GM announces completed production of 130 autonomous Chevy Bolt EVs - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2017/06/13/gm-self-driving-chevy-bolt-ev/ <comment><USER2> I went to a talk a few months ago on autonomous vehicles that was headlined by a guy from GM. Very fascinating perspective that they seem to have.

The term the speaker used that stuck with me was "peak car". The idea that between ride-sharing (uber), self-driving, and the move back to the cities, we are already at a point where we are producing fewer vehicles per person than before, and that this trend is going to continue downward.

This is why they bought Cruise, why they're building Bolt EVs, why they're doing a lot of their biggest projects right now- to survive the transition from a creator of consumer goods.

</comment><comment><USER3> GM isn't just doing well, or carving out a niche for themselves, they are _the_ force to be reckoned with in the robotaxi space.

GM's magic ingredient is Kyle Vogt, YC alum and founder of Cruise. He's a guy with something to prove, and an emerging leader, up there at the calibre of Jobs, Musk, Bezos etc. Like the others Vogt has a superhuman proclivity to execute, and unlike the others he's a man of few words who prefers to stay out of the spotlight.

None of the other autonomous driving divisions are led by someone with the same drive and vision.

<comment><USER4> While it's certainly a glowing report, do you have any ways to back up what you're saying? Do you work with him?

<comment><USER3> I don't work with him, I wouldn't be allowed to talk if I did. He showed up on my radar after selling Twitch to Amazon, then starting Cruise in 2013. Seemed like an odd thing for him to do, but his company has been making steady, rapid progress since then, and now with the full force of GM, the Bolt, GM's $500 million investment in and partnership with Lyft, and Maven, GM's foray into fleet management.

With 180 L4 ready vehicles on the road, they're now operating at the biggest scale of anyone. All the other autonomous driving programs are in various states of clusterfuck. Heads have been rolling at Tesla, and that Mobileye fallout really left them in the lurch. All the top talent has left Waymo, and Waymo abandoned a deal with Ford that left Ford scrambling. Uber is a total disaster. Cruise's record has been spotless.

So how did Vogt manage to find himself better positioned than anyone in the most disruptive industry to come out of Silicon Valley? I don't know either, but I chalk it up to more than dumb luck. They are now running a production line for autonomous vehicles with proper hardware. Disengagements for 2016 averaged 1 per 180 miles in 2016, and while driving in hectic downtown SF traffic[1]. Autonomous Bolts now have their own production line, they're just going to keep building them. The plan is to have thousands on the roads for 2018[2]. GM smells blood. Kyle is a mighty good leader.

[1][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tA_VvHP0-s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tA_VvHP0-s) [2][http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-autonomous-exclusive- id...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-autonomous-exclusive- idUSKBN15W283)

<comment><USER5> Why not apply for a job?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I see the Cruise autonomous Bolts nearly every day in SF now. It's weird how fast it went from a curiosity to just normal.

<comment><USER2> How are they in terms of safe driving? I saw one youtube video[0] where a pedestrian had to stop because the car went when probably it should have waited for the pedestrian. Now, I've probably done that a few times as a driver too, but the hope is that these automated cars will do _better_.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSRPmng1cmA&t=1m55s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSRPmng1cmA&t=1m55s)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> the major factor in GM's favor is the depth of their supply chain and depth of expertise they have in all facets of this business. that they have made some really good acquisitions only makes their case stronger.

not many of the large auto makers are making announcements similar, most make note of future plans but not many say "today"

</comment><comment><USER8> Has anyone driven in an autonomous Chevy Bolt? If so, I'd love to hear about your experience.

</comment><comment><USER9> I read this as "enormous Chevy Bolt EVs".</comment>


Are There More Girl Geniuses? - <AUTHOR> http://www.american.com/archive/2010/june-2010/are-there-more-girl-geniuses

<comment><USER2> I hate the title because it is linkbait for the obvious conclusion, which it does reach: Pre-school and school performance is so dominated by non-sheer- smarts characteristics (such as the ability to concentrate on a long test at an early age) that trying to derive any meaningful conclusion about gender/race/size-of-your-nose outlier intelligence patterns is almost moot.

Not only are most people not geniuses, but most successful people are not geniuses either. What's with the obsession already?

<comment><USER3> The obsession people have with 'genius' is due to a misguided understanding of what genius is and an assumption that it somehow makes life significantly easier. It's the same obsession people have with the lottery and believing it will solve all their ills. Smarts and money are both capital; through hard work you can get more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I hate ad hominem arguments but in this case I feel I must. The author, although a woman herself, has a clearly defined agenda that smacks of misogynism. Here is a telling quote from her interview with the Esquire Magazine:

 _There are a lot of homely women in women's studies. Preaching these anti- male, anti-sex sermons is a way for them to compensate for various heartaches - they're just mad at the beautiful girls._

Every one of her articles is based on exact same formula: women _claim_ they are disadvantaged, men _are_ disadvantaged.

        ARE THERE MORE GIRL GENIUSES?
        American boys have become second-class
        citizens in the nation's schools.

        THE EQUAL PAY DAY REALITY CHECK
        The claim that American women face wage
        discrimination is groundless.

        BASELESS BIAS AND THE NEW SECOND SEX
        Claims of bias against women in academic
        science are exaggerated; meanwhile men are
        becoming the second sex in American higher
        education.

        WHY CAN'T A WOMAN BE MORE LIKE A MAN?
        Evidence of gender bias in math and science
        is flimsy at best.

I wouldn't rely on her musings for intelligent insight. The studies she presents are cherry-picked and her arguments are so one-sided and cliched it barely qualifies as an opinion piece. The recent article in the Atlantic ([http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the- end-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of- men/8135/)) was much more balanced and insightful.

<comment><USER5> I don't even understand the point of your ad-hominem.

The author is being formulaic. So what? She is a one-issue writer, and therefore her opinions are incorrect?

<comment><USER4> Ok, let's say someone had written an opinion piece on how Windows is unfairly portrayed compared to Linux. You read it, and it just seems, I don't know, off. Perhaps it's the fact that they illustrated their point with a feature comparison graph dated to 1991 (a fair comparison to the author's use of 1932 data), or maybe it just reads as a long-winded rant as opposed to an intelligent inquiry into the subject of operating systems. You look into it a bit, and it turns out that the author was once quoted as saying that Linus Torvalds is just a loser, jealous of Bill Gates's wealth. You look at their other articles, and see that every one is the same old template: yay Windows, nay Linux, yay numbers that support my opinion, nay numbers that do not. What would you conclude, if not that the author is, indeed, incorrect? I don't have a problem with a "one-issue" writer but I do have a problem with a evidence- be-damned "one-sided" writer.

<comment><USER5> _I don't have a problem with a "one-issue" writer but I do have a problem with a evidence-be-damned "one-sided" writer._

The author of this article provided infinitely more evidence than you did (something / nothing = infinity). You've provided no evidence that she is selectively picking data which supports her. You also provide no evidence she is incorrect.

All you did is point out that she wrote about similar issues in the past, which would be true of most articles written by most reporters.

By the way, the citation from 1932 that you criticize is consistent with more recent results. For instance:

<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/321/5888/494>

<http://www.jstor.org/pss/2889145>

I'm going to speculate that your objection to her is more ideological than methodological...

<comment><USER4> Huh? Now it's my turn to say, I don't even understand your point.

