Data mining local radio with Node.js - <AUTHOR> http://evanmuehlhausen.com/data-mining-local-radio-with-nodejs/ <comment><USER2> Using Node.js to make "non-blocking http requests" using callbacks and having to reorder stuff after it arrives?

Sounds like he had fun playing with Node.js and writing code.

But did I read this wrong or is he making several hundred individual HTTP requests?

Even when the server he's accessing says it supports keep-alive (5 seconds), and probably a decent number of max-requests (say, 100).

I must have read this wrong.

</comment><comment><USER3> It might just be my computer, but the font in firefox makes the w's hard to see. Its really distracting to me.

Here's a screenshot so you know what I'm talking about: <http://i.imgur.com/7DrpQ.png></comment>


Block-layer I/O polling merged into Linux kernel - <AUTHOR> http://lwn.net/Articles/663879/ <comment><USER2> Interesting resume from a comment on the article

>There are basically two types of polling on the block side. One takes care of interrupt mitigation, so that we can reduce the IRQ load in high IOPS scenarios. That is governed by block/blk-iopoll.c, and is very much like NAPI on the networking side, we've had that since 2009 roughly. It still relies on an initial IRQ trigger, and from there we poll for more completions, and finally re-enable interrupts once we think it's sane to do so. This is driver managed, and opt-in.

>The new block poll support is a bit different. We don't rely on an initial IRQ to trigger, since we never put the application to sleep. We can poll for a specific piece of IO, not just for "any IO". It's all about reducing latencies, as opposed to just reducing the overhead of an IRQ storm.

<comment><USER3> It's worth mentioning that isn't just any commenter, that is Jens Axboe, the current block layer maintainer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Would somebody mind explaining what this means in layman terms? I understand what this change is, based on the article, but I don't know what implications it has, from a high level viewpoint, because I don't know much about an I/O system in the first place. For instance, does this mean that a program now be able to detect block level disk changes via this mechanism, or something completely different?

<comment><USER5> I don't think the two other responders to your question quite have the whole answer so I'm going to chime in. Warning: I'm not a kernel developer, have only read the article and work with linux daily.

To answer your second question, this doesn't have anything to do with disk changes/inotify/etc that a program would use. My understanding is that currently \many\ IO devices respond to the kernel's request for data by triggering an interrupt that then takes time for the kernel to get to for reading. The interrupt process can be a bit slow leading to latency when waiting for the disk to respond. The new system, rather than waiting for an interrupt, continuously checks the driver for new data and as it doesn't rely on an interrupt can achieve far better latency. Lower latency means more operation per second.

With spinning disks who are only able to do <200 operations per second with latencies around 5ms this won't have much of an effect but with SSD who are able to do >2000 operations per second with latencies around 0.5ms trimming off 0.1ms per operation (made that number up) via polling rather than waiting on an interrupt can mean about 20% more operations per second.

<comment><USER6> I fear, this may impact negatively in terms of power. If I'm not wrong, the point of having interrupts was to save CPU cycles wasted on checking status, i.e. polling. Overall, I think it would be interesting to see some benchmarks on real scenarios.

EDIT: Thinking a bit more about it, interrupts were introduced when CPU were much more slower than they are now. So, the tradeoff I'm thinking isn't that bad.

<comment><USER7> The power difference may actually be immeasurable, or even an improvement on some systems. Switching from one power state into a lower-power state may actually involve one-time energy _payments_ , which are eventually negated by the power savings as time progresses. In an extreme scenario, a core might power-down its cache to reduce leakage current, which involves sending all of its pending writes onto some bus, which is costly, and then it'll be reading a lot of data back in from elsewhere once it is powered back on as it refills the cache.

In the worst case, you might spend more time and energy switching between power states than you actually spend in a lower power state.

But indeed, it does seem counter-intuitive even with that, as there are often power mode changes available that would pay off in just a few microseconds. It sounds to me like x86 may suffer from a limited IRQ system - there are other systems out there in which IRQ overhead is < 10 cycles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Where this could be interesting is in cloud/VM environments where the block device may actually be mounted over the network.

The performance improvement for fast devices cited in a link on the article [1] are pretty dramatic, but I wonder about how slow the device needs to be before polling becomes a problem. That same link mentions that slow devices benefit, but, speculate that it may be due to the CPU not being able to go into a deeper sleep state.

[1] [http://lwn.net/Articles/663543/](http://lwn.net/Articles/663543/)

<comment><USER9> I would think that you'd have the network latency profile and the disk latency profile and that they would add in amusing ( read : non-intuitive ) ways. I read "mounted" to indicate a drive, not always a good assumption.</comment></comment>


Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension - <AUTHOR> https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=16504 <comment><USER2> I hear a lot of people in here saying, "Yay for AdNauseum, they are fixing the broken ad system! If sites start charging instead of ads, I'll totally pay!"

Let me add a little perspective. A long time ago at reddit we launched reddit gold. At the time, one of the biggest benefits was that if you had gold you could turn off ads. This was in direct response to people saying, "I would rather pay you then use adblock".

You know how many people running adblock started paying? Not a lot. Sure, some did, but there were still a whole bunch of people who just wanted a free experience. The ads on reddit weren't even all that heavy CPU and bandwidth- wise.

My point is, I don't think a lot of you are being totally honest when you say you'd be willing to pay if the site removed advertising.

In a lot of cases, those sites get a lot more money from the advertisers than you would ever be willing to pay, because they simply don't provide that much value to you.

<comment><USER3> Anyone arguing against AdNauseum is totally missing the point here. We, as users, could not possibly care less if your site goes out of business because you are unable to come up with another form of monetization. Something will rise up to take your place that is more user friendly. The market will find a way.

I somehow _strongly_ doubt that if the current paradigm of ad based revenue were to disappear overnight, that no one would figure out something to take it's place and that the internet would become a barren wasteland devoid of content. As it is now, there is _zero_ incentive for content developers to look for any other solution because the status quo is so ingrained in people's minds that we have just accepted it as "the way things are". This is very clearly starting to change, and so yes, there will be collateral damage in the mean time. But the Web that emerges from this change will be better for everyone involved.

