5-MeO-DMT Associated with Improvements in Depression, Anxiety - <AUTHOR> https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/fast-acting-psychedelic-associated-with-improvements-in-depressionanxiety <comment><USER2> I've taken psychedelics a few times. Sometimes, it's just been mild and giggling at colors and nature. Pleasant, but just kind of a fun drug. Sometimes it's been just extremely confusing and not at all fun, to the extent that I'd forget my own name or what I've taken and basically just all memories. It's very frustrating to be in that state, constantly trying not to fly away but not able to ground yourself. It's a little disturbing, but not horrific.

Sometimes though, it's been a truly beautiful, enlightening experience. I still think of it sometimes. It's very difficult to really explain in words, but it feels like kind of extreme empathy with all life. Buddhists would call it going egoless. I just felt very at peace: we all live, we all die, and it's all okay. I'm not particularly religious or spiritual at all but that experience really changed me a bit, I still think of it. It feels like a shortcut to enlightenment that usually takes a lifetime of meditation, albeit short-lasting. To really get it permanently, you probably have to meditate a lot. It was amazing. It feels like life is in all these different forms, and you just happen to be one variation of it, but you could easily be any other living thing, so you just feel love and empathy for all life. And you know it's finite and you're not afraid of death. I would still attempt to avoid death, but I was just at peace with it if it was inevitable.

I think it's a shame psychedelics get put in the same category as other drugs in the law and in people's heads. It's not at all the same as heroin, meth, cocaine. Not at all. I think on balance they should probably be legal, but I can easily imagine someone with mental illness struggling with mushrooms so I'm glad John Hopkins is doing these studies. It does seem like the therapeutic affects are long-lasting, and it's not like you can overdose on them. The worst that can happen is you do something stupid while on them. However if the dose is so strong, you probably wouldn't be able to move much anyway.

Edit: a lot of replies to this post seem to talk about LSD. I was actually talking about mushrooms. I've only taken LSD once. Maybe the distinction matters.

<comment><USER3> I'm a little skeptical of the claim that you can't overdose on them (overdose in the sense of using them too much, not lethal overdose). Anecdotally I had a friend in high school who was a brilliant programmer and started using LSD and other psychedelics.

He started posting tons of strange, nonsensical pseudo-spiritual ramblings on facebook and after a few years of this, it became clear he wasn't even the same person anymore - the drugs permanently changed him.

To be fair I don't know if he was using other drugs in conjunction with psychedelics but my (possibly ignorant) gut feeling is to be wary of implications of harmlessness when it comes to any drug.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. I think HN in general is too quick to dismiss the potential dangers of psychedelics. I know at least a couple people who have essentially lost their minds as a result of frequent psychedelic use. It's pretty terrifying to see someone slowly become more paranoid delusional and incoherent when they once were an intelligent and charismatic friend.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. I had a friend in high-school who was very smart, 2-years ahead in math, well-spoken and thoughtful.

After some amount of different hallucinogens he became lastingly weird. He would start saying things about "divine geometry" and "seeing yellow auras" when he closed his eyes and became a big believer in all sorts of supernatural (e.g. horoscopes)

He did come back to something not too far from normalcy maybe 8 years later, last time I heard from him.

<comment><USER6> It's true that these substances can change you. But then it is worth asking, who are _you_? And is that anything worth holding on to? And what is normalcy, and what exactly is that worth?

<comment> apk-d I feel like you're trying to derail the discussion by asking random, seemingly unanswerable questions.

Normality is a broad but pretty well-researched subject and i think it's safe to say, belief in horoscopes and other unsubstantiated supernatural phenomena ain't it.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_(behavior)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_\(behavior\))

<comment><USER7> To say that psychedellics cause a deviation from normalcy would be correct. But if you're making that out to be a problem, than you have to support why normalcy is good and deviation from that is bad.

<comment><USER5> Totally fair. We shouldn't just assume that "weirdness" is bad because there's a social norm against it.

But I for one feel everybody around me finds "weirdness" unbecoming. I find it to be an inescapable reality that people will care about you less and not want to get you for any manner of tiny deviation (e.g. as an extreme example, just if you said "beep" outloud every 10 minutes this would be reason enough for I think half of the population or more to not want to associate with you)

In my friends case though, I think what scared me the most was he became very unclear/metaphorical in speaking about even basic topics and didn't seem to realize how much trouble people had understanding him.

<comment><USER8> Sounds like a person in the grip of a big idea, wrapped up in their own thinking. That can be a pain to deal with but it tends to be self-correcting. If someone stops communicating with people effectively, others will withdraw, and that isolation eventually causes pain. Eventually the person who's off in their head will start to notice their needs are not being met, and as they search for a way to return to earth to get what they need, they'll have to do the work themselves to understand others and present their new ideas in a coherent and sensible way. Pulling away from a friend who's talking nonsense can sometimes be the most loving thing to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Another fast-acting psychedelic is Salvia Divinorum. Salvinorin-A is a one-of- a-kind compound, different from all the other known psychedelic/entheogens both for its structure (which allowed it to stay legal for longer) as well as for its "dysphoric" effect. The experience can be as intense as something like this can be. Completely dissociative, and scary as well.

Despite all of this though, I can't overstate the beneficial effects that a dozen of experiences spread across a decade had on me. From a grumpy loner, to a compassionate human being who can't get angry anymore (and no, I'm not apathic), the absolutely REAL experience of losing all of this, made me pretty much fall in love with life, and at the same time made me more light-hearted with it. It's hard to explain, but once you experience something as real as the only real thing you thought there was (life), you start questioning it quite a lot and to take it a bit less seriously.

Maybe I simply grew up. But when I think of this change, these experiences are the first thing that comes to mind.

Please be responsible and careful with these experiences. You don't want to waste a good opportunity for growth.

<comment><USER10> Really odd to see you promoting Salvia, one of the psychedelics with the worst (and deserved) reputations imaginable. I know you give you passing warning of it being "scary as hell", but that's probably not a strong enough of a warning.

[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yvqkvb/why-is-salvia- so-u...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yvqkvb/why-is-salvia-so-uniquely- terrifying-1015)

<comment><USER11> I don't know, I always found it to be an interesting experience too. The effects are very much unlike other psychedelics indeed and I can see how they can be terrifying for some - it might feel as if your body is being controlled by another entity and you are just an observer, watching.

The shift in perception can be pretty dramatic too!