Her citation from 1932 is "IQ Percentage By Gender" and your citation from 2008 (that I _think_ you mean to say supports the 1932 numbers) is "Gender Similarities For Math Performance". Moreover, your citation is behind a paywall so that we cannot see any numbers at all. You are not even comparing apples to oranges, you are comparing apples to some unidentified mass in a bag that we have no way of judging beyond the fact that the bag is labeled "oranges".

And no, I didn't just point out that she is a one-issue writer. Please re-read my post, instead of "speculating" about my ideologies which you know nothing about.

<comment><USER5> My citation shows women have less variance in intellect than men (but very similar mean). Sorry for the paywall, but unfortunately that is where academic research lives.

Here is a newspaper summary: <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121691806472381521.html>

As for your post, my mistake. I missed the "she is a one issue writer, _therefore mysoginist_ " bit probably because I assumed your post had some sort of logic to it.

<comment><USER4> You do know that when you quote a post, you have to quote something the poster actually said, right? Where did I say "she is a one issue writer, therefore a mysoginist"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article seems neutral till the last lines:

 _The developing gender gap in the gifted programs of New York City does not signal that girls are smarter than boys. Rather, it exemplifies how well- intentioned government officials and educators can disregard boys' needs and abilities and unwittingly adopt policies detrimental to boys' well-being. It is a small part of the long story of how American boys across the ability spectrum and in all age groups have become second-class citizens in the nation's schools._

<comment><USER7> Zing. I remember reading/watching studies of classroom settings a few years ago where teachers were unconsciously giving boys a better learning experience. It was eye opening. I thought there was a fairly established result in gender bias studies of education -- boys get more opportunities, more teacher interaction, and the system encourages them more. Maybe this is more fair?

<comment><USER8> When was that, _exactly_? Things have changed, from top to bottom. Everything seems to be totally restructured for girls. The much-better-examined question is why females are getting more bachelor's degrees then males in college, by a percentage that if it were any other group would be _prima facie_ proof of widespread discrimination. [http://iserp.columbia.edu/news/articles/female- advantage-col...](http://iserp.columbia.edu/news/articles/female-advantage- college) says 2004 saw 58% female graduation, and the disparity's trend is _up_ , not down.

We need to wipe out the idea that education is somehow biased towards males now, and _fast_. The playing field has gone from balanced to stacked in favor of females and it's _still_ being tipped yet further in that direction.

("Why does it matter?" It is, as the article says, fairly well established that variance in male intelligence is larger than female intelligence. It is also fairly well established that progress is made in society in a very unbalanced manner, where most progress is made by the outliers in skill. Throwing away the males because the education system labels the usual male child learning styles pathological because they can't be properly corralled is not the path to a society able to compete on the global stage.)

<comment><USER9> As a male, and father of males, I can honestly say that if any male feels like they are being systematically being discriminated against in school, they need to "man up".

Even if there is some gender bias in schools, everything else in society is so male-centric that the scale still way tips toward male.

<comment><USER10> Everything else?

How about child-rearing / anything to do with children? Males are pretty often feared as being pedophiles if they work with kids.

<comment><USER9> Fair. There are some places where men have a tougher time. Daycare provider is one. Figure skating and porn star are probably some others. But all up, it's still not even close.

<comment><USER10> [http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/employment/jobpat- eeo1/2...](http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/employment/jobpat- eeo1/2008/us/national.html)

With a couple significant outliers (most in men's favor, but not all), it's actually pretty close. Though I'm not sure what "professionals" relates to.

<comment><USER9> It's really not very close. The "outliers" are things like "execute" where men dominate more than 2:1. The only places where women have more of are clerical and sales positions.

And really the real question, if you're interested in workforce data is money. There's a huge gap between men and women: [http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgr...](http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm)

Now of course the standard reply is "they work different jobs". And that's true. Jobs men work tend to pay more. Why is that? Who knows. And if you look at the historic pay of fields like psychology, once dominated by men, it used to pay very well. As women began to play a large role in the field, pay dropped. Did men leave because pay drop or did pay drop because men left? No one knows.

But I still believe my fundamental point. If you're a man and you're not doing as well as you like and it's because you think women have done you in, I just personally have a low opinion of you. Not that you'd care about my opinion, but that's just my take. And I'll raise my kids, to the best of my ability, to not believe that they can't get a fair shot in life because women run the show.

<comment><USER10> And a lot of those top-level ones are rather entrenched by owners of the businesses & their family connections, which are often _dominated_ by male- only thinking. The top tiers are often a very insular world all its own, it's no surprise they're changing so very slowly. Sad, but not surprising.

Pay-gaps measuring across the board are rather meaningless, aside from showing a cultural bias for _hiring_. There's definitely a significant pay gap, but a lot of articles like that one take male-income / num-males and compare it to female-income / num-females. More point-by-point comparisons show a smaller gap per-job (I usually see 5%, sometimes 10%. Significant, but not 25% significant like the article lists). For psychiatry in _particular_ , it's also become an over-crowded field; to compete, and to get the average-joe on their bill, the average-joe psychiatrist must lower their cost.

edit: as linked by tokenadult, I point this out for _consideration_ of the results, but not as an _explanation_ : [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox#Berkeley_se...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox#Berkeley_sex_bias_case)

I'm not discounting the entire thing by any means, most of the purpose in the comment is because the issues around child-care are utterly ridiculous. I've run across a fair number of men who have run flat against (spiked) brick walls in their attempts, followed by rather massive repercussions for simply _trying_ to be single fathers (lost jobs, criminal investigations (finding nothing), near-eviction from their community, etc). I've not heard of parallel situations for females as bad as many of them have encountered, in relatively recent years. Going more years back, certainly, things were blatantly downright misogynistic in many areas.

As to the last paragraph, that's a better way of putting it than your original post. I overall agree :)

<comment><USER9> Regaring child-care. A similiar, if not far worse, example that comes to mind for me is domestic abuse. When I was in college I rode with the domestic abuse team for our local police department (many police stations have programs for this, if you're interested).

I was shocked by (a) how much domestic abuse happens, (b) how violent it is, and (c) how much leeway the men get. Officers routinely push the women to not press charges, because it will "likely escalate the situation" or frankly, "we probably can't do anything until he kills you or worse, and that doesn't benefit you does it?".

And the crazy thing is that in the US domestic abuse is about as good as it gets worldwide. In other countries men can kill their wives if they have affairs or even get raped. And if you count the number of victims of sexual violence in this country, women far outnumber men.

<comment><USER10> There are two sides to the abuse issue as well, though. There's _definitely_ that mindset among a lot of people, more than enough in policing positions to make it true, and it's disgusting.

There is, however, a _massive_ selection bias in the stats for abuse in particular. Where men are abused, they're either congratulated (if sexually) or told to "man up" (not selected specifically because you used it, but because it's the phrase). There's a _lot_ of evidence (and growing) that it's far more common than is admitted, though I'm not at all implying it's as much as women get abused.

It's another of those situations where, instead of support, men live with it or are ridiculed where women are protected (lies by should-be-protectors aside). If you look at it with a bit of history in mind, it's pretty obvious why this exists: men were the only ones with any real power and wouldn't allow abuse, and they were more unchecked in their own abusing.

<comment><USER9> I don't disagree about the underrepresentation. I know in prison populations it is relatively common. And while its underrepresented in day to day life, I don't think it budges the needle much. While I saw some domestic abuse by men, it wasn't common (I saw about twice as many calls from a male partner in a gay relationship than men in straight relationships... both were really rare).