<comment><USER4> > We, as users, could not possibly care less if your site goes out of business

Reddit users wouldn't care if Reddit went out of business? I find that hard to believe.

> Something will rise up to take your place that is more user friendly. The > market will find a way.

Got any ideas? Nobody has come up with anything that works so far.

> I somehow strongly doubt that if the current paradigm of ad based revenue > were to disappear overnight, that no one would figure out something to take > it's place and that the internet would become a barren wasteland devoid of > content.

What is this suspicion based on?

<comment><USER3> >Reddit users wouldn't care if Reddit went out of business? I find that hard to believe.

Sure they would. But if Reddit went out of business, a new Reddit would immediately take it's place. The value to be extracted from such a large user- base is too great for this niche to go unfilled. _How_ that value would be extracted in an ad-free system is yet to be seen. But I have faith in human ingenuity.

>Got any ideas? Nobody has come up with anything that works so far.

That is precisely my point. No one has come up with any ideas so far because there is not sufficient incentive. The model that now exists makes money, so why would anyone try too hard to rock the boat? Sure there a few small bit players trying to change things. But these limited ideological efforts are completely different from the full brunt of a capitalist market seeking profits under constraints that completely disallow advertising.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The motto of Pale Moon is "Your browser, Your way". But apparently not very so...

The current ad system is broken and, although I understand Google decision to protect its own profits, I don't see why an open source project that aims to provide an unbiased browsing experience would follow suit.

<comment><USER6> You're hurting the publishers. I'm a software developer at a local newspaper. We've been dealing with floods of fake ad clicks for about a year now, and they severely hurt our bottom line. We don't even use an ad network a la google, we sell our own ads to local businesses and such. You're not sticking it to the man, you're punishing me and my colleagues and friends for writing content that you wanted to read. You're directly hurting us.

To be clear, I'm not sure a browser should have a say on this in general, but I understand the argument they make on a personal level.

EDIT:

1\. I misread OP

2\. I don't work directly with our ad handling, as I work with the editorial team and generally advertising and editorial are separate for a reason, but I went digging just for fun. We sell our ad space to individual businesses. Our ad sales team does approve every ad we run. We use Google Analytics and Chartbeat, and both the newsroom and ad team have access to those analytics. The ads we serve vary - one ad from a housing complex down the street is literally just an image with an affiliate link, but one ad from our the ASU Foundation appears to load content from doubleclick.net.

<comment><USER7> On the one hand, I agree with your sentiment in general. However, it's a double edged sword here. LOTS of people are so sick of advertising networks, tracking, privacy invasion and malware from compromised ad networks that the underlying issue, the idea that click and impression based advertising is fundamentally _flawed,_ is something that people are going to continue to protest. If the system is so broken that it's susceptible to this kind of click-jacking, then it was never a really good system to begin with.

Do I think this is the right way to go about it? Probably not. But I do think the long term solution needs to be for publishers to move away from the third- party advertising banner model. While forcing your hand isn't the right way to do things (and will, you're right, cause more harm than good) if nothing else AdNauseum has sparked a much needed conversation about ad-based revenue, one that we as a publishing and content consuming internet community desperately NEED to have. Because content isn't free, and publishers SHOULD be compensated for their work. We need to develop a better system to take the place of the obviously flawed model we've come to rely on, so that everyone comes out on top, publishers included.

<comment><USER8> Those people are free not to visit our website. Or even to block all ads if the site gracefully allows it (most do, mine do).

<comment><USER9> > Those people are free not to visit our website.

If you meant that, you'd have a paywall up.

Do you offer legally enforceable indemnity against people getting malware from ads you serve? If not, then you can't really tell them not to block the ads.

<comment><USER10> Even though i hate advertising, I'm against weaponizing clicks on ads to punish sites. Boycott, or block ads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Frankly, I always thought that the Pale Moon project had more attitude than rationale.

You've really got to have a decently sized team to assure that the changes you've made aren't going to cause security holes in the browser.

The things that they rip out of Firefox also doesn't make much sense to me... Australis is such a weird thing to get rid of, especially when the compact theme is pretty similar to the original, except even more minimal. Not to mention you can customise the theme all you want.

I'm pretty sure this moves comes from the fact that Pale Moon gets revenue from ads on the default start page, which is totally fine in and of itself; but having an extension blacklist for any other reason other than to prevent end-user exploitation is a perfect indicator that the judgement of the development team is not to be trusted.

<comment><USER12> The whole Pale Moon project doesn't even make sense to me. They could have just broken the browser toolkit out of comm-central (SeaMonkey) and built on top of that if the 'Classic' interface is what they are looking for. This solves the problem of the classic interface, current security patches, and modern Firefox HTML5 support.

There is no way that their tiny team can resurrect all of the old APIs that Mozilla has been decimating recently (XUL/XPCOM extensions/add-on SDK, complete themes, non multi process extensions, unsigned extensions, etc.)

With all of the talk about breaking Thunderbird (and, ostensibly, SeaMonkey) out of the core Mozilla infrastructure, the future does not look bright. I am honestly unsure as to what I'll do when SeaMonkey finally dies. I use an xpfe complete theme, maintain a SM/Thunderbird add-on that directly modifies the browser XUL to display picons/X-Faces/Faces/X-Image-URLs/etc, maintain an add- on that loads the old add-on manager in a separate (non-incontent) XUL window, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Never heard of adnauseam before, the developers deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. The argument saying that it damages the publishers and not the ad networks is pure nonsense. By damaging the publisher's ability to make money of ads you also damage the ad network - how is this not clear?

 _ALL_ and I mean all advertisers can die a slow agonising death as far as I care. They are adding nothing of value to the civilisation. And if your reply is "well, how about I start charging you for my website?" then I'm absolutely fine with it. Please do.

<comment><USER14> The ad industry stops at nothing to force themselves in front of our face and ears. The notion that a completely legal counterattack is somehow unethical is profoundly absurd.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> >Generating this kind of traffic does not achieve its intended goal (providing protest against ad networks or causing advertising to fail for ad networks) since the ones punished are the publishers (those who rely on this revenue) and not the ad networks.