This is probably depending on the dose. I've never tried more than 20x extract mixed with leaves. There are much stronger concentrate, I can see how those would be terrifying if you didn't know what to expect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > This questionnaire included a series of questions about whether respondents > had a specific psychiatric condition, including depression or anxiety > (categorical response options: yes, no, unsure), and whether their > conditions had changed (categorical response options: better, stayed the > same, worsened) after 5-MeO-DMT use.

This is a self-reported study. Asking whether a substance or drug improved someone condition will often result in positive answers, whether or not it was therapeutically useful.

In the sample, more than 90% of individuals had already used 5-MeO-DMT, 41% had depression, 48% with anxiety. 79% reported that "their anxiety was better following 5-MeO-DMT use". This is indeed not a balanced sample, and self- reports provide very weak results compared to a proper double-blind study. While doing a double-blind study on such substances might be challenging, there are definitely tools and environments that can help correctly measure the true effect of a substance on depression on anxiety.

I don't see how this study proves anything.

</comment><comment><USER13> 5-Meo-DMT, the non-psychedelic psychedelic. Void of visuals, full of infinity.

Even before your head hits the pillow, already, you know. No time for, "am I ready?", only, "there's no going back". It's not a stretch to call it the the king of psychedelics.

p.s. depending on nothing, isn't that the ultimate way? While it may be interesting to immediately encounter the "truth", a painting of a rice cake doesn't satisfy hunger (paraphrasing, iirc, Eihei Dogen).

</comment><comment><USER14> As soon as I can I will invest all my money in companies productizing therapeutic psychedelics...

<comment><USER15> It's sure to be a money loser compared to other addictive psychiatric drugs which are taken daily as a maintenance to the problem. Drugs like DMT should only be taken once in a blue moon, are not addictive, and are extremely cheap to produce.

<comment><USER16> Which psychiatric drug is addictive ?

<comment><USER17> My guess is that they're referring to the part where you can't just stop taking them cold turkey without a spectrum of bad things happening to you. It's a slow slow taper process.

<comment><USER16> That's not addicting. And kinda makes sense to tapper off (with many types of drugs).

<comment><USER17> No, I agree. I think "physical dependence" would be a much better word. People don't keep taking Zoloft because they want the next hit.

<comment><USER18> Funny you say this, because I moved, I've been out of my SNRI, and only took two in the last seven days. Last night I felt like a drug addict, I _need_ to take it or I'll have withdrawals.

The sucky part is the withdrawals won't go away for several days at least....

<comment><USER16> If it's an instant-release, you can lower the dose little by little.

<comment><USER18> I mean more so that now that I'm back on my medicine, it's going to be a bit before I'm back at it's full effect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have a friend who experienced 5-MeO-DMT in this fashion three times. In each case he reported that it was a powerfully overwhelming ecstatic experience; it felt like contact with the divine. A key feature of the experience was that his ability to control the trip was completely overwhelmed; it is an experience of surrender. His depression improved because he gained a temporary perspective on the world which was utterly suffused with love and light; after it faded, he still remembered what it had felt like, and knowing that it was possible to see the same world in such different ways based on nothing but a chemical state change in the brain has made it possible for him to stop taking his own current state of mind so seriously. It is just one of many possible ways of experiencing the world, after all.

<comment><USER19> I think he experienced a form of "ego death". My understanding is that it works on varying levels for some but not all.

Thanks for sharing and I'm glad to hear it's worked so well for him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Did the study clarify whether the effects were long-lasting, or were the psychedelic drugs simply a momentary distraction?

<comment><USER21> From my experience, especially with psilocybin (shrooms), the main benefit is not hallocinogenic at all (at a ~2g or so dose) but that it has the effect of basically _forcing_ you to confront all the emotional pain that you bury and ignore. I always end up laugh-crying and experiencing revelations about myself, my relationship etc that I simply don't have otherwise. I can see how effective it can be when taken while in therapy because you basically force yourself to open up. It's a truth serum, of sorts.

I have not tried DMT but my understanding of ayahuasca (active ingredient is DMT) retreats in places like Peru is that it's like "10 years of therapy in a week."

<comment><USER22> Your first paragraph is exactly how I describe it to people. I'm a big proponent of LSD, but only to those that I think are intelligent enough to make a considered choice[1], and always with caveat that it involves a temporary lapse in your ability to shove things down into your subconscious that you'd rather not deal with. The implication is that if you feel like you're not currently ready to throw open that door and take an honest look at your issues, then it's likely not yet for you.

[1] I know this is unavoidably derisive, but I mean this in the most mundane way possible. Some people I know can read the literature & integrate other sources of data (including anecdotal data and cautious experimentation) and come out with a best-effort understanding of the science that's far superior to the blunter recommendations and laws that are the start and end of most people's investigations. The latter play an important role, since most people just don't have the critical thinking or epistemological skills to integrate a big messy pile of data saying contradictory things with different types and quality of source. This goes for everything from psychedelics to nutrition to interpreting your blood test results.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > Righteous outrage isn't just an addictive drug, it's a hallucinogen. - > Elijah William Eby

Although equating outrage with a drug is a metaphor it seems to me to be a strong one. No doubt its effects are mediated by neurotransmitters as are directly chemical hallucinogens. Yet outrage seems to generally enhance depression and anxiety.

Maybe that's because hallucinations caused by outrage feel more like simple perceptions of reality, and it's depressing that reality is so outrageous. Whereas chemically induced hallucinations can more easily be discounted.

</comment><comment><USER24> This is an interesting survey result, but given that 5-MeO-DMT can cause sudden cardiac arrest I doubt this will ever go to clinical trials.

<comment><USER25> Citation? Curious also how this compares to other classes of medications.

<comment><USER24> James Oroc talks about it in his book / interviews. There are a couple churches that use 5-MeO-DMT as a sacrament, but I think they have a defibrillator and someone with medical training on hand. I don't think it's excessively dangerous if you have good cardiovascular fitness and are able to accurately dose it, but it's still substantially more dangerous than something like DMT.

There is/was a church called Temple of Awakening Divinity (TOAD), and there are some interviews with the founder online.

<comment><USER26> What churches use this? As an (open minded) atheist it annoys me that religious groups get privileges over the rest of us, (when most of the time these religions seems to amount to a lack of critical thinking and objectivity).

I would be interested in trying something like this, but the likely means would seem to be likely criminal and unsupervised.

(Saying that I live in Spain and have seen some something like "bufo" toad stuff advertised alongside ayahuasca in retreats with a bit of new age crap thrown in for good measure. As an open minded atheist I would like to experience something like that without any belief based religious stuff attached). In my own country it would most definitely be illegal.