But I think this argument is symbolic of the debate. You think men don't get the support they need by society for sexual abuse and that women are protected. Whereas I think women are abused more frequently, and the protection mechanisms are controlled by men.

My sympathies rest with all victims, but I just have trouble sympathizing with men as a group.

<comment><USER10> I'm arguing for support for _victims_ , and that people should quit separating them by sex / race / etc once they're identified as such. The greater the separation, the more likely we'll get "separate but equal", which never is, instead of progress. Someone who needs support is someone who needs support, what else really matters? If the mindset were closer to this, people who needed help would get it, _real_ statistical data could be extracted, and systemic problems exposed instead of everyone (rightfully) doubting any study that goes against what they currently think because there's so much wiggle room.

edit: but as I've said elsewhere, I'm an idealist, and I recognize that such a thing isn't ever going to _actually_ happen to total equality. I just think it's something which should be aimed for, explicitly, instead of using the "but there aren't as many <group X>es with <problem Y>" ethical crutch. Especially for something like this, where the only wall is purely a cultural one, not one where there isn't enough funding to do more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What about relative application numbers? These things are partially self- selected. The first thing that occurred to me when I read the main observations in the article* was, "What if the proportion of girls in the programs is higher because more girls (or parents of girls) want to participate in the programs?" Wanting to participate (and especially having parents who want one to participate) would not necessarily be correlated with intelligence anyway.

*- That 1) gifted and talented programs in New York are tending to have more female students, and 2) this cannot be explained by suggesting that there are more gifted and talented girls.

<comment><AUTHOR> _What about relative application numbers?_

That's a very good question. I think the study of application to graduate departments at the University of California: Berkeley (often used in statistics textbooks as an example of Simpson's paradox) showed that what initially appeared as a bias in favor of male applicants was actually, when analyzed department by department, neutral admission or bias in favor of female applicants.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox#Berkeley_se...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox#Berkeley_sex_bias_case)

The self-selection involved in applying or not for a special program is surely relevant to analyzing bias, as you correctly point out. A different issue that other commenters here mention is whether participation in a school program at early elementary age has any necessary relation to adult career paths at later ages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Well, there's _this_ one at least:

<http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/>

</comment><comment><USER12> "The greater variance of males on intelligence tests is one of the best- established findings in psychometric literature"

And this is supported by a graph from 1932? I'm not saying it isn't true, but surely there is more recent data to support one of the "best-established findings" of that field.

<comment><USER13> The data are from 1932 but the analysis is more recent:

 _here is what a group of Scottish psychologists found in 2002 when they analyzed the results of IQ tests given to nearly all 11-year-olds in Scotland in 1932_

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> According to the graph in the middle of the article (unless I'm reading it wrong) it would seem that there are _more_ male geniuses.

The graph then, would seem to indicate that the sort of tests that determine a child's eligibility for entrance into the gifted programs in New York either a) do not track with IQ tests or b) filter out children with IQs lower than say 95 (therefore making more girls eligible than boys).

<comment><USER12> I had the same initial reaction to the graph, but she seems to be using the graph to show that reality may be at odds with the enrollment numbers. Data from 1932 does seem quite out of place in an article addressing "recent trends".

She goes on to suggest that the gifted programs are more targeted to girls - things like verbal-oriented tests and needing to "sit still" for periods of time.

<comment><USER15> The 1932 data described in the article is important because it covered nearly the entire population of a country for a particular age group -- uneven data collection could not have skewed the results. Uneven data collection is the great enemy of psychological public policy, since politicians can so conveniently project their dispute onto the people that were not sampled. The 1932 Scotland data slams that door shut.

Other testing programs since then have showed a slow, steady rise in the average IQ, called the Flynn effect. However the relative shapes of the male and female histograms have been quite constant. (Ditto for the relative shapes of the racial curves.)

<comment><AUTHOR> _Ditto for the relative shapes of the racial curves._

There has been some convergence, that is lessening of a gap, among race and ethnicity groups in the United States as a matter of group averages.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How do you log your events and exceptions - <AUTHOR>

Within your companies and personal projects how do you go about logging the events and exceptions you encounter? <comment><USER2> Our app is based on django + javascript

We use getsentry.com and its great</comment>


How Do Pink Diamonds Get Their Color? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.luriya.com/blog-0/bid/199683/How-Do-Pink-Diamonds-Get-Their-Color

<comment><USER2> Impurities in the crystal. That is to say, some of the molecules aren't carbon, they're the relatively similarly sized boron molecule.</comment>


Computer as Condom - <AUTHOR> http://papert.org/articles/ComputerAsCondom.html <comment><USER2> Genius. Fighting taboos (even if it's math) with entertainment strikes me as one of the "why didn't I think of this" things.

Goes well along with <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1275035>

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah. I learned about his website through a previous HN submission; he has a lot of fascinating stuff about the intersection of computers and education (which, in turn shows more about each on their own).</comment></comment>


Capital One refused my fraud claim because a chip was used - <AUTHOR> https://old.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/e3v6hv/capital_one_refused_my_fraud_claim_because_a_chip/ <comment><USER2> Looking through the comments on reddit, there are a number of people people stories about how something similar happened to them and it turned out that either 1) they had been mailed a new card that was intercepted and successfully activated by someone, or 2) despite what the bank claimed, it turned out the transaction wasn't actually a chip transaction, so these are probably good possibilities to look into if this happens to you.

<comment><AUTHOR> #1 is interesting. Someone can have a dupe card sent to you and steal your mail. And the bank won't reverse the charge. That seems like "chip fraud" of a sort. Allowing the banks not to be liable for fraud on "chip cards" seems like a mistake.

<comment><USER3> Would the original card continue to work in that case? You could simply state that you never requested a replacement card and still have the old card in your possession.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It looks like cloning your chip is already a thing as well as other types of attacks. It doesn't make sense why banks would deny fraud claims,

<comment><USER5> > It doesn't make sense why banks would deny fraud claims,

So that they don't have to pay out those claims.

It doesn't make sense why that is allowed though.

<comment><USER6> Honestly, I don't understand why we don't use PINs here in the US for credit transactions, and most places don't even ask me to sign. I'm surprised there isn't _more_ fraud with our super lax financial system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My family used apple pay, and ended up paying for the person on the other counter as well. Not sure how it happened, but I got the detailed receipts from the card provider. It indicated 2 transactions on 2 different counters, at almost same time!

Target was nice enough to give a gift card for that amount.

</comment><comment><USER8> Any recommendation for US credit card with following features: * Virtual credit card # for online purchase. * Secure mobile app that get notifications on all spending immediately. * Any other security features I should consider?

</comment><comment><USER9> In Europe, I was told that they employ a chip-and-PIN strategy. I'm not aware of this being possible in the US. Anyone know?

<comment><USER10> Chip-and-PIN really sucks for consumers, but many US institutions are able to do it if you ask.

<comment><USER11> Citation needed.

Seriously, I can enter my pin far more quickly than the alternative of print -> find flat surface -> sign -> return. And we have contactless for small transactions where you might swipe and not sign, which is again faster. Both of which allow you to verify the amount on screen.

What really sucks for consumers is the ridiculous and completely standard US practice of restaurants/bars returning a slip to sign and add a tip along with the customer's card. This means that without the card and away from view the staff can add an arbitrarily large additional charge to the card at some later point, and the only way to check the actual amount is to write it down a second time and check the statement.