I don't think I follow? People don't like the ad networks and want them to change or fail. That's achievable by forcing change at either the advertiser, the network or the website owner. Decreasing the usefulness of ad networks to website owners accomplishes the same thing as hitting the ad effectiveness: it takes away business from the ad network. Which sounds exactly like the intended goal.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, no. This sort of purposefully doing fake clicks at websites you're a fan of thing ups the chances of that website of getting banned from their ad network. Which is paying their hosting bills. Which simply puts them out of business.

<comment><USER16> Yes, it might put those sites out of business - the websites which rely solely on web traffic use fake titles, sensationalist headlines, click baits, troll baits, fake news i.e. most of what is wrong with the internet. It harms them in the short term... and the most evil company in the history of the world in the long term. I see it as win-win.

<comment><USER8> Again, no. How do you think nearly all small legit websites that aren't being bankrolled by a single passionate person stay up? Ad revenue.

As an example, PortableApps.com isn't exactly small, but without ad revenue I'd shut it down. It doesn't make enough in donations and a handful of drive sales to survive.

<comment><USER17> Ideally we'd find other ways to bankroll websites. Obligatory snowdrift.coop plug here (best intro, though with outdated visuals, remains [https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/intro](https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/intro) )

<comment><USER8> Ideally. But everything has failed so far except donation-style things for a handful of specific niches.

<comment><USER18> Why not sell display ads that are relevant to your target audience? Use pay per impression instead of pay per click. (To the extent AdNauseum succeeds, pay per click won't pay well anyway)

<comment><USER8> If there were an ad network or agency that did this with a similar level of revenue (or even just close), I'd switch. There isn't. I've looked. For years. I wish there were.

<comment><USER19> If everyone was using AdNauseam, there would be one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> That AdNauseam causes potential damage to people running ads and generating revenue from ads by devaluing clicks is a feature, not a bug.

My understanding of the plugin is that it views advertising as universally bad, and that if a site cannot survive without ads, it must not be worth much at all, and deserves to die.

I wholeheartedly agree with this view.

<comment><USER21> So Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat have no value? Because those aren't just little sites, but entire companies that have value solely because of ads. Take away ads and they don't exist.

<comment><USER22> >So Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat have no value?

No, not value-less, but I didn't agree to pay for their services with the total loss of my privacy on-line. (and one doesn't have to use any of those services in order to be spied upon by them)

<comment><USER23> One might argue that you do agree, when you make use of their services.

<comment><USER24> No, Google terms of service does not forbid you from blocking Google ads.

And no free rider argument please, I am perfectly willing to pay for Google's service. If Google wants to get paid, they can make Google Contributor available in my country. I already pay for YouTube Red.

<comment><USER23> Blocking is much different than fraudulently clicking.

<comment><USER24> Google terms of service does not forbid users from producing invalid clicks either. (Point 1, it's called invalid, not fraudulent. Point 2, Google does forbid website owners, but not users.)

I am just objecting to your statement that when one uses Google's service, one is making any sort of agreement that one wouldn't block ads or produce invalid clicks. There is no such agreement.

<comment><USER23> No, I'm sticking with fraudulent. The intent is to defraud. Even if you say there is no specific agreement, there's the morality issue. Your morals may allow you to essentially vandalize, mine do not.

The agreement may not be written down, but I think it's covered in the 'don't be an ass' part of the social contract.

<comment><USER25> It's not on me that clicks are considered meaningful—that's the site owner's problem.

<comment><USER23> "I did it, but it's not my responsibility." That's what I read from your reply. Suffice to say, we have different morals.

And no, I don't have anything that is ad supported. I dislike the tracking and security implications, but not enough to alter my morality. This is morally similar to vandalism, in my opinion.

If your okay with that, don't let me tell you how to live. I just can't justify harming people for something I can just block or ignore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> From a quick glance at the thread it seems this "extension blacklist" can be quite easily disabled, and the discussion centers more around the position of the author. Perhaps he has a stake in ad companies too? It's not as if it's difficult to revert the change itself either, fork the project, and keep going:

[https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/Pale- Moon/commit/fe7...](https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/Pale- Moon/commit/fe75cfd88312409d2b93bcdcbe83b3f8fd5f554d)

 _Because this extension causes direct and indirect economic damage to website owners, it is classified as malware, and as such blocked._

The same argument has been applied to adblockers...

<comment><USER6> But it's distinctly passive with ad blockers. Sure, you want to read my content without supporting me (some publications prevent you from doing so, but mine does not). You're just affecting you. With AdNauseum, you are actively attacking our ability to make money off of other users. You're punishing me for writing content that you want to read.

<comment><USER27> I am also attacking your ability to track and infect other users with malware, so I am doing a good thing.

And no, I am not punishing you - I am punishing a shitty industry for wasting millions of hours of time globally and causing damage with malware. We've seen that pacific methods do not work so the only way to drive change is to actively fight back until the lowlife either adapts (by becoming better) or dies.

<comment><USER6> You are punishing me and only me. We don't use an ad network, we sell our ad space directly to local businesses. Fake ad clicks have been actively hurting our ability to sell ads for about a year now. Our ads are pictures. Pictures are not malware.

Also what ads cause damage? Like sure the ads on porn or piratebay are cancerous but no reputable newspaper will have anything harmful, just potentially annoying.

<comment><USER28> Your story doesn't add up to me.

> We don't use an ad network, we sell our ad space directly to local > businesses.

Fine, so you either (a) tell a business that you have XXX page views per month so they'll get YYY impressions (which may be blocked, but that you can try to make non-intrusive); or (b) you let the advertiser track the value they receive from ads placed on your site.

In the (a) case, there shouldn't be any difference between adblock and a fake clicking blocker. In the (b) case, a sensible advertiser should be able to weigh the value of the add they placed on your site no matter what mix of real and fake clicks they get: I ended up selling X USD to visitors coming through that place's ads, which amounted to Y USD in profit. Y > cost of the ads? Keep the ads going. Y < cost of the ads? sorry but we're out.

