Weizsäcker's speech on 40th anniversary of WW2's end (1985) - <AUTHOR> http://www.bundespraesident.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Reden/2015/02/150202-RvW-Rede-8-Mai-1985-englisch.pdf;jsessionid=9BC204670EC73ACE845085C27F5A7DC6.2_cid285?__blob=publicationFile <comment><AUTHOR> "For us Germans, 8 May is not a day of celebration. Those who actually witnessed that day in 1945 think back on highly personal and hence highly different experiences. Some returned home, others lost their homes. Some were liberated, whilst for others it was the start of captivity. [...] Yet with every day something became clearer, and this must be stated on behalf of all of us today: the 8th of May was a day of liberation. It liberated all of us from the inhumanity and tyranny of the National-Socialist regime."

"As democratically elected politicians, we, too, should heed this time and again and set a good example.

Let us honour freedom.

Let us work for peace.

Let us respect the rule of law.

Let us be true to our own conception of justice.

On this 8th of May, let us face up as well as we can to the truth."</comment>


Philadelphia's Top Prosecutor Is Prepared to Arrest Federal Agents - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-22/philly-d-a-threatens-to-arrest-federal-agents <comment><USER2> Next headline, presumably: "Federal Agents Prepared To Arrest Philadelphia Prosecutor"

(This is black humor; it is never a good thing when different law enforcement factions within a country start openly fighting each other. Perhaps the next stage looks like Catalonia.)

<comment><USER3> > He's talking about deploying 150 federal law enforcement [officers] to > Chicago. The police force in Chicago is over 12,000 people. He's talking > about deploying maybe the equivalent of 1% of their ordinary active police > force. This is fluff. This is politics. This has nothing to do with actual > law enforcement.

<comment><USER4> How many were deployed to Portland though? It doesn't take much...

<comment><USER3> The crucial difference is that Portland police haven't been ordered to prevent unlawful activity by feds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So, Philly's police are going to ride escort for the rioters?

<comment><USER6> no. instead the prosecutor will fall off his high horse and see he only has power to harrass regular citizens, which he'll go back to doing. the police unions are directly asking for these fed gestapo to come and bring them outlawed weapons. this da is an idiot if he thinks the cops will arrest the guys they are on same team with. the da is not on that team. cops don't care what he wants or thinks or orders.

<comment><USER7> This DA isn't reliant on the Philly police department for enforcement - he's in one of the few states where DAs have their own law enforcement officers on staff[1].

The "D.A. detectives" referenced in the article are key to his stance, as they're employees directly under his control that are recognized by the state as equivalent to and having the same authority as a normal police officer.

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

<comment><USER6> the detectives referenced in the article are just a loud da posturing. it's the special operations division, and all they can do is launch a probe -not enforce anything, or arrest anyone.

just because you have a secretary employed by you doesn't mean she's allowed to rewire your electric because you tell her. if the detectives try to actually arrest police or feds, they themselves would be arrested. by the police and the feds.

this da is simply on a power grab, just like trump, while accusing trump of a power grab. 2 monkeys throwing poop at each other in a war about how different they are.

<comment><USER8> At that point, it's state violence against state violence and what practically happens depends on who brings a bigger gun.

... but the spectacle of CBP officers (and hired mercenaries) and Philadelphia D.A. officers shooting it out might clue some people into precisely how off- the-rails this federal administration has become.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The more time cops spend fighting other cops the less time they have to harass the rest of us. For the same reason it is beneficial to keep the government split between political factions.

<comment><USER10> Read 'time cops' and chuckled.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How best can i learn assembly and reverse programing? - <AUTHOR>

Am a computer student from Africa Uganda. I've tried my best to learn assembly and reverse programing from online resources but i have found it pretty hash to understand. Since most of the you here are professions, i know the probability of  finding someone who can give me the best advice is high. Thank you all. <comment><USER2> For learning reverse engineering, I would recommend the book Reversing: Secrets of Reverse Engineering[1] by Eldad Eilam.

I'm not sure what good beginner resources for learning assembly programming are, but either way, you'll probably want a copy of the Intel instruction set reference manuals[2] (and maybe the other Intel/AMD manuals[3]).

