want people to have the same rights (which before that everybody had (of course!!!)), so it goes like this: Heaven on Earth --> prop 8 --> gay holocaust --> Brendan must go.

It makes perfect sense sir.

<comment><USER16> are you trying to spin prop 8 as a "difference of views"? let me break it down for you:

side a: \- straight people have rights \- gay people have the same rights \- the law does not discriminate in any way

side b: \- straight people have exactly the same rights as in side a \- gay people have fewer rights \- the law discriminates between people depending on who they love

there is literally not a single negative consequence for straight people if gay marriage is legalised, and yet eich spent $1000 in the hope that gay people would continue to be legally seen as lesser. of all the hundreds of causes out there, one motivated by pure spite was what he picked to actively work for.

now as for the "technical people aren't people" strawman, perhaps you aren't familiar with mozilla? it is a tech company - a significant fraction of their employees are technical people. and the company culture (which is shorthand for how the company treats and interacts with its employees) is definitely something the ceo can affect. the company technology stack is more in the cto's purview, and no one ever doubted that eich was competent at that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> People who think this is unjust, think about this. If Eich had instead donated to a Neo-Nazi party, a group that supports re-legalizing slavery, or an organization taking away women's right to vote, would your opinion be any different? For those who say 'no, my opinion would be the same. Free speech is free speech and political affiliation is political affiliation' would you be comfortable _working_ at Mozilla? I think this is the much more important practical concern. Eich's ability to continue as CEO was _compromised_ - <USER2> he hire and retain talent? Would Mozilla have seen a mass quit? Could they continue to get volunteers to work on the code?

The social justice warrior lynch mob can be an ugly, fickle beast, and its actions can be a double-edged sword, there's no question about it. In this case, they may have saved Mozilla (and Eich) from themselves.

edit: being the public face of a company is different in kind than being another kind of worker. Its "distance" from CTO may not be large, but the "king is the king" as it were.

edit 2: a couple of bigger questions here that will/should be asked. Should CEOs remain apolitical, or at least take great pains to hide their affiliations - particularly in industries with many much more liberal-minded workers? Will they after this?

Interesting stat: latest Pew has 61% of _Republicans_ under 30 supporting gay marriage. Take that as you may, but I'd go with 'excellent bellwether for society at large'.

</comment><comment><USER19> Is there any record or incidences in his 15 years working at Mozilla of him discriminating or maltreating anyone?

I ask this because, in the Recode article, Mozilla's executive chairwomen, says "That [the contribution] was shocking to me, because I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla's values of inclusiveness"

Unless there is some evidence, 15 years track record in a company should seemingly count for more than a single political contribution. Yes/no?

<comment><USER20> I think this helps clarify the distinction between him being CEO and a blatant racist being CEO (a comparison that seems to be common in this thread).

Should a person be allowed in a position of power if they are able to separate their personal beliefs and lead the organization properly, without improper bias against anyone? I suspect this has happened many times before.

I don't see how the LGBT community has benefited much from this. It seems to me that giving him credit for clearly not letting his personal beliefs affect his work relationships and taking a wait-and-see stance would've resulted in a more productive outcome. Would this not have been an opportunity to educate someone who is otherwise seemingly capable of reasoned and rational thought?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Note that it says he's leaving Mozilla. That was the part missing from the Mozilla blog post, I believe.

<comment><USER22> There was plenty missing from that Mozilla post, but yeah, that was a big one!

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I personally think it's sad that he's leaving

But I do have to say I think Brandon handled that really well and its definitely the right thing to do.

He had to step down eventually from mozilla to avoid further damage to the brand.

I think it's good he realized that and takes on new challenges.

<comment><USER24> "He had to step down eventually from mozilla to avoid further damage to the brand."

In the other thread[1], I pointed out the damage will now continue via a second mob that seems to be sifting through all the other Mozilla employee's donations.

It happens a lot with this stuff in politics, and it sucks to high heaven having a group looking at everything you've ever donated.

1) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7527579](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7527579)

<comment><USER25> If you're not comfortable having people know you donated to hate groups, you might want to consider not donating to hate groups.

<comment><USER24> Do you consider Mr. Eich's donation to a "hate group"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It's sad that Mozilla is losing someone of Eich's technical ability, but having him as CEO simply wasn't tenable.

His appointment was a misjudgement.

</comment><comment><USER27> I have misgivings here mainly because I have previously given enough to political campaigns that any prospective employer that cares can find out what my politics are. The idea that my personal political opinions are fair game in a hiring decision is scary.

Granted, its a _little_ different when we are talking about the CEO of a foundation with a specific ideology, but if this becomes wide spread the chilling effects are something to be concerned about.

<comment><USER28> > Granted, its a little different when we are talking about the CEO of a > foundation with a specific ideology

Eich was CEO of Mozilla Corporation, not the Mozilla Foundation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think he just deleted/deactivated his Twitter account, @BrendanEich.

<comment><USER30> I hope it's his decision and not some misguided hack. Probably too many angry comments to be useful anymore anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I've posted this elsewhere, but in one of the many dupes that got buried, so I'll repost it here:

I really think it was inevitable once people started complaining about his political background. The whole appointment had become about the gay rights issue rather than about where he would lead Mozilla in the future.

No one really thought he was suddenly going to turn Mozilla into an anti-gay rights organisation, but standing down is still the decent thing to do. It lets Mozilla focus back on their mission and carry on without controversy.

In a way it's a little sad though. I was kinda hoping that he'd say he'd had a change of heart since prop8 and renounce his views. Maybe that's just the optimist in me though...

</comment><comment><USER32> I don't suppose anyone knows if he has a severance package? Doesn't seem like he is being forced out for 'cause' and the celebrity of his departure at Mozilla could easily damage his ability to be employed as a CEO elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER33> He was on the side of the majority of _California_ , this wasn't a vote in Texas or India. Even the mainstream Democrats were against Gay marriage a couple years earlier.

Many anti-abortion proponents consider abortion a form of murder, which is a more serious issue. But I don't see campaigns against CEOs who support abortion.

Comparing his view with racism is ridiculous. He's not for discriminating against homosexuals, just for keeping marriage as it's been. Can the growing polygamist movement immediately discredit everyone opposed to them as bigots also?

<comment><USER34> If we were trying to keep marriage "as it's been", then I would have gotten a dowry, had a couple concubines on the side, and my wives would have been considered my personal property.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Eich had the freedom to donate his hard earned money to an anti-gay cause. LGBT supporters had the freedom to make blog posts and tweets about their opinions on the matter. Eich had the freedom to stand by his position. Mozilla had the freedom to designate its CEO.

Why the outrage? The system worked. The only group that had it's freedom threatened was the group of individuals targeted by the prop 8 law. Denizens of the internet could have spared Eich their ire if they were so inclined. Eich could have apologized if he were so inclined. Mozilla could have stuck by Eich if they were so inclined. Everybody acted in their own interest and Eich's resignation is a consequence of that fact.

</comment><comment><USER35> It's a shame he couldn't reconsider his oppressive stance on gay rights, which would have allowed him to accomplish the goals with Mozilla. Oh well.

</comment><comment><USER36> Here's my question: What was the board thinking to put him in place? It's not as if Eich won a contest just by inventing one of the most widely distributed programming languages, there were folks who decided he was the best to lead Mozilla forward. How did they go so wrong?

</comment><comment><USER37> Would any of the admins (or anyone) care to elaborate on why all the Eich- related posts are being deleted?

<comment><USER27> Most likely because they are not remaining civil very long. Time for pending comments?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> The solution to his network problem is probably something bizarre, like URbit ([http://www.urbit.org/](http://www.urbit.org/)).

<comment><USER39> Was your account hijacked? I feel like this comment is unlike the rest of your comments.