The only situation where fake clicks are bad is that where the advertiser suddenly realizes that "hey we sent you XXX people" is just a meaningless figure from which you just cannot infer a proper value metric to decide whether that ad is worth its cost or not. Which is another way of saying that it gives ad purchasers a reality check that can only be positive in the long run, disregarding the short-term loses of people who were selling inflated ad spaces until now.

<comment><USER6> As I understand it, what we do is closer to B. I'm not on the ad sales team, but the way it was explained to me, our ad partners have analytics on their website like everyone does these days, and they generally give us a link specific to our website that they can look at the analytics on and tell how many people visited that page, therefore how many people clicked the link. I'm told they see huge spikes in traffic that looks fake and get angry, threaten to drop us, etc. Basically they accuse us of artificially inflating our numbers, and without super detailed analysis it's hard to tell what is and is not fake. If you compare the traffic coming in to their affiliate links to the traffic we record on our own analytics, I'm told it looks super suspicious.

EDIT: apparently some advertisers have ad content prepared they give us that uses common advertising tools like doubleclick.net and such.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> A linguistic excursion not related to the substance of this controversy:

I'm looking for a term for "jokes or puns where the morphemes between which a clever relationship is drawn are actually true cognates, but the connection is no longer apparent to native speakers". Here that's true because English ad < advertisement < Middle French advertissement < advertir < Latin advertere 'turn towards, notice' is the same ad in "ad nauseam" 'to the point of nausea', both meaning 'toward' in Latin.

Does this kind of situation have a well-established name? (There might be subcategories for the case where the cognate preserves a connection in the meaning that's part of the joke, and the case where it's just coincidental, like here.)

<comment><USER30> Even if you reuse the same word it's still a pun. I don't think there's a different name for puns on homophones, cognates, or homonyms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The idea that ad networks don't care about click rates and clicks generated by bots seems very incorrect and false on even a surface glance. The revenue from ad networks is based on advertisers getting purchases and through that validate a marketing budget. It would be crazy if the networks did't already have several system to handle bad data and clicks generated by bots.

In addition, the argument is that the extension is only punishing the publishers. What it really do is to change the balance between unethical ad networks and ethical alternatives. By only punishing networks that automatically track users, the more ethical networks become better in comparison and will give better returns for each dollar spent on marketing. One could call this strong arming the publisher to chose more ethical, but an other way to see it is to eliminate the race to the bottom and discourage a lemon market. We currently have networks that have no problem with infecting peoples machines with malware, advertising products to children, or target the sick and vulnerable. If I ran AdNauseam and it causes a single website to consider an alternative ad network, I would consider that a major win for the Internet, even if that meant a few % less revenue.

Considering that some site has already gone over to more ethical alternatives in order to resolve the problem of ad blocking, it seems we are already making steps towards this future.

</comment><comment><USER32> How is it that Target will infer that a teenager is pregnant based off the items she has bought over the past few weeks at their stores, but ad networks won't infer which of their potential customers are likely to serve up malware over their networks?

<comment><USER33> They make money directly off of one? Whereas the other they potentially can maybe avoid losing some theoretical business or avoid having to pay fines in the future. Probably there's no one who's clear job responsibility is to ensure security.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> If a program does as it states and allows people to consent to its effect on them it isn't malware. I don't see how they can class it as such in good faith.

<comment> dane-pgp I don't know if anyone has been arrested for "click-fraud" yet, but we have seen an attempt to use the DMCA to force people to view adverts, under the theory that the adverts are part of "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected":

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14989742](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14989742)

If the terms of use of a website forbid you accessing that site with an ad- blocker installed, then arguably a user could be guilty under something like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if they did not comply. Rather than going after the individual users, though, (a tactic which was largely abandoned for dealing with torrenting), the publishers of a website could potentially try suing the makers of an ad-blocker.

Under theories of "vicarious infringement" and conspiracy (such as is used against sites like The Pirate Bay and other search engines which ISPs are required to block in some countries), I wouldn't be surprised if we one day see browser makers liable for the extensions they "allow" to be installed in "their" browsers, and then OS distributors held liable for browsers that they allow to be installed on "their" OS.

It is worth noting that ultimately it will be hardware-enforced TPM / Secure Boot technology that makes such laws and injunctions feasible. We need to be careful what precedents are set by projects like Pale Moon, and the sort of technological ecosystems we are building.

<comment><USER25> Then they should allow an http header saying "if you're going to serve ads, don't bother, i'd rather look at nothing".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I wasn't convinced if I should install AdNaunseam, now I am. thanks Moonchild :)

</comment><comment><USER36> It only hurts pay-per-click advertisers. Ones whose ads directly lead to a sale are unaffected.

</comment><comment><USER37> I feel like most people here are missing the point.

The question is not whether it is proper to use AdNauseam or not, the question is whether it should be a personal choice or one imposed upon by the browser.

In this case, PaleMoon was championed as the "freedom browser" as opposed to the "designed by a committee" Firefox. If this passes, does it actually mean it will simply be a fork of Firefox that keeps XPCOM support but with the same overall attitude?

</comment><comment><USER38> What a perfect Streisand effect. I am going to check that so much polarising AdNaus...thingie.

</comment><comment> jim-jim-jim It'd really be no big loss if every site that relied on ad revenue went under because of this. It'd be a net positive actually. No more Content Trough? No more Socialworthy? No more Reddit? Sign me up. There will always be personal sites and phpbb forums run out of pocket for passion not profit.

I use Ad Nauseum not because I think "the current advertising model is broken" or whatever. I'm not interested in reform. I'd like people to stop treating the web as a business opportunity. If this extension actively harms the bottom lines of the most shameless sorts of profiteers, then that totally rules and I support it 100%.

</comment><comment><USER18> I think most people would agree that non-consensual profiling / tracking of users is immoral. AdNauseum directly breaks most business models that rely on that. I don't see the problem.