<comment><USER25> Santo Daime is one I know of. High probability if you live in a large population centre there will be one or more Daime churches in your area. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santo_Daime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santo_Daime)

As far as I know most places use conditional licences that must be renewed every 2 years, it's in part to make sure those practicing are good and safe stewards/leaders.

Native American groups also have the right in different places, where the general population doesn't.

You can attend Santo Daime works without being religious, and as a guest to the church.

When thinking about religion I find it best to realize there's such a wide distribution of beliefs and practices, and a difference between mainstream religion or "TV religion" vs. other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I've taken 5-meo-dmt several times it's probably the most powerful and uncomfortable psychedelic I've ever tried (and I've tried just about everything). Makes you feel like you are dying, would not recommend.

</comment><comment><USER28> Contact: dr. Elf Machine MD

<comment><USER29> See [https://non-aliencreatures.fandom.com/wiki/Machine_Elf](https://non- aliencreatures.fandom.com/wiki/Machine_Elf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Said this for years nothing is as powerfull as dmt/hamalas .. I've seen a dusin times how it changed the life of someone myself included with a single trip you could live on it for years.

</comment><comment><USER31> Is there significance to the 5-meo-dmt? It seems close to dmt, 4-ho-dmt, and some of the research chems like 4-aco-dmt?

<comment><USER32> it's close to dmt in the sense that part of it's structure is DMT. as far as effects, if you believe the literature: dmt is like sailing into the sunset and 5meo is like stapping yourself to a rocket. both give you something, but radically different

<comment><USER30> Both have a Quick onset... id say a rocket. With changa eg + hamalas its more slow onset but more powerfull. Someone described 5-meo-dmt to me as power/maskoline and changa as love/feminine and i have the same feeling about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> So where can I obtain this? Legally?

<comment><USER30> Dunno but its little sister dmt is easily made by yourself and to me less scary/risky with the same benefits. You Can order root bark legally and extract it in your kitchen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> This means very little until we have all the research available, and until we've run a good meta-analysis.

When Prozac was introduced we had claims that it was a miracle drug, and made people "better than well", and that current drug licencing laws were unjust because you could only get prozac if you had depression and this was denying access to it for the general population.

Now we know that it's a somewhat useful medication for some people, especially when provided with therapy and other psycho-social interventions, but it is very far from the miraculous claims.

tldr claims of efficacy for depression treatment are either outright bullshit or oversold.</comment>


Show HN: Sodium_compat, a Pure PHP implementation of libsodium - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/paragonie/sodium_compat <comment><AUTHOR> Announcement post which explains the challenges and motivations: [https://paragonie.com/blog/2017/01/let-s-make-2017-year- simp...](https://paragonie.com/blog/2017/01/let-s-make-2017-year-simply- secure-php-cryptography)</comment>


New Models for Utility Tokens - <AUTHOR> https://multicoin.capital/2018/02/13/new-models-utility-tokens/ <comment><USER2> This essay focuses on valuation models for three types of cryptoassets: stores of value, security tokens, and utility tokens. For stores of value it argues for the equation of exchange, and for the other two it introduces new models to back into present and future valuations. This is essential reading for token holders and project creators. There's also a healthy conversation on twitter here: [https://twitter.com/KyleSamani/status/963433389075369984](https://twitter.com/KyleSamani/status/963433389075369984)</comment>


Ask HN: Can you help me find a junior ML job? - <AUTHOR> Hello HN, I'm new around here, but from what I've heard, this is the place to be.
So long story short, I'm a bit down on my luck these days job-wise, so I thought I'd see if anyone here could help.  My background is in quantum mechanics.  I pursued that into my post-graduate education, but dropped out of my phd program in order to switch focus towards machine learning.  I'm currently enrolled in a short-term intensive ML course which is finishing up in January.
My programming mostly uses C/Python, and I am familiar with packages including scipy/numpy/sklearn/seaborn/matplotlib/pandas.  I have some limited experience with mysql/html.
My long-term goal/dream is to get involved with bleeding edge AI research since I find that field incredibly exciting.
Obviously, I don't have much industry experience, so I'd be looking for a junior role where I can get some mentorship while getting my hands dirty in the field.  I work best with some direction, but I also have some very exciting ideas for applications of ML which are currently a bit beyond my grasp, but I'm working towards them.
I have a github page, but its pretty sparse right now, and I only have a few samples of old coursework with poor commenting/formatting.
I learn fast.
I'm located in the Boston area, and I'd like to stay here, but I'd consider relocation for the right opportunity.
So, that's me in a nutshell.  I'm clearly higher risk than a seasoned veteran of the field, but I think I would bring good value to the right organization. <comment><USER2> head over to iotasecurity.com, and lets talk.

<comment><AUTHOR> I sent a message on the website.</comment></comment>


Dell, EMC, HP, Cisco are the walking dead - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/10/meet-walking-dead-hp-cisco-dell-emc-ibm-oracle <comment><USER2> This is such a perception skewed by Silicon-Valley-Syndrome.

This is how the rest of the world works -- I run an import/export business and have to manage logistics. It doesn't matter what industry, it could be crude oil or widgets from China at half a penny a piece. It's my job as CIO to choose an implementation.

I'm going to choose SAP or Dynamics (or one of the handful of other ERP's with name recognition) on DB2 or Oracle. I'm going to store my data on EMC dual array filers for HA and pay the tax. Why? Because if I choose node.js and MongoDB to run my 3 warehouses and the system goes down, I'm getting voted out next board meeting. If my SAP R/3 on IBM hardware goes down, they'll do the dance and at least fly some people out to retain their image keeping your job effectively safe.

Banks aren't going to move over from z/OS anytime soon. I don't want my dialysis machine to be running on Riak.

<comment><USER3> So two things:

1\. Cloud providers are making it easy for legacy businesses to take baby steps. You don't have to use a NoSQL solution with AWS Dynamo, you can use Postgres with RDS. Or if you're hyper-conservative/stuck with legacy stuff, you can run Oracle with RDS. Or get an EC2 instance and install your own personal copy of Oracle on it. You don't have to jump to full modernity right away, you can take the easy wins of hosted infrastructure first, and only later move up to the bigger wins of hosted platforms.

2\. Yes, legacy stuff takes forever to disappear. There are still businesses running VMS inside of VAX emulators with COBOL apps on them. But once you're in that "super-conservative businesses won't move away from you anytime soon" area, you're in a declining market. New businesses unencumbered by legacy won't go down that road -- small businesses starting today will never buy an on-site server to start with (thanks to Office 365/Google Apps/etc.), and as they grow there's no reason for them to change that policy anymore. EMC might never get a new customer, and even if they keep their old ones for some time, it's just a question of how fast their decline is.