<comment><USER10> >Seriously, I can enter my pin far more quickly than the alternative of print -> find flat surface -> sign -> return.

Now you have to pay attention to the machine for an extended period of time instead of just waiting for someone to hand you a pen and the receipt. Terrible keypads seem to be the norm so it's hardly easy to rapidly enter your pin every time.

As far as finding a flat surface goes, do you not have arms? You literally only need to touch the pen on the paper, nobody cares what your signature looks like.

>And we have contactless for small transactions where you might swipe and not sign, which is again faster.

Yes, we have contactless. I don't see how this is related to chip and pin?

If we're going to go there then ApplePay with fingerprints is obviously the ultimate solution for these payments, which I think just further supports my firm opinion that I shouldn't be required to remember PINs for the two places where ApplePay doesn't work.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Notifications for targeted attacks - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-security/notifications-for-targeted-attacks/10153092994615766 <comment><USER2> This question obviously is unlikely to have an answer, but someone has to ask: does "nation-state" include the Western countries, namely the US/EU and friends?

<comment><USER3> I once received this alert from google, a few months later had a run in with the FBI.

I don't see why any non-Western countries would be interested in me, so yeah.

<comment><USER4> > I once received this alert from google, a few months later had a run in with > the FBI.

Sounds like quite a story; any details you can share?

<comment><USER3> I received the alert around Dec 2012, big red bar at the top of my screen (which interestingly enough caused a reflected XSS vulnerability in gmail) just randomly popped up as I was eating dinner a few days before christmas.

Didn't really think much of it, account logs showed no access from outside of my own IP addresses and analysing all the emails I had received in the past few months found nothing out of place. Leads me to believe (Well, hope.) that the attack was detected and blocked by google.

About 8 months (had to double check that, since it sure felt like less) later I flew over to defcon and the FBI searched my hotel room, seizing my throwaway phone and laptop. On my way out of the country I was again stopped at JFK by a bunch of agents holding a grand jury subpoena.

Ended up being asked a bunch of rather silly questions regarding some ORNL hack(and others) that I couldn't really answer.

Wasn't arrested, got to spend an extra day in the states and flew out.

<comment><USER5> Your email address in your profile would lead me to believe you're Russian, but you speak very fluent and informal American English. Don't suppose you'd admit to being a Fin and having a name of Julius, would you?

Curiosity, that's all.

<comment><USER3> Yep.

<comment><USER6> Using russian email server is smart: out of subpoena powers of all of the Western nations... and FSB, even if they were to spy on you, doesn't really give a damn unless you're trying to undermine Russian Federation.

<comment><USER3> And contacting yandex customer support is significantly easier than trying to get in touch with someone at google capable of unlocking my account.

<comment><USER5> Followed you briefly (news-wise). Fun fact: I once received a call about some credit card information being leaked, and was brought on to figure it out. I'm pretty sure you had something to do with it.

Small, fun little world we live in. I was amazed to learn that you were so young. Hope you stay out of trouble and put your curious brain to good use. :) Don't forget your SOCKS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "we strongly encourage affected people to take the actions necessary to secure all of their online accounts."

This is an important aspect. The affected individual might be using several other services that don't have the sophistication of Facebook's security team. Facebook might have been able to thwart the attack but his/her other online accounts might have been compromised.

</comment><comment><USER7> Why state-sponsored hacking specifically, as opposed to any (likely) unauthorized access?

<comment><USER8> Also, how will sending a new password to your cell phone help? If you are dealing with state sponsored actors, why not assume they can see all text and email?

<comment><USER9> A two-factor authentication token to sent via text, not the actual password.

That said, I find SMS-based 2FA to be pretty dodgy as well. Cloudflare was hacked once by somebody who managed gain access to an admin's mobile phone by social engineering their telco. If a site does not offer TOTP based 2FA I usually don't bother using it.

<comment><USER10> How does TOTP compare to HOTP?

<comment><USER9> HOTP tokens does not expire with time, so there is a bigger risk of them being stolen from transit/storage and successfully used.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Will it disregard National Security Letters to notify users?

<comment><USER12> I doubt it.

This is just propaganda by Facebook showing everyone that it cares about your privacy. Unfortunately, I believe government all around the world are going to have a talk with Facebook about what is acceptable levels of privacy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've been getting regular emails from Facebook saying "sorry you've been having trouble logging in to your account". I haven't been trying to login to my account, I deactivated it years ago. Don't think there is anything I can do about it.

<comment><USER14> You can delete your account. [https://en- gb.facebook.com/help/125338004213029](https://en- gb.facebook.com/help/125338004213029)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is a good move by facebook and does have the potential to save lives, but the fact that they don't provide any details about the attack or the supposed attacker definitely makes it significantly harder for potential victims to act on this information.

Imagine getting a message like this out of the blue, not even knowing who's after you. What are you going to do?

It's hard to fight a faceless enemy, especially when you can't even be sure if they really exist.

<comment><USER15> I wrote a long response to this but decided to simply ask, what can a person do to act on the information, if it were provided?

Protestors in Syria or China could probably already guess what such a message means, so I'm curious as to the amount of information needed for a person to be able to act on it?

<comment><USER3> Protestors in Syria or China aren't the only people getting these.

As Snowden demonstrated there's no lack of westerners being spied on just because they happen to work at a telecom company.

The fact that there's no more information provided makes it far too easy for those people to just ignore these warnings as mistakes and go on with their lives.

<comment><USER15> That's true, but I suppose its a lot easier for Facebook to show warnings when actors like Syria or China are the culprits since they have no requirement to abide by their law. Where as, as Snowden has shown, the US and EU can stipulate whatever policy they want and require that Facebook can not disclose anything about it. I'm just skeptical anyone in the US or EU will see this warning.

<comment><USER3> I've, as a white EU citizen, received similar warnings from google.

I don't know if Facebook is going to be showing this to any western people, but when google showed me their version of the warning there was very little I could do with it since looking through my logs and emails showed no signs of any attempted attacks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Except the USA, of course. :)

<comment><USER16> Yeah, I suspect this wouldn't show up if Facebook received an NSL...

<comment><USER17> Oh? I was hoping that that was one intended use for this. Would such an alert violate the typical terms of an "NSL"?

<comment><USER18> From Wikipedia:

 _NSLs typically contain a nondisclosure requirement, frequently called a ''gag order,'' preventing the recipient of an NSL from disclosing that the FBI had requested the information._

...however:

 _The nondisclosure order must be authorized by the Director of the FBI, and only after he or she certifies "that otherwise there may result a danger to the national security of the United States, interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interference with diplomatic relations, or danger to the life or physical safety of any person._

So it seems this is regulated to some degree, though it is unclear what counts as "interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Imagine if this alert system were too liberal at labeling things "nation- state" and a significant proportion of users saw this notice: I imagine the general populous would be much more concerned about internet security than they are now.

</comment><comment><USER20> Rather than stealing your password so they can log in to your Facebook account, won't these state sponsored hackers just steal the authentication cookie that your browser sends to show that it's been authorized by MFA?

</comment><comment><USER21> Why so many naysayers? I can't see this having any detrimental effects, regardless of how effective it is in practice.

<comment><USER22> People are biased about Facebook for various reasons, including $privacy- issue-of-the-day; no matter what they do they get to be the villan.