Want to support your site using ads? Why not use display ads? Sell space next to high quality content to advertisers with relevant products. Problem solved, and it puts bottom feeder ad exchanges and content spam websites out of business. (And it probably puts a big wrench in the fake news industry as a bonus)

<comment><USER39> > Want to support your site using ads? Why not use display ads? Sell space > next to high quality content to advertisers with relevant products.

The hard part is that most sites don't have high quality content, and there are no relevant products..

I can see why people want to damage these sites.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I don't understand what the fuss is all about, last time I tried AdNauseum it barely detected and clicked very few Ads, maybe one or two on really ad-heavy popular websites, and many issues on github confirm that its detector is quite finicky.

</comment><comment><USER41> How does the efficiency/ad coverage compare to uBlock Origin? That's all that matters to me.

<comment><USER25> Virtually identical in my experience.

<comment><USER41> Oh! I'm dumb, I just noticed that it's a fork. Sweet :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> AdNauseam is foolish because if this is a success adnetworks go back to the good old days of the ugly in your face ads to ensure they count you as seeing there ad on each impression. Remember the exit ad that loaded after you left the page? Remember the expanding full page banner? They will be back.

<comment><USER19> Better than tracking and auto-playing videos.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Can't people just compile their own version sans-censorship?

<comment><USER44> You can remove the "censorship" with a 30-second config change. I don't understand why the people on that forum are so up in arms about something this trivial.

<comment><USER26> It's more about the position of the Pale Moon maintainer in making this change, than the (lack of) difficulty in reverting it.

Even Mozilla currently allows it: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/)

Google, quite understandably, didn't: [https://adnauseam.io/free- adnauseam.html](https://adnauseam.io/free-adnauseam.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> >Yup. you can all calm down and take some time to educate yourself about the damage this can and will cause to small-website owners

You can all calm down and take some time to hear me tell you you have to believe in what I believe.

</comment><comment><USER46> You guys do realize what's going to happen as soon as a webpage can detect you have AdNauseam installed right? They gonna block you completely from their websites -I mean IP-tables blockage- and rightly so. If you don't like a website just don't use it; it's really really simple; when you start attacking every ad network the creator of the extension deems "evil" you are basically just another bot in his botnet attack; you didn't were part of the committee that heard both parts and made a rightful judgment in a case-by-case basis, you just decided "yeah this random guy who created this extension probably picked the bad ones, lets hurt them"; so you don't even have the moral high ground you pretend.

<comment><USER47> Agreed. AdNauseum has no more of a fair trial system, ability to be held accountable, or potential for appeal than the SPLC hate group list. I met a group of nuns listed by the SPLC, and they were a very racially diverse group of exceedingly kind people. Their group was listed in the 80s because a male bishop associated with their convent recommended some books with anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. He is dead now and our local paper did an investigation this year on the listing and found that the nuns are on good terms with local Jewish congregations with whom they respect and accomplish good in the community. The local Jewish groups couldn't get the time of day from the SPLC to reconsider their listing of the nuns, even though the SPLC explanation of the listing doesn't cite evidence of anything done by a woman or by a human currently living or done before the 1980s. And yet the SPLC is gaining more power to censor than most governments on Earth as some tech giants experiment with giving them powers to secretly make content disappear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I've never heard of this fork before and Im not sure why its on the front page of HN.

<comment><USER35> Biggest fork of Firefox, apparently not anymore community driven, they tried to "unfuck" Firefox by removing enabled built-in google trackers, business decisions made by Mozilla that community didn't like because they were financially or ideologically driven (like Pocket or Telemetry?).</comment></comment>


3 billion items in Java Map with 16 GB RAM - <AUTHOR> http://kotek.net/blog/3G_map

<comment><USER2> The MapDB mentioned in this article looks pretty interesting: <https://github.com/jankotek/MapDB>. Anyone have experience with it?

<comment><USER3> I've been using the previous version of the library (JDBM3) for some time now, although I haven't tried MapDB just yet. They have very similar APIs, however.

I've found JDBM3 a pleasure to use; it's fast and stable, with an excellent API. It's really quite easy to start using (it exposes Java collection interfaces), but you can configure it to do some powerful things under the hood. I'm not using the library in a really high-performance setting (just need a persistent key-value store), so I can't quite comment on the extreme scaling qualities.

I'm excited to switch to MapDB as it matures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From Github:

"What you should know: MapDB relies on mapped memory heavily. NIO implementation in JDK6 seems to be failing randomly under heavy load. MapDB works best with JDK7"

The original JDBM2 apparently worked fine under Android; I wonder how the new implementation (JDBM4 renamed MapDB) fairs.

I do worry about Java as implemented on Android diverging from the official stuff in general. For example, Android does not have NIO.2, and Harmony NIO bugs would be different than OpenJDK NIO bugs.

</comment><comment><USER5> Can someone please explain how this is possible, when all the java collections have "int size()" and the max value of a java int is 2,147,483,647?

<comment><USER2> Collections are allowed to grow larger than size() can handle. The documentation for size() says:

> If this collection contains more than Integer.MAX_VALUE elements, returns > Integer.MAX_VALUE.

<comment><USER5> I see, thanks for pointing it out. I always considered it a fundamental limitation of collections, because all or almost all of them are array-backed, and array indices in java are int, therefore the collections are generally limited to 2^31 items.

<comment><USER6> Does the term "array-backed" include the possibility of using an array of arrays? That would get you up to about 2^62...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Near the end insertion rate slowed down thanks to excesive GC activity"

Can someone explain why this happens?

<comment><USER8> The Java GC uses a mark and sweep algorithm that has to stop the world to collect the garbage. As the number of items on the heap goes up, there are a higher number of valid pointers (less garbage) and the GC takes a long time to find even a little bit of garbage to clean up. So each GC run takes longer and there are more of them as the heap fills up. Given that the world is stopped during each GC run things take longer and hence the insertion rate is slower.

<comment><USER9> What? In java there are multiple GCs available: ConcMarkSwep, G1GC, ParallelGC, and I believe a couple more. All you have to do is set the right CLI flag.