<comment><USER4> Working at real scale, I'd choose some cages in a datacenter I can walk in and place offices at over AWS anytime.

Btw you'd cry if I were allowed call out some companies that still run lotus notes.

<comment><USER3> Lotus Notes is a fine example of what we're talking about. Yes, companies use it, but no company is ever going to switch to Notes. The companies that use Notes in 2020 is going to be the ones that use it in 2015 minus the ones that quit using it. That's what "walking dead" means.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> First thing I thought when reading the headline was 'so is Oracle'. Glad it's mentioned in the article.

AWS is absolutely killing it. Every release cycle, they put out quality products that directly attack Oracle. And, Oracle is in the bad position of having to eat their existing profitable business lines to compete.

Now, of course, cloud isn't here yet. There are certainly lots of issues around security, auditing, privacy, data ownership, etc. But, the trend is accelerating. Why? Because the cloud is so much cheaper. Why maintain and manage your own data center and infrastructure for millions of dollars when you can reliably outsource for a fraction?

I used to do a lot of work in the utility industry. I remember years ago giving a presentation on the cloud. The audience was passionate that it'd never, ever happen to them. They were extremely protective of their data. But, then I slowly saw it happening anyway. It crept in slowly. The first to go were the lowest risk systems. Then, the next lowest risk systems. Then, the next.

The incumbents will hold position for a long time to come, propped up mainly by government spending, hellishly long sales cycles, a corporate aversion to micro products, and FUD. They have plenty of time to catch up. But will they? That's the question. Unless oracle is actively researching new cloud platforms (and I'm guessing they are), they're going to be in pain in 5 years. Corporations that don't move to the cloud will be in a cost disadvantage.

On the other hand, serious work needs to be done to overcome the severe limitations of the current cloud. Lots of certification and auditing and risk assessments and SLAs need to happen.

<comment><USER6> Oracle is not quite as fucked as everyone else on the rest of the list. Oracle has the benefit of offering products that solve very real, very complex business problems: they aren't selling technology infrastructure. Oracle's core products are largely around financial and operational automation, and they are well understood by integrators across many industries. Their biggest threat is something like Salesforce -- but even then, the capital cycle for ERP systems is something stupid like 15-25 years. IBM is largely in the same boat as Oracle, albeit with slightly more government focus.

Oracle is ultimately a software company. Where their customers run that software is largely irrelevant to their core business. Is there margin to make by running an Oracle cloud? Sure, but the bulk of their profits are made just by licensing their LOB software packages and the associated annual support contracts. Oracle will be fine, and Larry Ellison will be able to buy an even bigger yacht in a decade.

<comment><USER7> The real reason Oracle is still making money (though never nearly as much as analysts forecast) is none of the above. It was mentioned in the article and has been discussed here many times in the past as well. For example, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10207495](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10207495) and [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9953657](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9953657). Oracle's sales force is trained to use "license audits", threats of same, and various forms of bundling, such as MSAs and minimum sales commitments, to sell what Oracle wants to sell, not what the customer wants or needs. They are very effective in this, and it is the primary reason Oracle remains in business.

That said, the Oracle database product, while extremely expensive and obnoxiously licensed, is not without technical merit. There is a genuine market for it, just not a $50b one. One could say the same for what these other so-called dinosaurs are selling.

<comment><USER6> You're right about their sales practices -- and I've got more than one client who are slowly ripping out every Oracle product they have as a result. Oracle treats enterprise software sales like it's still the 90s, but in a lot of their markets there is no other serious vendor.

Oracle makes the majority of their money off of industry-function-specific ERP software that runs on top of their database platform. That's a market that's very hard to disrupt or displace, because you have to develop deep domain expertise in dozens of different industries and functions. Their technology platform licenses often sneak in the back door -- the customer wants the solution, and if they have to pay for the DB as part of the solution, then it's just part of the price.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The magic cloud. Good thing it is made of fairy dust rather than commodity servers and network equipment or Dell and Cisco might be around forever providing those things.

<comment><USER3> Facebook and Google and Amazon do not use Cisco networking equipment, nor do they use Dell servers:

[http://www.wired.com/2014/11/facebooks-new-data-center- bad-n...](http://www.wired.com/2014/11/facebooks-new-data-center-bad-news- cisco/)

That's basically the point of the article: These companies that actually had to get up to that kind of massive scale quickly discovered that the way hawked by these big expensive "enterprise" companies didn't work. It was expensive and insufficient. So they've developed their own custom stuff (often built on open source; sometimes open sourced back out) that works a lot better while also being massively cheaper.

AWS isn't just a bunch of Dell servers hooked up to EMC SANs and Cisco switches. The only people who still use that stuff are people who a) have a ton of money and a desire to spend it freely, plus b) don't have really serious demands, which would mandate something better.

That's not a good place to be.

<comment><USER9> Facebook, Google, Amazon (while big) are nowhere near the majority of the servers used in the world.

<comment><USER10> Are you sure? Internet traffic follows a power law distribution.

<comment><USER9> Yes. What does internet traffic have to do with it?

There are millions of SMBs and tens of thousands of large corporations around the world that own server hardware. A tiny percent of that is the major internet companies.

The designs for hardware are changing but the providers are still going to be the usual companies that are good at this and have all the manufacturing in place. For example a lot of banks have started to switch to Open-Compute designs [1] but they will still buy these from Dell or HP.

Software is a different story.

1\. [http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2015/03/11/open-...](http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2015/03/11/open- compute-wall-street-rethinking-data-center-hardware/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I read somewhere that the cloud is just someone's else computer. At least in the business I am working with that would never be allowed so if there is a cloud to be had it will be on premises, which may keep these so-called walking dead lumbering for quite some time.

<comment><USER12> Yes, there are plenty of businesses which would never put their data on someone else's servers.

Also, you should never underestimate corporate inertia. Switching to a new system is immensely expensive, for many companies it won't happen, ever. Just look how many companies are still using decade old hardware and scour ebay for replacement 286 processors.

<comment><USER13> How much of that immense expense is due to various factors that can be summed up as "obstinance", and how much is due to actual, practical, tangible factors?

I'm not being snarky - I've seen many a large business make many a _horrible_ decision, not due to a dispassionate evaluation of the pros and cons of each option, but because the people in charge hate change. And it's not that said change would be necessarily painful or demonstrably bad, it's an irrational bias.