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Reversing-Secrets-Engineering-Eldad- Ei...](http://www.amazon.com/Reversing-Secrets-Engineering-Eldad- Eilam/dp/0764574817)

[2] vol1: <http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/manual/253666.pdf> vol2: <http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/manual/253667.pdf>

[3] Intel: <http://www.intel.com/products/processor/manuals/> AMD: <http://developer.amd.com/documentation/pages/default.aspx>

</comment><comment><USER3> What are you aiming to reverse-engineer? Applications written in C/C++? Java/.NET? Aged firmware (8/16 bit asm)? ARM code?

I have some experience with the C/C++ part, so I'll try to answer that. Though this is more of a "what to learn in what order" post than a "how to learn it" one. Sorry, I'm mostly self-taught so can't really recommend exhaustive resources.

0: Intel's manuals are great, but mind that they're a reference, not beginner's books. Also, Intel used to give away dead tree versions of their manuals for free, unfortunately I don't think they do that anymore.

1: I don't think you need to learn all the ins and outs of assembly at first - knowing the basic flow control and math/logic operations will be enough. Don't worry about interrupts, descriptor tables, and other magic yet.

2: Once you learn the basics, practice: try to write simple programs in C and step through them in an IDE while looking at the disassembly view. Add inline assembly and practice writing it too.

3: After that, you'll probably need to learn how C++ constructs get translated to assembly code, which is a really large topic. Stanley Lippman's "C++ Object Model" covers quite a lot of it by showing how C++ gets transformed into C-like code, which you should already be familiar with. Mind that each compiler does some things differently than the others, so you should look at at least G++ and MSVC++.

When you get here, it's a good idea to browse around blogs like <http://www.nynaeve.net/> and <http://www.pagetable.com/> .

4: OS specifics and abstractions. Learn what the OS won't let you do in user mode, why, and so on.

5: Code injection. If you want to add/change code in an existing program, you'll either need to patch its binaries or use an existing code injection program to do it automatically. The second approach is nicer when your changes need to be propagated to other installations of that program, and they don't require modifications to the actual program, which can be nice when it does checksumming/updates itself. Several "gray" methods exist to do this, something like [1] might be a good start.

Tools: Aside from a C/C++ toolchain (no assembler as such - I don't think raw assembly programs are a good idea, and prefer pieces of inline assembly in a C++ program, YMMV), you'll definitely need a disassembler and a debugger. Personally, I love IDA Pro (it does both) with its graphing features and extendability. Their decompiler is a fabulous piece of work too, even though it's not perfect.

(In fact, my friends and I are currently reverse-engineering a certain game and fixing/extending it. This is a really fun and enlightening hobby - we need to work out what the functions/objects do, map out their signatures in C++ , fix any inconsistencies with inline ASM, resulting in interesting macro collections like [2], and then write code using them without breaking stuff. Fun, for certain #define of fun.)

[1][http://www.memoryhacking.com/Misc/Tut/Injection%20Manager.ht...](http://www.memoryhacking.com/Misc/Tut/Injection%20Manager.htm) [2][http://svn.renegadeprojects.com/filedetails.php?repname=YR%2...](http://svn.renegadeprojects.com/filedetails.php?repname=YR%2B%2B&path=%2Ftrunk%2FASMMacros.h)

</comment><comment><USER4> Perhaps you should take a look at: <http://www.crackmes.de/>

They offer tons of so called 'crackmes'. Those are binaries that are written to be reversed for fun. Ranging from 'very easy' to 'wtf'. The posted solutions offer an easy entry to go from theory to practice.