From the concurrent mark and sweep docs: "The concurrent mark sweep collector, also known as the concurrent collector or CMS, is targeted at applications that are sensitive to garbage collection pauses. It performs most garbage collection activity concurrently, i.e., while the application threads are running, to keep garbage collection-induced pauses short. The key performance enhancements made to the CMS collector in JDK 6 are outlined below. See the documents referenced below for more detailed information on these changes, the CMS collector, and garbage collection in HotSpot."

It does have to stop the world _sometimes_ but those times should be quite rare!

<comment><USER10> If the CMS collector can't 'keep up', meaning it doesn't think it can avoid running out of heap space based on its duty cycle and the current memory state, it will do a full on complete, stop the world GC. Based on the article I'm guessing this is what is kicking in.

<comment><USER9> They never mentioned using CMS, and CMS isn't the default GC, so I assume they weren't using it.

CMS actually isn't the highest throughput GC, it's there for low-pause systems where there are extra cores available to perform GC in the background.

<comment><USER10> My point was that none of the GCs completely avoid full on stop everything, sweep and compact all the things GC cycles. They will all do this if they are in a position where they think the heap will be exhausted (specifically when a concurrent mode failure occurs). There really isn't anything else a GC can do in this situation other than throw an OOM exception. Thus any time your pushing the heap to its limits, regardless of what GC you use, you will see complete GC sweeps of the old generation.

If you want stricter failure requirements use GCTimeLimit and GCHeapFreeLimit. By default the JVM with throw an OOM error if it spends 98% of execution time in the GC and frees only 2% of the memory, GCTimeLimit and GCHeapFreeLimit switches allow this these values to be changed. Also only the 'stop the world' portions of a collection apply to the execution time limit, concurrent phases do not. So if you managed to keep the collector in concurrent mode (by cranking up the duty cycle for example) then only the 2 mini-pauses will count even if the concurrent portion were now pegging a CPU core at 100%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does anyone know which license MapDB is distributed under (GPL, BSD, etc.)? I couldn't find this information on the MapDB site.

<comment><USER12> Apache Software License, Version 2.0

[https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/...](https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/mapdb/MapDB/0.9-SNAPSHOT/MapDB-0.9-20121108.082655-3.pom)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting, though I'm curious about what kind of results you get when something other than an empty String object is used?

<comment><AUTHOR> It uses more memory and result number of entries will be smaller. It is database engine, physical laws still applies.

<comment><USER13> I was more interested in knowing whether you have any real world examples of MapDB?

<comment><AUTHOR> MapDB is still too fresh, so there is no documentation or examples yet. But some people are already using it, mostly for parsing large text files.

Previous versions were called JDBM and it has been around since 2001, so it has some solid user base. Problem is that nobody tells me until there is bug, which is not happening that often :-)

<comment><USER3> I'll say for JDBM3, the bugs must be few and far between; we haven't found any yet. Many thanks for a rock-solid library!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does anyone know of a .net implementation?</comment>


Ask YC:  Paul Graham's 18 Mistakes that Kill Startups:  Which are no longer an issue when developing Facebook apps? - <AUTHOR> Which of these mistakes (if any) are no longer an issue when developing Facebook apps?
http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html <comment><USER3> Personally, I don't think "Single Founder" is an issue for facebook apps -- pg's argument of "It probably means the founder couldn't talk any of his friends into starting the company with him" is only valid if you're trying to talk your friends into joining you. (In my case, even though I'm not doing a facebook app, I've turned down offers with a "uhh, thanks... but I really don't need any help right now".) Different startups require different amounts of manpower, just like different startups require different amounts of capital -- I think most facebook applications easily fall into the "one person is enough" category.

As for the rest... I'd say they're all relevant to varying degrees. Probably "Bad Location" is less relevant, since it's partly about finding angels and VC (which are less important since facebook apps generally need less capital); while "Hiring Bad Programmers" is probably more relevant (if you're hiring anyone at all, at least), since most greybeards are old enough to have not drunk the facebook kool-aid.

<comment><USER4> I never drank the Single Founder kool-aid either.

Completely off-topic, cperciva, but regarding your startup, why are you giving away your strongest asset (secure backup implementation and code) in order to make money on an increasingly commoditized product (the storage itself)? I would think it would be in your interest to do the opposite. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER3> I'm not giving away the tarsnap code. I'll make the source code available for people to inspect (and compile for themselves) so that they don't have to blindly trust the binaries I provide; but it will be under a "you can use this only as part of the tarsnap backup service" license.

<comment><USER4> I see. At any rate, you may want to consider divorcing your product from any particular storage scheme. Corporate customers, who usually honor licenses, have tons of unused storage (on every desktop). You might want to consider a distributed scheme where, from a common management tool, an operator could have a virtual encrypted backup across an enterprise.

In any event, good luck and godspeed.

<comment><USER3> _you may want to consider divorcing your product from any particular storage scheme_

I've considered that, and might do that at some point in the future. That said, I'm aiming more at the home user / small business market -- large corporations have other options (e.g., backup appliances from EMC and suchlike).

I figure that I'll build the version of tarsnap that I want to use, and if/when that becomes popular I'll decide where to go next based on demand.

<comment><USER5> If you wanted to go really nuts you could distribute a "one click" version of HDFS that people could run at home, letting their existing network take care of redundancy.

<comment><USER4> He has a point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Developing a Facebook app is mistake 19.

<comment><USER7> Say that to the people making $500/day++ with their app.

<comment><USER8> Sometimes you can make a lot of money even if you make a mistake. Sometimes even if you make quite a few mistakes. There are quite a few startups that had the wrong platform and survived, quite a few that had only one founder and survived and so on.

The fact that something is a mistake doesn't mean its a fatal one. And that fact alone doesn't mean it is not a mistake.

The question you should ask yourself is whether your startup be better off if you hadn't made that choice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What's the revenue model on a Facebook app? You're getting a tiny piece of advertising pie? Sorry, but building a company based off of what amounts to a plugin for someone else's software just doesn't seem like a good idea to me...

... that said, I guess it was done with PhotoShop a bunch of times. But people had to pay up front for that software.

Or are we returning to the dot com days where revenue doesn't matter -- it's all about pageviews?