That is, unless we're talking about their newest PHP optimizer or ad toolkit.

<comment><USER23> That's no good either, because then they are just giving it to you so they can sure you later and steal your startup due to the PATENTS file.

<comment><USER22> Don't forget to post that the next time there's a Facebook tech thread :).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The comments (on Facebook) are surreal.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is so stupid since they can be forced to give information with no hacking involved...</comment>


The C++ Lands [png] - <AUTHOR> http://softwaremaniacs.org/media/alenacpp/cppmap-2012.png <comment><USER2> Why is boost not in the external libraries?

<comment><USER3> Well, boost is by many considered a de facto extension of the standard library.</comment></comment>


One-hot encoding taught using Pokemon - <AUTHOR> https://www.brainstobytes.com/one-hot-encoding-with-pokemon/ <comment><USER2> You can also use sklearn's OneHotEncoder to do this

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. I am planning on building a tutorial series on sklearn in the future, I'll take this into consideration. Thank you</comment></comment>


TikTok funds top creators to fend off rivals as Trump admin threatens ban - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2020-08-10/trump-tiktok-ban-app-funds-top-creators-to-fend-off-rivals <comment><AUTHOR> Nineteen creators, including six based in Los Angeles, will be the first to receive money from TikTok's $200-million U.S. creator fund, the company announced. TikTok said money will be given to the selected talents in regular payments over the coming year...</comment>


Silicon Valley's Ambivalence Towards Trump Turns to Anger - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/technology/silicon-valleys-ambivalence-toward-trump-turns-to-anger.html <comment><USER2> Personally, I find this "turn to anger" a little hollow/self-serving. Nothing Trump has done so far is in any way out of line with what he was saying on the campaign trail - the only people who are surprised by his actions are the people who took a "he's not being serious, it's just talk" view when evaluating his speeches. I wish SV companies and executives could have had this "turn to anger" back when it mattered and helped avert this when it was easiest to do so - before the election.

<comment><USER3> What was the tech sector supposed to do? Go campaign in Wisconsin for Hillary?

Tech was already shoveling tons of money into her campaign. Bezos-owned Washington Post was about as Anti-Trump as a news organization can be.

<comment><USER4> People in Boulder were making calls to more contested states. Historically these personal calls have had a small but measurable effect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Ambivalence?" All I've been hearing on HN for the past year plus is comparisons to fascism, the Nazis and the Anti-Christ.

That said, at least Mussolini made the trains run on time and the Nazis were pretty efficient, which is more than can be said for the Trump administration's first week...

<comment><USER6> Point of trivia: Mussolini didn't even make the trains run on time.

<comment><USER7> Actually he "did" \-- in quotes because he put out alternative facts -- propaganda -- to that effect.

Little known fact: the original word for the kinds of publicity companies use to grow demand for their product was "propaganda" (propagate the goods, get it?) coined by Edward L Bernays, Freud's nephew and the first formalizer of advertising.[1] After Germany appointed a minister of advertising ("Propaganda"), the industry decided it needed a new name.

Now we have a journalist/propagandist on the National Security Council. Should be interesting. Did you know Alan Kay was on Reagan's? He (Alan) has some hysterical stories of his time on the NSC.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Silicon Valley was too busy inventing the gig economy that has people turning towards trump.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't like Trump's policies any more than anyone else here, but I think that it's wrong for companies to play a role in politics. A company like Google was created by its shareholders with the purpose of making money by providing Internet search services. Taking political positions would subvert the goal for which Google was created.

If some of Google's shareholders want to pursue political goals instead of providing search services, they can take their money out of Google shares and start a PAC. This is precisely the reason why Sergey Brin said that he does not represent Google when he was at the protest at SFO yesterday.

<comment><USER10> So you don't think that companies like Google and Apple should oppose and speak out against unwarranted government surveillance? Their customers and shareholders think that they should.

<comment><USER11> and employees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> All talk no action. This is the definition of 'for show'. If they wanted, the ultra rich valley billionaires and companies could affect real change by leveraging their power.

But these are the same companies and people who tacitly approved of Trump and did nothing to stop his election, or even try to educate people.

I'm looking at Google, who are now trying to woo Republicans !

<comment><USER13> It's not uncommon by any means for companies to support both parties. I haven't been reading the details on the "Google wooing Republicans" topic, though I wouldn't be surprised if Google hasn't been supporting Republican officials, at least in a quieter manner, for a long time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> My post is about outrage combined with navel gazing, and perpetuation of human rights issues.

I have a serious question. While I am personally against a ban on immigration of the kind Trump is doing, 6 out of the 7 countries targeted - all except Somalia - have a permanent ban on Israelis. Not a 4 month ban "until they figure out" some aggressive vetting processes, and make themselves look like they kept a promise to their constituents. A permanent ban.

By the logic of "this is a ban on Muslims", that is a "ban on Jews".

My question is - where was the outrage all those years? Seriously think about it.

Chomsky (who I have met and later email-debated with extensively) says criticizing other countries is like criticizing the 19th century, and your duty is criticizing the crimes of your own, because you can do the most there. While I agree with that duty, I think it misses one crucial piece.

People from progressive and developed countries tend to "let things go" when other countries violate human rights because they are so far outside their local political reality. They end up navel gazing at their own sins, with dangerous consequences.

For example, feminists today in the USA spend much more energy on making sure default social network avatars are gender-neutral than they do on stopping human trafficking, honor killings and rape culture in patriarchal tribal / caste societies in _other_ countries. That's what I mean by navel gazing.

Angel Merkel and EU bureaucrats let millions of Syrian refugees into Europe while not requiring Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states to even sign the UN convention on the rights of the refugee. These people speak Arabic but go to a country where their language and customs are out of place and retard their contributions to society. And why? Navel gazing.

Similarly Jews often help exacerbate criticism of Israel by failng to require people to apply the same standards to other countries. Care about the rights of refugees? Great. Let's have a solution that all the countries of the region implement: giving citizenship to those who were born in the country. Then after couple generations Palestinian refugees etc. would have long stopped being refugees. By having Israel alone give citizenship and a right of return, you practically force eg all Lebanese of Palestinian descent to try and flood Israel.

Instead, their pride in their country's achievements makes them acquiesce with those who use the words "Social Justice" to advocate a kind of double standard Marxist view that everything is a zero-sum game and there must be losers. Zionists must lose. White people must apologize and pay reparations. But these double standard Social Justice never lead to anything except perpetuation of misery for those that have to live without rights.

My point here is that pride in exceptionalism leads to complacency. We should have cared when these countries (and other Islamic countries) banned Israelis from entering. But we were focused too much on our Western world.

</comment><comment><USER15> Silicon Valley tech billionaires who will be un-impacted personally by migration, complain when they no longer have a cheap source of labour.

The Valley isn't going to be hosting migrants and they aren't going to be competing against unskilled migrant labour.

Why is it walls are just fine around LAs mansion estates and in closed gated communities, but as soon as the general populace wants them they become bad?

<comment><USER16> I'm so tired of seeing all the blog posts and comments that think our problems are due to Trump and Republicans instead of taking a look at our own "progressive" party. Sure, Trump and the GOP are fucked up, but so are the Dems and the tech community seemed perfectly fine fawning over our "tech president" when he was bailing out the billionaires, expanding state surveillance powers, and ordering the murder of thousands with drones.