Change hate appears to scale linearly with organizational size, more specifically, number of managerial staff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I was hoping for an informative well-written article. Alas, I was to be disappointed. Ignoring the juvenile profanity and the condescending rhetoric, the author completely misdiagnoses the technology shift that will be the real game changer ... namely, the advances in memory architecture. Whether it's memristors or Xpoint 3D or some other architecture, data storage will be completely turned on its head over the next 10 years. The lumbering giants (who bring in 4 times more in net profit in a single quarter than Pure Storage garnered in its IPO) will have to be nimble in the future, but I wouldn't call them the 'walking dead' just yet.

<comment><USER15> The point of exactly how profitable the "walking dead" are is vastly underrated. The decision is between making giant profits now with low-risk VS miniscule profits but potentially large future profits with high-risk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> They're the walking dead because they pursued scale over innovation. Once they had achieved scale, they found themselves with too much momentum to innovate. So because they couldn't innovate, they built an army of consultants to hawk their wares to customers who also valued scale. But that consulting business never really took off because its existence was predicated on a model of dumping obsolete (but "enterprisey"!) hardware/software onto customers already suffering from vendor lock-in. When those customers start to struggle (as they inevitably will, because the tech industry is far from the only one where scale can impede your ability to innovate) the market has moved on to a different place, and the company never kept up. Then you see a death spiral of layoffs and divestitures that destroys 50-90% of shareholder value.

Sound familiar? This fate awaits all these companies:

\- Dell: I don't even know what Dell makes anymore. I guess they sell PCs, servers and consulting services to small businesses that don't know any better. But this market is being eroded by an army of local MSPs and resellers, and it's not a model that benefits from scale.

\- HP: HP has been a disaster for a while, but they will probably endure since their hardware is generally pretty good and reasonably priced. But servers and printers are not a very high-margin business, and that's caused their leadership to be constantly on the hunt for a newer, higher-margin revenue stream.

\- EMC: Storage is increasingly distributed, and EMC's centralized storage solutions really are a dinosaur in today's market. They just make the wrong product and never found anything to replace it.

\- Cisco: By all rights, Cisco shouldn't be on this list given that the Internet still largely runs on their hardware. But they convinced themselves they were a consulting company, and that ran off all their good engineers. Cisco today is a shadow of its former self.

<comment><USER16> All of your examples seem to lack a lot of context. Yes, these companies are all under pressure. But most of them are still in slow growth and working hard at it. There is also quite a bit of innovation in these places. The problem is the market model is changing - that innovation (cloud) undermines everything else.

Their biggest liability is their customer base that IS NOT changing and continues to pay for these products. I see guys everywhere trying to cajole customers down the cloud path because they'd rather be at the seat of that inevitable transition than pushed out. Many customers don't want to. So they're stuck doing the old thing that's dying and the new thing is being done by smaller customers that wouldn't even consider them.

The story of if/how they fail or rise again will be a lot more complicated than you are suggesting. Keep in mind Apple was near bankruptcy 18 years ago.

Example - EMC. I'm not sure what you're talking about, there are a lot of products. Isilon is distributed storage and selling like mad. ScaleIO is free for anyone to use unsupported and a distributed Elastic Block Store. VxRack is scale out compute and storage. XtremIO sells more and is growing at pace with Pure (which just went public). Dell in swallowing them up which seems like the least worst option given Elliott is at their back and HP would be a death sentence. (I don't work at EMC, but a subsidiary and have some knowledge of how they work and sell.)

<comment><USER6> Apple is a different beast... try not to think of them as a technology company. The Apple that was a technology company died 18 years ago and was reborn as a consumer products brand that is backed up by a hell of an engineering org. But marketing/branding makes all the decisions and sets the direction; engineering just helps move the needle of what's possible.

EMC is generally just fucked because their potential customer base is shrinking. While I don't think everyone everywhere will move everything to the cloud, enough migration is heading in that direction that storage appliances seem like a risky business (especially considering the big cloud providers just roll their own rather than buy from EMC).

Don't get me wrong -- I fight the same battles with big companies about how their stupid new $50million data center can't hope to compete with AWS on cost, reliability, security or functionality. AWS runs datacenters at the billion dollar scale. CIOs/CTOs have the mindset of "it'll be better if we control it" \-- but then don't realize how expensive it is to replicate all the niceness that you get from AWS like management interfaces, workflow control, etc. All those systems have to be grafted on later, and are naturally behind the curve.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Fucked by Cloud and Fucked by Mobile are also apt terms to describe privacy...

</comment><comment><USER18> Wtf is this article talking about?

Microsoft fucked because they have Windows on 95% of computers?

Agh, i'm too exasperated to continue my train of thought. Yes, everybody is fucked because of Facebook and Google and MongoDB.

<comment><USER7> There's a lot of stupidity here (or perhaps one might charitably call it excessive glee, or even plain old clickbait), but it's been a long time since 95% of computers ran Windows, if that was ever true in the first place.

You'd have to start by defining "computer". If we use a technically reasonable but broad in journalism's terms definition of "device containing a CPU with integrated MMU", then we're including every mainframe, server, desktop, laptop, smartphone, tablet, industrial control system, laser printer or multi- function document management system, router, network or storage switch, storage system controller, sound mixer, and countless other devices. A very small and diminishing fraction of those machines run Windows.

Even if you limited the definition to include only things we traditionally think of as computers, namely mainframes, servers, desktops, and laptops, Microsoft's market share is something like 30%, though it's very difficult to measure and once again subject to definition; see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems). And again, that's been declining for a long time. Even the most generous interpretations that include only desktops and laptops don't get you to 95%; you can narrow-definition your way up to about 90%, and that assumes "market share" includes copies that were made in violation of license and/or law (and thus for which Microsoft received no money).

The reality is that Microsoft is a niche player, not because they lost a market they were previously winning but because that market itself became a small part of something much bigger, in which Microsoft was never especially competitive. As noted by the author, they've been investing heavily in changing that, but the early returns aren't much to talk about. Windows Mobile/Phone is a complete dud, Surface is a weak seller despite recent improvements, and Azure is at best a very distant second in IAAS (see [http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2015/05/28/gartn...](http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2015/05/28/gartner- aws-pulls-further-ahead-in-iaas-cloud-market/)). What's remarkable is not that Microsoft is doing so poorly but that they're the only enterprise computing company that even appears to be trying. I think that's what the author was expressing. The characterization as "fucked" comes from Ashlee Vance and should be given the credibility one would assume considering the source. There's little question that most of these companies' positions of relative importance are in decline and have been for a long time. But some, especially Microsoft, still have enormous sums of cash and businesses that are continuing to generate more of it. However irrelevant such a company is, it's still a long way from going out of business. Conversely, no amount of cash is a substitute for organic sales growth.