<comment><USER8> That was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps you get easier access to liquidity and can gather users a tad faster but in the end you have very little control. You don't own the liquidity you are borrowing it, you don't even have a TOS contract (at least that one that I could find) with facebook, they can shut you down without any warning.

Even if you can make a very profitable app, imagine trying to IPO a facebook app... How do you think investors would evaluate the risk.

I can understand developing a facebook app as a part of a more comprehensive strategy as a complimentary tool to your website. That might be a very powerful tactic but as a standalone product, I just don't get it.

Again if anyone understands this differently I'd love to finally see what I am missing here...

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't live in a place where VC funding is likely and I don't have a partner. I'm also not good at web design nor do I have good contacts among top web 2.0 bloggers.

And from my startup prototypes so far, I have learned that most users have very little patience, understand little, and generally don't contribute much.

For these reasons, toy Facebook apps seem to be my best bet. I also like the idea of playing with people's minds, easily tweaking things here and there to see what sort of psychological/sociological impact they will have, etc.

<comment><USER9> Okay, so you're talking about developing a hobby, not a business. Unless you've come up with a new way to convert "psychological/sociological impact" into dollars.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think some Facebook apps make quite a lot of money in advertising -- at least enough income for the few developers involved.

<comment><USER10> I think that's the majority of the reason. If you're getting a couple million views a day on some silly facebook app, that can be a big deal for a smaller company.

I read iLike added 3 million users in two weeks with their Facebook app (<http://mashable.com/2007/06/11/ilike-facebook-app-success/>). That's pretty significant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't see any mistake that is obviously eliminated for Facebook apps, and problem #7 (choosing the wrong platform) is a significant risk.

However, it's not clear that single Facebook apps qualify as startups in Paul's sense. At least today, FB apps are more like content that plug into an existing distribution network, like movies + distributors or blogs + AdSense.

If you wanted to found a business that made FB apps, many per year, that's a different story. Then you'd be more like a game studio.

</comment><comment><USER12> I think it really depends. Most of the applications that currently exist on Facebook are defined by Facebook itself. That is to say, the applications add to the features of Facebook, rather than Facebook adding to the application. I think that soon, we will start seeing sites rely on Facebook's API to drive the social infrastructure of their site. In this way, the site would be self- sufficient, but could take advantage of Facebook's platform to add value to their own offering.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that the applications that receive grants from the fbFund will be of this ilk rather than a SuperMegaUltraPoke or Vampires and Pirate Ninjas application. At least, I hope so. If not, Facebook apps will never mature, and will be the flash in the pan that many think they will.

</comment><comment><USER13> single founder comment is complete rubbish. If someone has the drive and ability then why shouldn't do it. Saying that just because they couldn't talk any of their friends into joining them is so small minded. I have lots of friends but none of them are techie and or interested in startups so does that mean I shouldn't have started my business because none of them are into it? I know Paul has a cult following around here but he really does seem to think everyone doing tech startups are collage grads.

<comment><USER8> I agree some projects are great fits for single founders but you should be able to convince at least one rational person this is a good idea and is worth investing the time, energy, money into.

It doesn't matter if that person is your spouse, a co-founder, an angel - <USER2> make sure at least one person whose opinion you respect and has something to lose if you fail/waste your time thinks this is a good idea.

<comment><USER13> totally, people can give you feedback on ideas. If its too big for you at that time store it until you have made some contacts that can help you do it or have the money to hire the skills needed. I work this way.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Knowledge Based AI Frameworks? - <AUTHOR> I've completed a course on KBAI. I think that it was mostly an overview. I have idea how to apply case-based reasoning to things like recipes. I think my issue boils down to not having a tangible example of a case-based reasoning framework with which to play. I get production rules coming from a Drools background.<p>So far my Google-foo has hit air. Does anyone know of a KBAI framework? <comment><USER2> How about [http://freecbr.sourceforge.net/](http://freecbr.sourceforge.net/) or [http://mycbr-project.net/preview/](http://mycbr-project.net/preview/)

Also, depending on how broadly you define things, pretty much all of the work going on in the Semantic Web world is "knowledge based AI". Look at something like Jena and/or reasoners like Fact++, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why are they dead projects?

<comment><USER2> Probably because this field is incredibly fad driven (like tech in general) and this stuff isn't trendy right now. Ignore that though... just because something isn't the current fad doesn't mean it isn't still useful. Explore, play around, evaluate things on their own merit.</comment></comment></comment>


TrailBehind Now Links Thousands of Campgrounds Just Like This One - <AUTHOR> http://www.trailbehind.com/#get_map_from_node/8896298

<comment><AUTHOR> We indexed all of the campsites on recreation.gov to the map, and we also indexed 20,000 or so more reports.</comment>


Show HN: Video monetization platform for YouTubers (and other creators) - <AUTHOR> https://infstream.com/prelaunch <comment><USER2> Hi - Callum here. Feel free to drop me an email at firstname.lastname@example.com if you have any questions or would like to discuss anything further.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why not let each channel set what they want to charge?

<comment><AUTHOR> We wanted to set a fixed amount per channel so users know what to expect when subscribing. It was important to us that creators earn a reasonable amount, while still making it accessible.

At $1/mo, users can expect 14 to 28 new videos a month for the price of a Netflix subscription ($7, with channels uploading 2-4 times per month).

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> TL;DR: Skip the marketing copy: [https://infstream.com/?code=HN](https://infstream.com/?code=HN)

Hi HN – we're Ben & Callum from Infstream. We've always been heavy users of YouTube but towards the end of last year we saw more and more horror stories of YouTubers losing their livelihood to the ad algorithm.

We decided to build a content-first video platform, which aims to reduce issues by removing advertisers from the equation. Instead, we charge for the content you watch – bold, I know.

Instead of paying in advertising and data, users on Infstream build their own streaming package, a channel at a time. Anyone can start a channel (US & UK now, Europe soon) and earn directly from their subscribers.

Subscribers pay $1 per month per channel, of which the channel receives $0.75. This all begins from the first subscriber, there are no minimums to start monetization.