<comment><USER38> Nope, but thanks for the concern. I just have diverse interests, and think that the URbit project is quite strange and, as a result, sort of wonderful, IMO. For example, the algebra grammar for the Nock VM is fascinating for me. Moreover, I'm thinking of even using the C# port of Nock as a basis for bringing the rest of the project over to the Windows platform. My children take up a lot of time though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm not that surprised that the mind warped enough to create something like Javascript is also warped enough to have some weird backwoods Christian fundamentalist fear of homosexuals.

Good riddance.

</comment><comment><USER41> Keyboard social justice warriors won then. Sad day. Best of luck to Mozilla. And to America.

<comment><USER41> Loving all the downvotes.</comment></comment>


How Dutch Police Took Over Hansa, a Top Dark Web Market - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/hansa-dutch-police-sting-operation/?retry <comment><USER2> > They rewrote the site's code, they say, to log every user's password, rather > than store them as encrypted hashes. They tweaked a feature designed to > automatically encrypt messages with users' PGP keys, so that it secretly > logged each message's full text before encrypting it, which in many cases > allowed them to capture buyers' home addresses as they sent the information > to sellers. The site had been set up to automatically removed metadata from > photos of products uploaded to the site; they altered that function so that > it first recorded a copy of the image with metadata intact.

Yeah, you probably should not do your PGP-encryption server-side...

<comment><USER3> You shouldn't do it in a web browser at all, client or server side. They can start off doing it client side and then silently switch to doing it server side. I've admittedly never used PGP, but I would think if a website at any point has access to your private key and could transmit it back to their server, you're doing it wrong.

I suppose it's a question of your threat model. Do you trust the website to not do that? Given that FBI is willing to take over and continue operating websites that distribute child porn, the default answer to that question ought to be no. You have no way of knowing if someone else has taken a server over.

Maybe a browser extension would be a good way to do PGP encryption for websites, keeping the key out of their reach but allowing a one-click encryption right in the browser.

<comment><USER2> Indeed, it's common advice that users of Darknet markets should not have Javascript turned on at all, since it increases their attack surface. (e.g. [https://darknetmarkets.org/agora-comments-on-recent- bitcoin-...](https://darknetmarkets.org/agora-comments-on-recent-bitcoin- stealing-private-message-javascript-attack/))

<comment><USER4> Isnt that the default of the Tor browser as well ?

<comment><USER5> No, it isn't, which is insane.

<comment><USER6> Yes it is. It wasn't for the first couple years but they turned it on a few yrs back. Last time I used Tor browser JS was disabled by default... I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case.

<comment><USER5> No, it isn't. I just downloaded the latest version of the Tor Browser, 7.5, and while it comes with NoScript installed, it's turned off by default: [https://i.imgur.com/7pb7nvI.png](https://i.imgur.com/7pb7nvI.png)

<comment><USER7> That's been a contentious point for years. The dominant faction of Tor devs fears that Javascript blocking will confuse and frustrate too many users. In the kindest interpretation, that's to protect the most users, notwithstanding that it will get some users pwned.

Less kindly, one could argue that Tor devs want to increase the anonymity set, in order to better hide US government users. That was, after all, one reason why Tor's initial Navy funders agreed with open release of the software.

There are similar issues around other Tor vulnerabilities. Such as how easy it is for apps to bypass Tor. Which has allowed the FBI's phone-home malware to pwn users.

<comment><USER8> Are you claiming that running an app in an environment where it can access the internet directly counts as a vulnerability in Tor?

<comment><USER7> Yes, of course it is. Whether it's the Tor Project's fault or the user's fault is a contentious issue.

<comment><USER8> I disagree, Tor isn't a sandbox or firewall for your apps. If they make undesired network traffic then the vulnerability is in the app (and arguably, the environment it's running in).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you don't mind German (or subtitles) there is a hilarious documentary on YouTube about one of the biggest drug sellers on SilkRoad named "Pfandleiher" from Bavaria: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frdpQF4bVJ4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frdpQF4bVJ4)

He talks about his "setup" (old car repair shop), routine to drive to different mailboxes, etc. Got busted when meeting with people offline from Austria to sell larger volume. German police got curious when they read in Mexican internet forums that the most advanced drug seller is located in Germany with 3 day shipping to Mexico.