<comment><USER18> I could have saved you some effort. By "computer" I meant "personal computer". I presume that everybody here would understand that I didn't mean "device which can compute", i.e. all servers, cash registers, calculators, difference engines and Turing machines. I'd have thought that this would've been obvious since I said 95% off the top of my head, and your very own link says 91.47%.

Microsoft are so far from niche it's unreal, and it shows a great ignorance on behalf of the author to look at one product from one arm of a diverse organisation, which has been at the forefront of CS research for decades, has competences that Google et al absolutely do not, and compare it to other companies which only have vague product-line overlap so blithely.

This is ignoring the manufacturing, supply chain management, distribution, retail competences that the other mentioned companies have, which Google and Facebook may _never_ have. It's also ignoring fundamental aspects of marketing such as brand equity, positioning, etc. It's also ignoring the fact that some of these companies are already embedded in industry, via their product line and also via consultancy. Lastly, it's taking a single current snapshot of the industry, and is ignoring the fundamentals of organisational strategy and competition and capitalism, which would suggest that the companies mentioned will adapt and compete to survive (in b4 Innovator's Dilemma). Not all companies will do this successfully, but the companies mentioned will.

It seems like the author is judging these companies via their perception of a small subset of their products, and the market's perception of them (some of their share prices are up and down) without looking at the fundamentals of each business, their diversification strategies, product line strategies, their financial metrics (which the author could've looked up in 10 seconds), and so on.

I mean to suggest that these companies are in trouble because of OSS such as MongoDB, _which they have partnered with, support, and sell_ (and more than likely funded at some point), is very silly, but that's precisely what the author has done.

<comment><USER7> > By "computer" I meant "personal computer"

It's not 1992 any more. At the very minimum, it's reasonable to assume that "computer" also includes mobile devices and servers, two additional markets that are well-known to both technical and lay audiences.

> I presume that everybody here would understand that I didn't mean "device > which can compute", i.e. all servers, cash registers, calculators, > difference engines and Turing machines.

You haven't shown that you know what an MMU is. There's a reason I included that; the definition excludes microcontrollers, devices that lack external memory, and other things that clearly cannot run Windows or any other competing operating system. Most of the devices you mention either don't have CPUs or the CPUs they have don't have MMUs, and they're not part of the Windows addressable market. Since you brought up Windows in the first place, doesn't it make sense to limit ourselves to the general classes of computer on which Windows could conceivably run?

> This is ignoring the manufacturing, supply chain management, distribution, > retail competences that the other mentioned companies have, which Google and > Facebook may never have.

I didn't mention either company. Both are advertising companies; Facebook doesn't make any kind of product that competes with Windows, and Google's competitor (Android) isn't really its own anyway, as the actual OS is Linux.

> Not all companies will do this successfully, but the companies mentioned > will.

I'm not sure why you're going off on me. I explicitly said that Microsoft is likely to remain in business and _making money_ for a very long time. In case it isn't obvious, _making money_ and _successful_ are the same thing. A company can make money serving niche markets, and many do.

> the fundamentals of each business

Microsoft's top product by both revenue and profit is Windows. Windows has a leading market share on only a single class of device (desktops and laptops), and that market itself has been consistently shrinking in each of the last several years (2013: [http://b-i.forbesimg.com/anthonykosner/files/2013/04/ChartOf...](http://b-i.forbesimg.com/anthonykosner/files/2013/04/ChartOfTheDay_1037_Global_PC_Market_in_Q1_2013_n.jpg) 2014: [http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/08/pc-market- share-q3-2014/](http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/08/pc-market-share-q3-2014/) 2015: [http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3090817](http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3090817)). Forecasts are for continued shrinkage of that market. I don't think it's fair or prudent to ignore those fundamentals, as they clearly are central to Microsoft's ability to make money. Azure may be doing well and may even grow into a strong #2 in its space, but it's still less than 10% the size of the market leader and it generated well under a billion dollars of _revenue_ last year ([http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2015/04/15/sizing-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2015/04/15/sizing- microsoft-azure-and-amazon-aws-revenue/)), accounting for less than 1% ([http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AMSFT&fstype=ii&ei=R...](http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AMSFT&fstype=ii&ei=RfsbVsGfNMLCiQLJt4LIBQ)) of the company's total turnover. It's difficult to know if it was profitable, but it hardly matters; the operation is barely even material to the company as a whole. Azure would need to double in size 4 more times to account for 10% of Microsoft's revenue.

Again: I didn't say Microsoft is going to go out of business tomorrow. Or next year or even in 2025. But you should acknowledge that a backward-looking view of the company is risky, and that an objective forward-looking assessment of its business is less rosy than you would make it out to be. At best, the company will be much less dominant than it was in the 90s.

> I mean to suggest that these companies are in trouble because of OSS such as > MongoDB

I didn't. As I said, there's a lot of stupidity here. There probably are some small e-commerce and ad companies using Mongo that should be using Postgres or MySQL or Oracle or Microsoft SQL Server, but I don't know that those companies would have gone into business at all if they had to pay an enterprise software vendor for database licenses. I agree that the impact of MongoDB on the named companies' bottom lines has been negligible, and that no evidence of such impact has been offered.

The author and many of the comments here have strayed well into hyperbole, probably fueled in part by ignorance and in part by schadenfreude and glee at seeing some poorly-managed companies in mature markets struggling to remain successful (HP is, after all, the poster child for mismanagement in this space). I don't believe I've made the same error. If you think I have, please provide supporting evidence, as I have provided for my position.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The irony of this is that all of the "cloud providers" still buy gear from traditional IT vendors like Dell, EMC, HP, and Cisco for their own internal corporate IT. It's the dirty little secret that somehow always gets overlooked when everyone is espousing how we no longer need infrastructure when it can all just "Live in the cloud".

<comment><USER20> Uh, no. For one example, see: [http://www.opencompute.org/](http://www.opencompute.org/)

<comment><USER19> And that's proof of what? Opencompute is for building out their clouds, not their internal IT.

<comment><USER20> You may be confusing OpenStack with Opencompute. Opencompute is a set of _hardware_ designs for high-scale data centers that came out of Facebook. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Compute_Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Compute_Project)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The problem of these companies is that they sell highly overpriced hardware that is in the best case sold because the consumer really wants support and risk avoidance, in the middle case because of vendor lock-in and in the worst case because of direct or indirect corruption.

Obviously this is not economically efficient, and thus eventually the scheme has to unravel.

<comment><USER22> Overpriced, really? Dell sells desktop boxes sufficient for office work with three years on-site support for under 400€, and fast servers for under 1000€ kitted out.