Have fun

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks you guys for your help, I've have already looked though some of the sites you've quoted and it looks like it might be of great help. Thanks</comment></comment>


Why iPad - <AUTHOR> http://www.thepoc.net/thepoc-features/lintech/lintech-features/5676-why-ipad-is-a-threat-to-google.html iPad isn't a threat to the Open Web. it creates new vector for content creators for free. What iPad and its ecosystem does however is to create a threat against Search Engine Optimization, a threat to Google. <comment><AUTHOR> iPad and its ecosystem doesn't offer a threat to the Open Web, it creates new ways for Content Creators like bloggers, and podcasters who can choose to offer their content for free. What iPad and its ecosystem does however is to create a threat against Search Engine Optimization, ergo: a threat to Google. Simply put, iPad content is a clear and present danger to Google indexing all the web's and by extension, all of humanity's content.

<comment><USER2> It's a major step backwards for information junkies like myself if more content gets locked into apps. Search and linking will be threatened. However I think it will regulate itself. If you can't find content, you won't consume it.

I disagree with the article's claim that "What's even better is that gone will the need to publish content that has to match ever browser on the planet." It's actually going to get worse. Content apps are like yet another browser to support. You can't operate under the assumption that most content consumers will have iPads.

I think apps are a fad to an extent and providers will tire of supporting multiple platforms that way.

<comment><AUTHOR> on the desktop, i go for google reader. what i find on the iPod (i've yet to receive my iPad) is that i go for the app. like marketwatch or strait times. i find it more convenient. you on the other hand find it less convenient that way.

That's interesting to me.

i also find it interesting you think apps are a fad. I don't think it'll turn out that way--- quite obviously. i think market forces, meaning people making money off the apps can be enticing.

i don't think this will be limited to iPads--- Google Android apps could be another vector, but you make a good argument re: that it would be like another browser to support. imho they'll support it too as soon as more and more people use mobile to browse the internet. iPads, iPhones, Android phones, are awesome platforms to make this happen.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How does one design great User Interfaces? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I'd highly recommend getting help from these guys [[http://fairpixels.pro](http://fairpixels.pro)]

</comment><comment><USER3> a) Look at the user interfaces that are relatable that you think are great, take notes.

From those resources, design yours.

b) identify problems in your user interfaces; think of more elegant solutions; research and implement</comment>


BMW considering monthly subscription model to enable heated seating in cars - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/bmw-vehicle-as-a-platform/ <comment><AUTHOR> > BMW is raising the ante by making many car options into software services > enabled whenever you want them.

> BMW mentioned everything from advanced safety systems like adaptive cruise > and automatic high-beams to other, more discrete options like heated seats.

</comment><comment><USER2> Remind me not to consider purchasing a BMW (especially used!)

Are there any other luxury brands that nickel and dime like this?</comment>


Coinbase ordered to hand the IRS info on 14,355 of its highest-rolling customers - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/coinbase-must-give-bitcoin-customer-information-irs-taxes-2017-11 <comment><USER2> Is this surprising to anyone? This is the very sort of problem which Bitcoin was designed to avoid -decentralized no single point of failure. This is why you should be using your own wallet where you control the money.

<comment><USER3> The amount of people who are not paying capital gains taxes is rampant with Bitcoin. Pay your fair share, you aren't special.

<comment><USER4> Or just never sell ;)</comment></comment></comment>


The Spanish Prisoner Scam - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/the-email-scam-with-centuries-of-history/

<comment><USER2> I came to this expecting something about the movie. Instead I was rewarded with a staggering amount of history on the scam every one of has had perpetrated on us.

<comment><USER3> Me too, partly because it was one of my favorite movies about the dangers of "intrapreneurship". I really enjoyed Mamet's mantalk in this one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow, $12.3 Billion lost to the 419 scam in 2013 and growing if the ultrascan report is accurate.

Edit: interesting report on the scam (warning large pdf):

[http://www.ultrascan- agi.com/public_html/html/pdf_files/Pre-...](http://www.ultrascan- agi.com/public_html/html/pdf_files/Pre- Release-419_Advance_Fee_Fraud_Statistics_2013-July-10-2014-NOT-FINAL-1.pdf)

<comment><USER5> The company producing the report you link appears to be the scam too:

[http://www.ultrascan- agi.com/public_html/html/about.html](http://www.ultrascan- agi.com/public_html/html/about.html)

"Ultrascan AGI is a subsidiary of Ultrascan Research Services, an international research organization with over 3200 experts in 69 countries."