<comment><USER10> Unfortunately there don't appear to be subtitles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> ... Taking a whole server offline, and forcing thousands of drug users to go "uh... Guess I have to use a different server now".

From what I've heard, people are just selling over Facebook and WhatsApp, and the police just can't be bothered with it because what are they going to do? Arrest people for buying small amounts for what is obviously personal use? Or try and track down and pin a case on someone for posting stuff. I can't see them taking Facebook down.

<comment> xkcd-sucks > 'During their time as black market administrators, the Dutch police only > banned one product on Hansa: the highly dangerous opioid Fentanyl. All other > drugs on the site continued to flow freely, a circumstance over which Ras > and Boekelo seem surprisingly unconflicted. "They would have taken place > anyway," says Ras without hesitation, "but on a different market."'

So, the goal is probably aligned more with career progression than stopping drug trade as such

<comment><USER12> Fentanyl is extremely potent - its clinically relevant doses are measured in micrograms. Appears they were concerned with reducing mortality first.

<comment><USER13> I'm asking half-seriously here: assuming the fentanyl pill guy could demonstrate Good Manufacturing Practice, i.e. dose constant and as advertised and equally distributed throughout the pill, would he be sentenced more leniently?

<comment><USER14> I think it's commonly used to cut other drugs (coke), so I don't think that argument would go far.

<comment><USER15> I'd be very surprised if the fentanyl (or its analogues) in cocaine is deliberate (unless the goal is to harm users, which seems unlikely) - they are very different drugs. It's used more to be passed off as other opiates, because it's much cheaper and its potency makes it much easier to smuggle (carfentanyl being approximate 5000 times more potent than heroin). I'd suspect that the fentanyl in cocaine is coming from cross-contamination - lethal doses of carfentanyl are measured in micrograms, so anything less than perfect cleaning of equipment used to process both drugs could result in a fatality.

<comment><USER16> Mixing cocaine and heroin is not all that uncommon. Sounds like a variant of a speedball:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedball_(drug)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedball_\(drug\))

<comment><USER15> Sure, there are certainly users who will mix the drugs, but mixing the two and then selling it as just cocaine seems strange. Supplying strong opiates to the (potentially) opiate-naive without their knowledge seems to be an unnecessary risk, and it is probably bad for business as you aren't supplying the experience that a cocaine user may be looking for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Looks like they just searched up parts of the website (in google?) until they found a testing server running the market. Another lesson for the operators there. Protect your testing deployments the same way you do the production web.

BTW, are there search engines that allow to search for HTML code of the web pages?

<comment><USER10> If it's IPv4 you can also just scan the whole address space yourself.

Shodan is a search engine for finding things connected to the internet probably don't want to be found.

<comment><USER18> > IPv4

Don't rely on IPv6 for protection from scanning.

[https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2015/02/ipv6-security-m...](https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2015/02/ipv6-security- myth-4-ipv6-networks-are-too-big-to-scan/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> How close are we to pure-crypto distributed markets? It strikes me as odd that dark markets are still centralized, albeit behind Tor. Surely someone is working on something entirely distributed.

<comment><USER20> There's OpenBazaar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Dark Web 101. Encrypt client side. Use a trusted browser extension not their arbitrary website.

Law enforcement 101. Don't blow your cover. Ignore 95% of the transactions and focus on the few major racketeering cases that matter. Let the IRS go after them for tax evasion instead so your cover remains as long as possible.

</comment><comment><USER22> Waste of time and money if the goal was to stop drug trade. If on the other hand the goal was to see what law enforcement can do/utilize new tools for cybercrime, that's just dandy, I guess.

I would like to see their productive interventions on child porn and sex trafficking. Instead we get this tedious and unhelpful war on drugs that ultimately is futile.