Whenever I mention how the corporate Dems have been selling us out for years and we need to light a fire under their ass to work for our interests, I'm immediately ostracized from my fellow "progressives."

<comment><USER17> The biggest thing against Hillary, geopolitically, was her hawkishness and the posture against a nuclear Russia. Obama-Putin was very rocky. Hillary-Putin would have been an abysmal and possibly dangerous relationship.

Avoiding a hot war in Eastern Europe is worth the people affected by the new immigration bans.

<comment><USER18> In the past there was also people willing to deal with Germany when it tried to invade parts of Czechoslovakia. We can see how it was successful.[0]

I am in favor of peace as it is the best state for humanity to strive. But to maintain peace, we must have a good strategy, not a call to people like Putin such as "Please do anything you like".

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

<comment><USER17> It's about striking a balance and it looks like some of Putin's actions were due to his thinking he was "provoked" by Nato expansion into his backyard and his being an authoritarian could not allow himself to look like a supplicant or submissive to Us action in the area so he goes about and dusts things up a bit.

I think Obama and his advisers sorely missed someone like a Condoleezza or a Cohen, etc. people who would give him some good insight into Putin's thinking and why he acts the way he does.

I mean, at the end of the Obama presidency US-Russia relations were hotting up beyond my comfort.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hacking Elixir's Syntax - <AUTHOR> http://blog.heldscal.la/elixir-hacking.html <comment><USER2> This blog touches on why Elixir is doing so well-- it's easy to extend and add to the language, pull requests are welcome and (most of the time, anyway) the Jose appreciates and integrates additions to the language. (He once rejected something that I disagree with, but on the balance he's doing a righteous job.)

In fact, it's the only language I've contributed to. In large part because the bar is so low and the process is so reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER3> What a beautiful solution. Glad to see how simple things like this can be done!

</comment><comment><USER4> lovely, I had a similar experience pushing a PR rewriting the tokenizer to include column info

</comment><comment><USER5> Why not just write it in hexadecimal?

<comment><USER6> Sometimes you are dealing with fields that are packed into a 32-bit (or 8- or 16- or 64-bit) word where one field is bits 0 through 5 and another field is bits 6 through 9 and a status bit in bit 10 and another field is bits 11 through 31. Thinking about those in hex is much harder than if they were all nice multiples of 4 bits in size. Yes, C programmers have been dealing with this for decades (no binary literals in C), but wouldn't it be nice to write each of those fields in binary (with underscores separating them) and let the machine do the rest?</comment></comment>


Liu Cixin, China's hottest science-fiction writer - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/08/08/why-you-should-be-reading-liu-cixin-chinas-hottest-science-fiction-writer <comment><USER3> Warning, spoilers below.

I recently finished the first book of the "The Tree Body Problem" series (the second one will be translated to English soon) and I really enjoyed the beginning and middle part of it, which are packed with interesting scientific ideas and an intricate and captivating plot. Towards the end the book tends to become a lot more unrealistic and even a bit "cheesy" though. An example would be the hyper-dimensional computers that the Trisolarians send to Earth to hinder our scientific progress. Still, it is a very good read and packed with fascinating ideas that will make you think.

Another example of very good contemporary science fiction is Ramez Naam's "Nexus Arc" series of books, which I actually liked much better than the Three-Body Problem, and which are a bit more plausible and realistic as well.

<comment><USER4> "The Three Body Problem" is a nice book, but far from great. However, the 2nd instalment, "The Dark Forest" is going to blow your mind. It's the best sci-fi book ever written in Chinese, and IMHO the best since Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. I have long doubted if any Chinese could write a great Sci- fi. It's such a pleasure proven to be wrong!

<comment><USER5> Would one enjoy the second book without reading the first?

<comment><USER4> Yes. I read the first one after finished the second.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One interesting thought:

"... there are many civilizations in the universe, they all want to survive, and there is only so much space out there. Follow the logic through, and it's clear that every civilization must regard every other civilization as an existential threat, leaving attack on sight as the only safe strategy. All that keeps technologically inferior civilizations safe is the ignorance of others about their existence."

"And here is humanity firing messages into space, building bonfires and standing beside them screaming, "Here I am! Here I am!"

<comment><USER7> This assumes every other civilization thinks like humanity does. While there may be many that do, there may be many that don't. And it seems that humanity's progress points towards a direction where people are much more peaceful than they are now, simply because the resource allocation problem might be solved with technology. And it also makes sense to assume that civilizations that don't move towards more peaceful existences would end up killing themselves given that technological progress usually gives individuals more power to be destructive.

So another interesting thought is that if there are civilizations out there who are more advanced than us, it's likely that they are by default peaceful and not aggressive, because if they were aggressive they would have stopped existing due to escalating internal conflicts aided by advanced technology.

<comment> V-2 @adnzzzzZ obviously we have no way of knowing, but for argument's sake, I believe for every assumption you make there's an equally compelling rebuttal.

"This assumes every other civilization thinks like humanity does"

Survival of the fittest is a fact of life, and whatever mindset one has about it may be irrelevant.

As game theory proves, the majority, or even all players may dislike the game, but they have to play it all the same.

"the resource allocation problem might be solved with technology"

Perhaps there are resource allocation problems that can't, eg. the scarcity of habitable planets.

"it's likely that they are by default peaceful and not aggressive, because if they were aggressive they would have stopped existing due to escalating internal conflicts aided by advanced technology"

Or it could be a bell curve with a self-destructing "war of all against all" on one side, "peaceful but defenseless monks" on another, and the middle-of- the-road compromise of "disciplined legions where backstabbing is forbidden" being best fitted for survival, preying on less efficient civilizations from both ends of the spectrum alike.

<comment><USER8> Scarcity of habitable planets is absolutely solvable with technology - <USER2> ships, stations etc. Sufficiently advanced technology may also allow people to switch to more efficient bodies, or upload their consciousness to computers, or simply different forms designed for 'uninhabitable' worlds, or space itself.

<comment><USER9> One series (that I'll leave unnamed to not spoil anything) suggests that the limiting factor isn't habitable planets, but wars ended up being fought over limited availability of metal in the universe. You can build your own space ships and stations, but eventually the raw materials have to run out no matter what you're making.

There are of course other limits that may or may not be solvable, like most of that metal being stuck in relatively deep gravity wells. But it's still an interesting thought.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't think this book deserves that much hype. I have mostly read it (hasn't quite finished the last chapter) but really didn't think much about it.

</comment><comment><USER11> SPOILERS - don't read unless you've read the book:

I read the book earlier this year and I loved it. One thing I had been thinking about though was the carbon nanotube wire and the ship.

Single-atom-thick wires used as knives have shown up in science-fiction before. In Ringworld, for example, a character is decapitated when they run into a nano-wire strung across a path.

In The Three Body Problem, I don't think you could ever 'cut' metal like that with carbon nanotubes - you'd have to overcome the cumulative bonding energies of all of those iron atoms in the ship and I doubt even the ship's engines running at full blast could push hard enough to do that. And that's assuming that a string of nanotubes has the strength to resist all of that tension. Apparently carbon nanotubes can resist about 100000N of tensile force (about a 10000kg weight in earth's gravity), so perhaps it wouldn't break - but I doubt that the metal in the ship would cleave, either.

Is there anyone who knows more about chemistry/solid state physics/materials science to comment?