If that's overpriced I really need to talk to your hardware supplier.

(Of course, they all have high-end products, but the breadth of the offerings is usually high enough that they're always an option. They're not stupid.)

<comment><USER21> Indeed, this is not true for a substantial portion of Dell's products.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The fact that Cobol is still alive and kicking illustrates that once in place, large systems are hard to replace. Costs and budgets matter too.

EDIT: why did this get downvoted - am I factually incorrect or you simply disagree and want an echo-chamber?

</comment><comment><USER23> It could take a while yet before all companies big and small start using the cloud to its full potential though ... in my experience people in management are usually against it, citing data security issues.

<comment><USER2> You'd be surprised. I've contracted for the some 3 letter federal agencies and they're alright with certain material being hosted in the cloud. (1) We didn't use AWS but they were fine with standard RSA keys. MS/IBM realizes the discomfort management has though, and addresses it with "partial virtualization" solutions.

1: [https://aws.amazon.com/federal/](https://aws.amazon.com/federal/)

<comment><USER23> Part of it is being outside the US as well- there is a reluctance to keep sensitive data on servers owned by a foreign company. Attitudes are changing though ... MS and Amazon for example have a really good presence in Australia these days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is a reasonable forecast, those big-irons will not go away soon, and they will be needed for a long while, it's just the booming age for them are indeed numbered.

While reading this I was thinking, where does Apple fit? Does it have any big plan for enterprise at all?

</comment><comment><USER25> > _They couldn't use servers from Dell and HP and IBM._

Does Amazon buy servers from Dell, HP or IBM?

</comment><comment><USER26> "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."

Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943

"Nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality within ten years."

Alex Lewyt, president of Lewyt vacuum company, 1955

"Two years from now, spam will be solved."

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, 2004

</comment><comment><USER10> Reminds me of when Peter Thiel called them the "Technology Rust Belt" in a talk.</comment>


Compiling LLJS to asm.js - <AUTHOR> http://jlongster.com/Compiling-LLJS-to-asm.js,-Now-Available-?hn

<comment><USER2> LLJS, asm.js, & Emscripten are really moving Javascript forward at incredible speed. I wonder if these projects will affect the future of the JS spec (ECMAScript Harmony + above). It's an exciting time to be a web programmer.

<comment><USER3> These projects are already affecting the spec. Here's a very small example: [https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es- discuss/2012-November/...](https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es- discuss/2012-November/026126.html) which is used in asm.js and already implemented in Firefox: <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=808148>

<comment><USER4> Math.imul is just an ad-hoc patch to improve the performance of Emscripten. It's totally for Firefox. Is there a motivation to standardize and implement such a thing for other browser vendors? I'll star the V8 issue though...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Yesterday I rewrote a tiny Javascript demo in asm.js and also saw an order-of- magnitude speedup. (I thought at first it didn't help at all, apparently because the framerate was limited by setInterval().)

Code at <http://wry.me/hacking/canvas_asm.html>

<comment><USER6> Doesn't appear to be doing anything for me,

        noasm 285
        asm 13
        asm 13
        noasm 269

That's all that appears in the console. Network and everything looks fine, no 404 or other errors.

<comment><USER7> I wonder if most / all of that speedup is just using typed arrays (edit: nvm, they both do). I get similar speeds in Chrome, which afaik doesn't have any special handling for `"use asm";` functions.

<comment><USER8> Typed arrays do deliver a lot of speedup, and in fact, the above example is slightly faster in Chrome than in Firefox Nightly for me. However, if your algorithm does crunch a lot of data in a low-level way, there is definitely even more performance you can get by using asm.js.

See my link in the comment below for benchmarks of a sha1 algorithm that shows a good speedup in Chrome by using TypedArrays, but an even greater one in OdinMonkey.

<comment><USER7> awesome - thanks for doing the legwork! I'll definitely take a look.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Whats the use for LLJS ? I dont really get it. So its not meant to be used in web development but for things like games or complete VMs. But isnt it much simpler for those cases to compile existing C codebases with emscripten instead of rewriting everything in LLJS ? Even if you start today with writing a new game engine, wouldnt it make more sense to use C++ and be able to target any platform there is instead of just the browser?

<comment><AUTHOR> The main use for something like LLJS is to allow you to target asm.js with new code that you write. It's true that it's probably not the best idea to completely rewrite a 3d engine in it (right now), but it gives you a quick way to rewrite core parts of an intensive app (like a 3d game) for high performance. There are "inner loops" that could benefit from a small amount of LLJS.

As the post says, it's a proof of concept and a way to open up asm.js to people who want to tinker with it without compiling C code with emscripten.

<comment><USER9> I see, so the main benefit vs compiling c to asm.js is that the development process is easier because you dont need to manually compile. Sounds interesting to use as a scripting language inside a c based game engine. So the core of the engine would be directly compiled to asm.js while the game logic scripting could be done in LLJS to be able to live-test your game.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's certainly a possibility! It would be neat to see powerful debugging tools develop, after the language stabilizes. I also like the idea of somehow linking it with emscripten-compiled code so that it can be used as a sort of scripting language.

I'd like to explore the possibility of porting some of the C toolchain to the browser too, though. It's possible that it could be quite successful, and in that case LLJS would target people who just want to write small parts of there app for asm.js.

<comment><USER9> sounds really exciting, keep up the great work!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Has anyone built the _entire stack in javascript_ (C to JS compiler in JS + standard library) so that you could write JS applications in C and compile and run in the browser?

EDIT: to clarify, the ideal solution would be an editor (like codemirror or ace) with a compile+run button that would compile the code down to JS and run it.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's exactly what emscripten does, and is very mature and being used to port massive 3d games to the web.

<https://github.com/kripken/emscripten>

See the BananaBread demo: <https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/demos/detail/bananabread>

<comment><USER10> You have to use the command-line `emcc` tool to do this. I'm asking if that tool can be eliminated from the workflow.

The ideal solution would be an editor (like codemirror or ace) with a compile+run button that would compile the code down to JS and run it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, I see. No, not yet, I think the C compilers are complex enough to be difficult to compile with emscripten. I have no evidence for that, but I know they are incredibly complex.

The shorter path is something like LLVM, but we could see something like a compiler all in js that can take a large subset of C and compile it.

EDIT: see azakai's comment below which provides much better insight into this

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I am sure there is some reason this can't be done, but can we compile JavaScript to asm.js? If this can be done with C, it can be done with JS?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, but it's different because you need to compile a whole VM to asm.js and run javascript inside of it. You can't compile a dynamic language like javascript to low-level code because you need too much information at runtime.