<comment><USER23> Few months ago there was an article on HN how FBI took over child porn web ring and allowed it to run "normally" for about three months before all major players were "locked on" and simultenious raids took place. Can anyone find that article?

<comment><USER24> Were you thinking about this?

[https://www.vg.no/spesial/2017/undercover- darkweb/?lang=en](https://www.vg.no/spesial/2017/undercover-darkweb/?lang=en)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Right off the bat, mistakes. Silk Road was very much a secret take over sting as well. The dutch Police were following that playbook it sounds like.

</comment><comment><USER26> >the German police raided the two men's homes, arrested them, and seized their computers with their hard drives unencrypted.

Wow, that's some bad opsec.

<comment><USER27> If the computers were actively being used, then the hard drives' contents were at least partly accessible, encrypted or not. Copy everything off before shutting them down.

<comment><USER7> Prudent folk have a UPS kill switch within easy reach.

<comment><USER26> And someone running a darkweb drug site should have really strong home security, like outside video cameras, motion sensors, and alarms on the windows and doors.

<comment><USER7> For sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > They then made a copy of each server's entire drive, including ... every > conversation that took place through its anonymized messaging system.

That's why you should not keep history. All messengers like WhatsApp that save history on the server have zero respect for privacy. A decent messenger should not save anything unless allowed by the user.

<comment><USER29> I don't think Whatsapp stores messages on their servers. They do only until they are delivered to all parties and delete after that. What will they even do with the messages if they stored them- they would be end to end encrypted and Whatsapp won't have the decryption keys.

<comment><USER28> Well, WhatsApp might be not doing this, but other messengers save history on the server. And by the way , how do you know what WhatsApp really does if it has closed source code?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Let me take a guess - Fentanyl is being sold on the new markets the Dutch police handed over their market share to.

<comment><USER30> From TFA:

"During their time as black market administrators, the Dutch police only banned one product on Hansa: the highly dangerous opioid Fentanyl. All other drugs on the site continued to flow freely, a circumstance over which Ras and Boekelo seem surprisingly unconflicted. "They would have taken place anyway," says Ras without hesitation, "but on a different market." "

<comment><USER24> Exactly - the Dutch police let Fentanyl be sold freely by shutting down Hansa, where it wasn't allowed.

<comment><USER31> What? They stopped the selling of Fentanyl when they had access to the site. Hansa allowed Fentanyl to be sold before they got into the servers.

<comment><USER32> If they had continued to run the site they would reduce the amount of users of other marketplaces, where Fentanyl is sold.

Basically, if the government ran a legitimate darknet marketplace, they could reduce the sales of the worst substances.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> archive.is link in case full article doesn't display: [http://archive.is/HelDj](http://archive.is/HelDj)

</comment><comment><USER34> _> They [the police] then made a copy of each server's entire drive, including records of every transaction performed in Hansa's history, and every conversation that took place through its anonymized messaging system._

Why can't all transactions be removed after say a day after completion? I just don't see the point in keeping all of that data there, sounds like a big liability for everyone involved.

</comment><comment><USER35> how does the dutch tax payer like that they paid those folks salaries for some 3 years while all they did was play global recreation drug police?</comment>


Microsoft TypeScript: Can the father of C# save us from Javascript tyranny? - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-typescript-can-the-father-of-c-save-us-from-the-tyranny-of-javascript-7000005054/

<comment><AUTHOR> Not 5 minutes ago, I published the following story on my blog: [http://www.floopsy.com/post/32692569763/all-we-are-saying- is...](http://www.floopsy.com/post/32692569763/all-we-are-saying-is-give-dart- a-chance)

On my blog post, I mentioned a quote by Microsoft originally posted on Wikipedia. Here is the quote:

"Some examples, like Dart, portend that JavaScript has fundamental flaws and to support these scenarios requires a 'clean break' from JavaScript in both syntax and runtime. We disagree with this point of view." - Microsoft's JavaScript team

Just minutes after I publish my blog post, I read that Microsoft has released "TypeScript".