Channels have total control, and can publish on a daily, weekly or monthly schedule – whatever is working for them and their subscribers. They're free to keep publishing on other sites (we recommend it), and can promote exclusive content to their existing audience, quickly growing an ad-independent revenue stream.

We're getting ready to launch, and are inviting creators to sign up beforehand to get their channel ready. If you or a connection has had issues with publishing on YouTube we'd love to hear from you, and learn some more about the pain points.

The platform is stocked with demo content, it would be great to get some feedback.

[https://infstream.com/?code=HN](https://infstream.com/?code=HN)

This was also my first production project using Hasura (super positive), so can share my experience if you're considering trying it.

Stack:

\- Hasura (GraphQL)

\- Lambda + S3

\- Mux

\- Cube.js

\- Stripe Connect / Atlas

\- Vue 2

Callum and I will be hanging out in the comments to answer any questions. Feel free to drop me an email at email@example.com if you've got questions or want to chat.

Full disclosure, we submitted this a couple of weeks ago, but didn't get much traction. Since then, we've completely revamped our landing page and copy – hope this qualifies enough for a new submission.

</comment><comment><USER4> Nice</comment>


Getting a 99/100 Google PageSpeed Score - <AUTHOR> https://blog.adam-marsden.co.uk/improve-seo-making-your-site-faster-get-a-99-100-google-page-score-cb13e718249b <comment><USER2> But why?

<comment><USER3> Google ranks faster websites higher.</comment></comment>


Try HTML5 rich text editing with semantic annotations - <AUTHOR> http://semantic-editor.org/try_it/

<comment><USER2> Pretty nifty rich text editor.

I don't really get the "semantic" thing, though. Can someone please explain?

<comment><AUTHOR> The semantic-editor.org demo is still in quite early stage. We did a bit more with Aloha already in July, and hopefully this will now be wrapped into the editor:

[http://bergie.iki.fi/blog/aloha_and_the_art_of_semantic_web_...](http://bergie.iki.fi/blog/aloha_and_the_art_of_semantic_web_content/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It conflicts with Vrome extension keybindings.

</comment><comment><USER4> Does not work in latest Chrome?

</comment><comment><USER5> Fails to being up the keyboard on my Android phone. thought I'd let you know ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Same problem with iPad/iPhone. It appears many mobile WebKit implementations have decided not to provide contenteditable support.</comment></comment>


How to Simulate an Avalanche – And All Its Subtle Mechanics - <AUTHOR> https://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/tb/stories/blog/32798 <comment><USER2> I'm not sure what it is, but every time I see simulated snow there's just something wrong about it. My brain just instinctively tells me "that's not snow" and suggests sand or something else. There's a definite uncanny valley effect for snow

</comment><comment><USER3> It's crazy how dangerous avalanches are to off-piste skiers. Living at a ski town in the Alps, the causality list is almost like living in a war zone. The better the conditions are, the more dangerous it gets - it's a killer dynamic.</comment>


Ask HN: Could a Blockchain add value to HackerNews? - <AUTHOR> I'm watching all the blockchain news and all the promise for other users besides money.  I understand some of the use cases, but I'm wondering if there is someway blockchain could add value to HackerNews (or a site similar site like Reddit, Slashdot, etc.) <comment><USER2> No.

</comment><comment><USER3> 2018 is going to be a rough year...

</comment><comment><USER4> Maybe.</comment>


Lion-Man - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-man <comment><AUTHOR> Rather belatedly watching an amazing documentary on the 40,000 year old Lion- Man statue made from Ivory and found in a German cave by SS Archaeologists.

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008c5c](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008c5c)

<comment><USER2> Just a hint: SS was a military group, not the entirety of German population and not even the entire military (Wehrmacht) in that time. The SS certainly didn't have archeologists. It's like saying some Americans of today are "TSA archeologists".

The BBC calls it Nazi archeologists which is still not really correct or fair. The Nazis were a political party, not everyone adhered to it's views. The archeologists might well have been on the other side of the political spectrum but had not much chance to change country. It's like calling all Americans today Trump cashiers, Trump archeologists or Trump teachers. Doesn't make sense.

<comment><USER3> > The SS certainly didn't have archeologists

Except they did. The project that led to the Lion Man was started by paleontologist Robert Wetzel who joined the SS in 1937 and later became Sturmbannführer.

Völzing's excavation was funded by the SS which was not something that you happened to be roped into without your knowledge.

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

"The lion-headed figurine is the oldest-known zoomorphic (animal-shaped) sculpture in the world, and the oldest-known uncontested example of figurative art. It has been determined by carbon dating of the layer in which it was found to be between 35,000 and 40,000 years old, and therefore is associated with the archaeological Aurignacian culture of the Upper Paleolithic. It was carved out of mammoth ivory using a flint stone knife."

</comment><comment><USER4> We are interviewing Dr. Joan Baker, a curator of Paleoprogramming Institute, about the recently discovered trove of ancient project management documents.

Dr. Baker, in your opinion, why would a primitive community, mainly concerned with building computer applications almost entirely by hand and under the constant threat of global warming, allow somebody to spend so much time detailing what exactly work will be done, when it will be done, and then also detailing how many hours it actually took?

We can only speculate, but we believe it is a relationship to things unseen, the vital forces of nature, that you need to perhaps propitiate, perhaps connect to, in order to ensure your successful life.

</comment><comment><USER5> The species that this seems modeled after went extinct 550,000 years before this was made? Something is amiss here.

<comment><USER6> Wikipedia states that the extinction happened only 13000 years ago. Fascinating stuff.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> also a classic breakbeat track: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zckpMLsMBYo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zckpMLsMBYo)</comment>


Anything interesting in the Sony leak? - <AUTHOR>

Heard about the movies and MPAA's anti-Google attacks, but what else have we learned that's interesting? Did we hear about cool new technology? Cool ideas? Something that sounds like seeds for progress and new innovation?<p>Somehow one imagines that in a massive leak of private and internal work by a huge company, there should be the basis of new sparks of creativity. <comment><AUTHOR> If something like their full details on the PS4 or research on a PS5 had gotten out, that might've been entertaining.</comment>