</comment><comment><USER12> The description of the plot strongly reminds me of relationship of china with the industrialized nations in the 19th century - huge technology gap and threat of effective colonization from 'alien' barbarians. Is it popular because it's inspired by a historic national trauma or because it's actually good?

<comment><USER13> The science fiction genre is often so much about ideas that the difference becomes moot.

For example, Robert Heinlein's books are hardly "actually good" in any sense understood by conventional literal criticism, but they certainly have made a lasting impression by extrapolating upon some very American political ideas and national archetypes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm pretty sure that if we faced an alien invasion in 400 years we'd spend the first ~350 of those doing absolutely nothing about it. After all, everyone we know will be dead long before that happens, so what's the point? Most people would probably just ignore it.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm surprised they didn't mention his translator, Ken Liu (no relation), who recently published a very entertaining fantasy epic of his own, The Grace of Kings.

</comment><comment><USER16> Warning this review is quite spoloilery on his books.

What I found most interesting with the first novel 'The Three-Body Problem' was it to me shows an immature view to science by the Chinese.

This is assuming I'm guessing correctly how this book sits with the public and scientific community there. Maybe it's not considered Sci-Fi in China. I'm not saying it's pulp either.

An interesting and entertaining read anyway.

<comment><USER17> This is absurd. How could you judge view to science by just a fiction? Do you consider star wars as a mature view to science?

<comment><USER18> Star Wars was not vetted by any government officials for its ideological purity before publication, is the difference. Anything that is published in China, by definition _is_ representative of the opinions of the Party.

<comment><USER19> It doesn't work that way.

For example, from [http://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-Censorship- China-A...](http://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-Censorship-China-Allows- Government-Criticism-Silences-Collective-Expression)

"Contrary to previous understandings, posts with negative, even vitriolic, criticism of the state, its leaders, and its policies are not more likely to be censored. Instead, we show that the censorship program is aimed at curtailing collective action by silencing comments that represent, reinforce, or spur social mobilization, regardless of content."

<comment><USER20> In the last month, off the top of my head:

* Mass arrests of human rights attorneys and dissidents: [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/world/asia/china-arrests-h...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/world/asia/china-arrests-human-rights-lawyers-zhou-shifeng.html)

* Online political dissent shut down: [http://www.afr.com/technology/social-media/how-china-stopped...](http://www.afr.com/technology/social-media/how-china-stopped-its-bloggers-20150701-gi34za)

<comment><USER19> No one is saying that there is no censorship or repression, but rather it works differently than most people think it does. Though I will concede that the paper is quite a few years out of date.

The point I was trying to make is that, a sweeping statement such as "Anything that is published in China, by definition is representative of the opinions of the Party.", simply isn't true.

It is not even true for the mainstream media, nevermind a work of fiction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is actually a great book. I read it a few months ago and can't wait for the release of the sequel.

</comment><comment> FLUX-YOU >A high-ranking U.S. official thinks that suicide tactics might be effective against the Trisolarans. He visits the leader of al-Qaeda to propose an alliance, but the terrorist boss tells him that his organization has renounced violence and is lost in ennui.

al-Qaeda™, Suicide Consultants

</comment><comment><USER22> Or, maybe this planet (Earth) is another planet's hell.

</comment><comment><USER23> Washington Post is now a flagrant Amazon marketing machine.

I'm calling it now. Facebook buys the NY Times.

See you later journalism.

<comment><USER24> Not sure what you're talking about, I didn't see a single amazon link in the article. They even link to google books instead.

<comment><USER23> Bezos owns the Washington Post. Bezos owns the biggest book seller in the world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "... the Trisolarans, are en route with a giant fleet of warships. It will take them 400 years to reach Earth, leaving our panic-stricken species in a state of fevered war preparation. From afar, the Trisolarans incapacitate our scientific research and monitor our communications. We can't bridge the gap in technology, and the second we discuss anything, the enemy knows all about it ... "

Sounds like the author is tapping into the fear of being invaded by USA? with the NSA listening in on everything? and preparations for an inevitable war having to be made

I will pick up this book to read once I can find it on shelves, sounds like good sci-fi albeit its obvious who the "Trisolarans" are meant to be ;)

<comment><USER26> Yep, it's all about the US. Everything, everywhere is all about Americans.

<comment><USER25> So be cause you disagree with my theory you have to go down-voting me?

sci-fi is often based on current geopolitical fears, just look at Battlestar Galactica reboot few years back reflecting on the wars in the middle east.

<comment><USER26> > you have to go down-voting me

First off, stop whining about downvotes. Second, I don't downvote anyone.

> sci-fi is often based on current geopolitical fears

And you provide no proof of your ideas other than it must be based on the US.

Lets assume it MUST be beasd on current events, and not the fact that nations have used espinage to monitor and sabotage other nations progress since there was a second nation to spy on. Why does it have to be the American's this is based on? The British spy. The Canadians spy. The French are well known practitioners of industrial espionage. The Russians spy. North Korea spys. The Chineese government themselves spy. If this has to be based on current events, why could this not be looking at Chineese spying from the other side?

But no, it MUST be based on the Americans. Everything is about America. There is nothing else to write about.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Joys of Pi: Test Server and Monitor Host for the Startup Developer - <AUTHOR> https://www.authorea.com/20746-joys-of-pi-test-server-and-monitor-host-for-the-startup-developer

<comment><AUTHOR> Why would anyone want to use a Pi when they can run a test server in the cloud instead?</comment>


Molecule of the Month - <AUTHOR> http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/motm.htm <comment><USER2> It used to be really hard to find free chemical information online. I remember this site was one of the few back in the 90s that had anything on the topic.

Chemistry was dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Internet Age. The field is still a laggard. As evidence, consider the aversion of chemists as a group to preprint servers and their over-reliance on paywalled journals with hypervigilant exclusivity policies.

Glad to see Molecule of the Month hasn't changed style in many years.

<comment><USER3> What information are you trying to find?

<comment><USER4> Spectra, rate constants / energy measurements, that sort of thing. Even simple CRC fare doesn't have good representation in public databases.

<comment><USER5> [https://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/](https://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/) is pretty good and, for some reason, always hard for me to find again when I need it. This time I'll just bookmark it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I know of another site doing a Molecule of the Month articles[1] that I currently have in my RSS rotation.

As an aside, I wholeheartedly recommend the book "The Machinery of Life"[2] by David Goodsell, the author of that site. The illustrations in the book have the same style as the site I linked, and have the important feature, IMO, of having a consistent scale[3] throughout the book, which helps put a lot of the molecules in a more understandable context.

[1] [https://pdb101.rcsb.org/motm](https://pdb101.rcsb.org/motm)

[2] [http://mgl.scripps.edu/people/goodsell/books/MoL2-preview.ht...](http://mgl.scripps.edu/people/goodsell/books/MoL2-preview.html)

[3] IIRC it was two distinct scales, but still, it was a nice touch

</comment><comment><USER7> I would like to mention [https://pqr.pitt.edu](https://pqr.pitt.edu), where you can play around with molecules with your fingertips and get specific data about them!

Note: I helped develop PQR.

<comment><USER8> Wow, those are very nice, informative and pretty fast 3D visualizations!!! Just a small bug(or a feature), when you are viewing a molecule and remove the surface you can't switch it back on (from Safari on iPad).