So, which is it, Microsoft Javascript Team? Ok to criticize Dart, though, right? Nevermind that Microsoft was working on its own Javascript alternative all along?

<comment><USER2> TypeScript doesn't contradict your quote. It isn't a "clean break" from JavaScript in syntax or runtime: it's a typed superset of JavaScript, unlike Dart which is a similar looking but fundamentally different language. Look at how cumbersome it is to interop with JavaScript from Dart.

In fact, it's closer to JavaScript than _CoffeeScript_, whose slogan is "it's just JavaScript".

TypeScript is what you'd expect from an organization who believes JavaScript is mostly good: a very conservative extension addressing some of the larger pain points (tooling and modularity).</comment></comment>


Django 1.1 is out - <AUTHOR> http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/releases/1.1/

<comment><AUTHOR> Download URL: <http://www.djangoproject.com/download/1.1/tarball/>

<comment><USER2> And the weblog entry. <http://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2009/jul/29/1-point-1/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Model validation and multi-db will hopefully be in the 1.2 release. At which point I wonder how the Django ORM stacks up against SQLAlchemy.

<comment><USER4> The big thing for me that's missing from Django's ORM is being able to map a model to an arbitrary select. It offers so much flexibility.

<comment><USER5> Can you give an example of what you mean?

<comment><USER6> I think what he wants is instead of defining a table that a model maps to he could also just definea SQL query to select from. This is somewhat possible with Django 1.1 if you use a DB level view and unmanaged models.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7>
        And that's the way it is.

Gotta love the journalism history of the framework coming through :)</comment>


Show HN: KanbanDoro – Kanban meets Pomodoro - <AUTHOR> http://kanbandoro.com

<comment><USER2> Sound great. Many Trello users (including me) are dreaming about this. However I was quite confused while using your app and several times just thought it doesn't work. Here's what I did:

1\. Opened the site on Android's Chrome and signed in.

2\. Clicked the "create/open a board" button, but nothing happened.

3\. Opened the site on Windows Chrome - couldn't sign in util I closed the site on my mobile.

4\. After clicking the "create/open a board" button, I expected to be taken to the freshly created board and was surprised that I had to click the "+" to create it. I suggest separating the create and open actions.

5\. After clicking the "+" I expected (yeah, again :) to be taken to the board. I suggest removing this additional click and creating some animated indicator that the board is being created becuase it takes few seconds and I wasn't sure what is happening. The same applies later when I use the "Boards" link to switch between the boards. As the modal doesn't close after clicking one the "Boards" there's no visual feedback that anything happened.

Generally speaking there's a lot of room for UX improvement. I understand that you've created that app for yourself, but for a first time user a lot of things isn't as clear as for you. Some more observations:

1\. Provide some tooltips. It took me few seconds too much to figure out that All/Incomplete/Complete are filters not a bulk actions buttons.

2\. Why there's "Delete mode" instead of delete buttons?

3\. I think that the task should be automatically moved to "Doing" if I start working on one of the subtasks.

4\. _The most important part_ When I changed the time settings and clicked the provided "Refresh" link, all previously entered tasks disappeared (but the boards remained).

Hope you'll find it useful. In case you'll continue developing the project, please consider IFTTT an Zapier integrations.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback! I plan to address everything you listed. A few things were already in my list of things to do (the irony...)

I didn't pay any attention to mobile so that may be on the back burner for now until I clean up some of these UX issues. Was completely making it for myself at the time keeping it super minimal and forgot to add help text/tooltips.

Also plan make the repo public on github, would make life easier.

Should have an update in a week!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Really like the idea! The only complaint I have from initially using it is that the workflow is a little confusing / convoluted. I think it might be a good idea to limit the use of the modals to 1 or 2 UI interactions. Just an overall sense of progression through the various application states would be great (think simple like breadcrumbs). Good start!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN,

Weekend project used to help me keep focus on my side projects (the irony). Looking for some feedback before I rollout the second iteration.</comment>


180 Days of Change – Our Commitment to Drivers – Uber - <AUTHOR> https://www.uber.com/info/180-days/ <comment><USER2> Discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14596529](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14596529)

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't want tipping to be a thing. I'm also hoping that it doesn't impact how the driver will rate me after-the-fact (I'm assuming it won't. I don't know how that system works. It's unclear to me, and the landing page + click- through page doesn't seem to identify that well enough for me.)