See this project, which compiles SpiderMonkey to javascript via emscripten, which supports asm.js: <https://github.com/jterrace/js.js/>

<comment><USER12> qt-emscripten does something similar, it builds the JSC interpreter together with Qt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How far are we from being able to do meaningful text processing with typed arrays and (therefore, presumably) asm.js? Last I checked, there was work being done on a string encoding/decoding standard but it wasn't implemented in browsers yet. Can anyone say more about this?</comment>


Five Second Homepage - <AUTHOR> http://www.fivesecondhomepage.com/

<comment><USER2> Maybe instead of having to register have a feature like:

<http://www.fivesecondhomepage.com/www.reddit.com>

Which shows the quote, then gets me to reddit or whatever

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your suggestion nthitz the link is working :)

<comment><USER2> Awesome! Fun site, thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3>
        Enter your current homepage URL ex: google.com (Do not include'http://')

Lazy programmer. Let your users paste in whatever they want, and have your code handle it either way.

<comment><AUTHOR> lazy got more lazy :)no registration is required <http://Fivesecondhomepage.com/www.example.com>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why use a sign up when you could use HTML5 localStorage and users put the url and you redirect them..

Looks good anyways

</comment><comment><USER5> One problem is https urls don't seem to work properly, the colon seems to be stripped from the input.

<https://duckduckgo.com> changes to https//duckduckgo.com, which doesn't work, so you have to resort to the unsecure version.

</comment><comment><USER6> Reminds me of the BSD fortune program which greets me every time I log into Slackware. :)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_%28Unix%29>

</comment><comment><USER7> Does anyone use homepages anymore?

<comment><USER8> I use More Interestingness[0] for new tabs in Chrome, and I have my personal email, work email, twitter and Google Reader start in pinned tabs on launch.

I have no need for five seconds of inspirational quotes. That's what /usr/local/bin/fortune is for.

[0] [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/more- interestingne...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/more- interestingness/ngddmdmkjnnefgggjnnnepijkcighifa)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ugh why redirect after exactly five seconds? Stressed out or what?

</comment><comment><USER10> Yeah, I agree with the consensus thus far. To me the sign-up ruins this. Anything that gets this to the point where that's not required, adds a lot of value to your service.

<comment><AUTHOR> you do not need to sign-up anymore <http://Fivesecondhomepage.com/www.example.com>

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Been using <http://minimotivation.com/> for a while. This looks really similar.

</comment><comment><USER12> Would be quite effective as a Chrome Extension: no server to host and no sign- up required. Just put the quotes up on a CDN.

<comment><USER13> What about the ~64% of us who use something other than Chrome?

<comment><USER12> It gets better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "everytime you open your browser , by showing you quote". That amount of typos is terrible.

</comment><comment><USER15> Love it! Thanks for sharing.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're welcome :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> foursecondhomepage.com

</comment><comment><USER17> ii cannot login. It shows an error page :(</comment>


Amazon and the Cops Set Up a Sting Operation That Accomplished Nothing - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43jmnq/how-amazon-and-the-cops-set-up-elaborate-sting-operation-that-accomplished-nothing <comment><USER2> >"As of now, we have not yielded any arrests,"

Classic novice mistake. Aurora Police should of outsourced whole operation to a professional, like a former NASA engineer Mark Rober who knows you need to directly structure incentives to get results you want (aka faking the whole thing):

[https://gizmodo.com/viral-video-of-glitter-bomb-for- package-...](https://gizmodo.com/viral-video-of-glitter-bomb-for-package- thieves-exposed-1831254130)</comment>


The Feds' Favorite iPhone Hacking Tool Is Selling for $100–and It's Leaking Data - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/02/27/the-feds-favorite-iphone-hacking-tool-is-selling-on-ebay-for-100and-its-leaking-data/#1815d235dd4f <comment><USER2> Oww, come on, it's a Cellebrite UFED touch 64 GB, not a nuclear reactor.

Not to be confused with the Cellebrite touch 32gb (as I did BTW), still it is not a "science fiction" magical device capable of doing miracles, and even if it can do miracles, these are linked to the latest software releases and a valid licence.

JFYI, the thingies that were put on sale were posted here:

[https://forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=17498/](https://forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=17498/)

[https://forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=17497/](https://forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=17497/)

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/129155109@N06/sets/72157702917...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/129155109@N06/sets/72157702917466732/)

But they are by no means a "unique" case, I've seen over the years many people selling their old tools, the fact that there have not been wiped clean is another (preoccupying but comletely separate) issue.

</comment><comment><USER3> The biggest concern here is case data left on the device. Just having a device or the software isn't enough to get into most phones. Cellebrite kits come with a huge case of various types of USB cables that do something to allow access to the target device. Any old USB-C wont work, you have to have the correct USB-C from the kit to go with the target model

edit: Turns out the cables are on Ebay as well for about $5 - $30

</comment><comment><USER4> I could imagine that if it's infeasible to to break into the device to see how it's cracking the iPhone, then Apple could opt into setting up a dummy phone, then sniffing all the communications with the device to get an approximate idea for how it works.

<comment><USER5> of course they do this (GOOG & APPL). typically the exploits are for older patched versions of ios/android. keep your phone patched and fully up to date!

Also, its not so hard. Oldmate was running doom on the thing. UFED is just another android tablet. Root it and find the l00t. Log all traffic from the mothership if you want to see payloads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Fear mongering. Cellebrite uses Android dev tools and iTunes under the hood for imaging.</comment>


MetaLab's Andrew Wilkinson redesigns TED.com - <AUTHOR> http://dribbble.com/shots/702217-TED-com-Rethink

<comment><USER2> Meh would be the word. TED has personality and vibe. This doesn't, or rather its vibe is that of an iPhone app site - generic and instantly forgettable.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's pretty, but that's about it. I like the current design better.

</comment><comment><USER4> Meh.</comment>


Create cloud-based 3D-printable shapes with plain JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://tinkercad.com/developer/

<comment><USER2> Would be cool if you could collaborate and build Minecraft like worlds together (and then print them out). I could see this being like next gen Lego when you start being able to package and redistribute your scripts.

Or maybe new kinds of board games where you input your last game's end state and the scripts print out the pieces for the next round. Evolving game board a bit like in Risk Legacy.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> There is also a blog post that describes this feature called "Shape Scripts API": [http://blog.tinkercad.com/2012/10/12/tinkercad-launches- shap...](http://blog.tinkercad.com/2012/10/12/tinkercad-launches-shape- scripts-api/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Very cool!

</comment><comment><USER4> Awesome!</comment>