<comment><USER7> Can't take credit for the 3D visualizations! That's all 3Dmol.js ([https://github.com/3dmol/3Dmol.js](https://github.com/3dmol/3Dmol.js)). Fantastic work overall out of the University of Pittsburgh!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> [http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/?s=things+I+won%27t+wor...](http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/?s=things+I+won%27t+work+with) is brilliant.

</comment><comment><USER10> Thanks for sharing this! Can't wait to show my son who has just recently taken to memorizing the periodic table and has found joy in learning about different molecules and compounds!

</comment><comment><USER11> Excellent reading. However I must note that the page for ethylene glycol appears to lead with a photo of windshield washer fluid (ammonia / alcohol / soap), not coolant.

<comment><USER12> Ethylene glycol is used in windshield washer fluid in cold climates, up to 5% concentration, as it helps de-ice windshields.</comment></comment>


AMA: Jesse Noller - jam-python https://community.rackspace.com/developers/f/7/t/944 <comment><USER2> Wow, that might be the absolute worst format for an AMA I've seen.

Flat discussion boards for what is a nested method of communication makes this almost impossible to follow.

How does one easily see the answer to a question if its not in a nested, or other attached, form?

It seems like you'd have to read the entire thread to see if a question has been asked.

I really wish they had put some thought into this before they started as this could be much more useful with just some basic changes.

</rant>

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I know it's their PR event so their format, but reddit is really perfect for these, why not use it?

<comment><USER4> I just respond to questions! I do miss threading and the layout and upvoting - I'm happy to answer questions here, there, reddit anywhere.

Jesse

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Site doesn't load for me. Maybe they should have put it in the cl--oh wait.

<comment><USER4> That's just cold man ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So yes, I'm the Jesse in the OP: ask me literally anything you want here or there and I'll take the time to answer you. Private questions? email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER6> Hi Jesse, I'm glad you're doing this. I love seeing the great people Rackspace is hiring and I'm excited about the improvements you could bring about.

I work for a Python shop that hosts everything on Rackspace. We have a mix of both dedicated servers and cloud servers, and we use cloud load balancers and Cloudfiles.

Here is my experience I had with Rackspace Cloudfiles and Python.

I started using a library I found on Rackspace's github, called python- cloudfiles (I contributed back some bugfixes to the library as well). One day, the project suddenly, without warning, disappeared from github! Where did it go! What happened? All my deploys are broken! Well, it turned out that it had been moved to another github account (rackerlabs) and support had been dropped, and it will be removed completely in August! I had to open a support ticket to figure out where it went. I wish there had been better communication here.

OK, so I started looking at Pyrax, which is the recommended replacement library (I think?). Looks pretty good, except it requires Python 2.7, and Rackspace only supports Centos6 (at least for dedicated servers), which has no official package for Python 2.7 (2.6 only). I could create a custom package to upgrade Python, but I find it kind of strange that Rackspace is providing a library that I can't run on their servers without adding custom packages.

Also, I noticed you recently added a commit to the python-cloudfiles package pointing to python-swiftclient. Is this an alternative to Pyrax? Can I use any of the openstack tools with Rackspace Cloud Servers / Cloud files? If so, should I build my apps on the openstack tools or on Pyrax?

Anyway, I hope you can clear some of this up.

<comment><USER4> So, I won't repeat what Ed said - the tl;dr is that pyrax should support Python 2.6, and your point about dedicated servers only supporting CentOS6 is something we need to consider.

As for the rest - yes. The communications and deprecation of python-cloudfiles was poorly handled. The crux of what happened is that python-cloudfiles was a part time project and ultimately superseded by the python-swiftclient work in OpenStack.

We have requirements that for an SDK / tool to be officially supported, we have dedicated full time headcount to support and maintain the package(s) - the decision was made to proceed with Pyrax which leverages python-swiftclient and other openstack tools under the covers as the official Python SDK for Rackspace.

This was not made clear to the users, or the community by any parties involved, and for that I apologize. We're continually working on better upstream communication/collaboration and this series of events (you're not the first to give us this feedback) has made us take a very hard look internally on how this is all managed and communicated.

The good news is that Ed - our current Pyrax SDK maintainer is full time and dedicated to working with you and others on pyrax - this means the Python 2.6 support will be taken care of.

Tangentially: Yes - python-novaclient and python-swiftclient from OpenStack will work on Rackspace Cloud - you can actually look at the Pyrax source to see that it uses these under the covers. Rackspace runs OpenStack with as few differences as possible so OpenStack tools should work great on Rackspace.

So, in short: I apologize. The communications and management of this to upstream (the community) were poor, and we are renewing all of our efforts to focus on upstream first.

Jesse

<comment><USER6> Thanks for the classy response! I'm excited that you have a paid maintainer for Pyrax and are willing to consider python 2.6 support. Things are looking good for the future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Jesse

I may not be able to phrase this correctly:

I _think_ I am searching for simplicity in my own software, and tend to believe that there is too much "stuff" in most (web) frameworks. Am i just getting old and grouchy or do frameworks tend to simply get bigger without growing in expressiveness.?

I am toying with writing web software as WSGI and very little else. Have I lost the plot?

Hope that makes sense?

<comment><USER4> You haven't lost the plot.

Sooner or later in any programmers life you're going to reach a point where it seems / feels easier to start with less. You start reaching for tools that feel more like the unix way - they do one thing very well, and allow you greater compose-ability and flexibility.

On the other hand, I have to fight this urge: because much like Python - <AUTHOR> language that comes with community included, you sort of don't want to be the one person using something, or understanding what you did.

Your best bet is to find something that provides the simplicity you find yourself looking for, but that still has the greater community support you and others can lean on, and existing domain knowledge.

For example - let's say you want to go with a micro framework: look at bottle, web.py and my favorite: Flask. The nice thing with Flask for example is it stays out of my way, still has a ton of plugins (so, for example, I don't have to write my own damned Oauth system) and a vibrant community.

That ache in your gut is looking for things that get rid of boilerplate and get out of your way to just write awesome stuff. If you don't feel like the bigger frameworks like django (which I love for larger projects) get out of your way enough: don't drop down to raw WSGI, go spend some time with something smaller!

<comment><USER7> Thank you.

I am actually using Flask almost all the time, but I guess I need to find the community, and stick with the conventions. The smaller stuff will be the hobby. :-)

cheers

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Jesse, any idea when I'm going to be able to download my backups from Rackspace cloud servers and instantly/directly load them into either VMWare or Virtualbox? I asked about this a while ago and was told it was coming with the move to OpenStack.

<comment><USER4> So, I spoke to the product team and they told me that this is still in the pipeline and part of the plan. The team is pretty heads down focused on scalability, performance and other key items - so yes, this is still coming, and hopefully sooner rather than later.

Sorry I can't give you a specific date, but I don't want to set unreasonable expectations.

<comment><USER8> No worries. Thanks for the info!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is there a timeline on otter/autoscale in the public api?

<comment><USER10> Hi, I'm the Technical Product Manager for autoscale/otter. Next week we're doing a limited release to customers who replied to this survey: [https://www.rackspace.com/blog/autoscale-survey-tell-us- what...](https://www.rackspace.com/blog/autoscale-survey-tell-us-what-you- want/)

We're really excited to have people start using the Rackspace autoscale API, and already have environments setup in DCs around the world. At the same time, we are testing the heck out of it to make sure it'll be able to handle Superbowl size scale events.

If you have any questions, contact me firstname.lastname@example.com</comment></comment>