I use Uber to commute in Seattle (often both ways) and have encountered repeat drivers. Will they give me a lower score now that they realize I'm not tipping them?

Not tipping is what made Uber more simple and required less effort on my part. Tipping a taxi driver was annoying and this will be annoying too.

I was also wary of using food delivery app services for the longest time because of the tipping. I am glad that I can just do a $5 tip (or whatever) + built delivery fee IN THE CHECKOUT process and not worry about it AFTER they have showed up at my doorstep with the delivery.

TLDR: I don't want to tip because it requires more effort and consideration from me as a rider after the fact. I will not tip like this.

As an aside, I've tipped an Uber driver ONCE before because it was a distant airport ride and he helped with the very heavy luggage my girlfriend and I had. I gave him cash.

Edit: For whatever it's worth, I tip waiters and stylists very well. I don't have anything against tipping itself, just this kind of implementation into an app service where it didn't have tipping before.

<comment><USER4> I actively avoid any situations that require tipping, outside of restaurants where it's too inseparable from the experience. Tipping waiters is unavoidable but I'm not going to put up with any new scenarios where a business gets away with paying a worker unreasonably low pay and the gap is passed on to the customers.

<comment><USER3> > business gets away with paying a worker unreasonably low pay and the gap is > passed on to the customers.

Yup that's exactly what this is. It's upsetting. :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Really not looking forward to this change in tipping. One thing I really love about services like this is that I don't have to worry about dealing with tips.

They already have ratings, why not just adjust pay based on driver ratings? That seems much more "fare" to me (ba-dum-ching).

Also, are drivers now going to be able to rate me based on my tip?

</comment><comment><USER6> It's a shame it took 6 months of terrible PR for them to make these changes which actually do sound like they will be good for drivers. Can't help feeling like it would have taken relatively minimal effort to do these things in the past. Drivers have been complaining about lack of tipping for a while now. Seems to come from a place of wanting good PR rather than caring at all about drivers. Will see what the rest of the 180 days bring, maybe they are turning over a new leaf. I wouldn't bet on it though.

</comment><comment><USER7> Guess they realised they will need meat based drivers a bit longer now that their autonomous division is in strife.

</comment><comment><USER8> I really hope they have a strategy for dealing with drivers rating their riders poorly based on tips. Maybe aggregate all the rider tips into one and delay how soon they can view that amount? I really don't want to be given 1-star ratings just because I didn't tip the driver.

</comment><comment><USER9> From the post:

> Tipping is coming

> Great service deserves to be rewarded. Tipping is now available in Seattle, > Minneapolis and Houston. We'll be adding more cities over the next few > weeks, and will make tips available to all U.S. drivers, by the end of July > 2017.

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't see why this is a dupe. There is way more in this blog post than in the article that was linked to in the other story.

</comment><comment><USER11> I guess the painful hemorrhaging of countless Uber drivers and customers has yielded some results!

</comment><comment><USER12> These all seem like no brainer features. I wonder why its taken them so long to implement them

</comment><comment><USER13> Finally, I hang the prospect of a tip over these pblebs' heads.

</comment><comment><USER14> Uber is finally bowing to irrational pressure from drivers, the media, and the paper belt. The customer is now just another 'stakeholder'.

Goodbye Travis, you fought a good fight.</comment>


I would go to prison: ordinary people getting arrested for Extinction Rebellion - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/23/i-would-go-to-prison-the-ordinary-people-getting-arrested-for-extinction-rebellion <comment><USER2> Semi offtopic: I wonder what the environmental impact of the average prisoner is Vs the average working class citizen in the same area.</comment>