But in the report you link, made in 2014, they have their statistics of "Yugoslavia" from 2008 and 2009, whereas the country with that name doesn't exist in the world since 2003 (that is, more than a decade) easily verifiable online.

I wouldn't be surprised that behind the "organization with 3200 experts" is only one or two persons.

Edit: and here they are, possibly using the fake names, doing scams too:

[http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/texas-c466991.html](http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/texas-c466991.html)

"People, please be aware, globalinvestor.com IS a scam. It's just a website with nothing legitimate behind it. The person behind it allegedly is a 'Max Becker' who writes on his Linkedin profile that he is the CEO. He also writes to be the CTO of a company called Ultrascan Advanced Global Investigations. The person behind Ultrascan is Frank Engelsman. He is Dutch and does exist. Ultrascan claims to help victims of 419 (Nigerian advanced fee fraud) but that appears also to be a scam."

[http://www.scambook.com/report/view/115492/Economic- Frauds-e...](http://www.scambook.com/report/view/115492/Economic-Frauds- economicfraudscom-Complaint-115492-for-$650.00)

"I was scam by Global Investor Alerts for $37,000. Exact same modus operendi as Economic Frauds. I do some research and I find other company with same modus operendi Ultrascan IGA website [http://www.ultrascan- agi.com/](http://www.ultrascan-agi.com/) Take a look. It look like it is abandoned since 2010. The owner of Ultrascan company is Frank Engelsman from Holland. Then came Global Investor Alerts alias name now Max Becker now it is Economic Frauds.

Max Becker tell me the same thing. How he can get my money back from garbage stock I buy, called ALLI, and he already help a lot of people. So then I send in my documents. Then he say it is class action with many others and ALLi do a fraud.

Always a story to send money again and again. Then I am suspicious. I try to get address to go see Max Becker and no more answer. Ultrascan, Gobal Investor Alerts, Economic Frauds all have no address. Only telephone to take your money."

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This fraud has now moved to LinkedIn under the guise of Middle Eastern Investors. They have websites that they copy from legitimate websites but with no deep linking in the site. I actually think that this is a serious problem for LinkedIn.

</comment><comment><USER7> A fool and his money are soon parted.

I doubt technology will ever make that proverb obsolete.</comment>


Snap's Drop in Active Users Could Signal a Social Media Peak - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/technology/snapchat-users.html <comment><USER2> We might be at a local maximum, but we're nowhere near the peak. What we're seeing is an end of the race to the bottom.

What's happened is that most of the major social networks only hire and promote people who make decisions primarily based on analytics. As a result these sites no longer have any real communities or organic content, and have been completely hollowed out by math-friendly refrigerator magnet junkfood. Even though everyone can recognize that most users no longer find these experiences to be compelling, they're all stuck in a one-way spiral.

Web 3 is just getting started though, and with new technologies are going to come novel and compelling forms of social interaction.

<comment><USER3> > What's happened is that most of the major social networks only hire and > promote people who make decisions primarily based on analytics. As a result > these sites no longer have any real communities or organic content, and have > been completely hollowed out by math-friendly refrigerator magnet junkfood.

_Exactly_ this. Rather than understanding their users as real humans, having unique insights about them, and building something that meets their real needs, everything has been about maximizing hollow engagement metrics. And guess what? That's good for short term revenue but not long term trust. If you're running a startup and the main way you learn about your users is through statistical tracking and A/B testing, you're missing an important opportunity to get to know them properly. They will lead the way and although you can't simply ask them what they want, if you understand them deeply you'll know what to do.

I'm excited about the next wave of platforms, which are tapping into enormous unmet needs. It's early days, and I can't stand the "web 3" label, but there's definitely going to be a sea change.

<comment><USER4> I don't want to sound like an ass because I wholeheartedly agree with you. The experience is hollow.

But you can't invest in things you can't quantify. You can't make money off of good vibes and authenticity without metrics. Snapchat and the like have thrown enormous money at understanding humans and have the best people in their fields to get this right.

I think what worked 10 years ago no longer flies now. How we socialize on the web has changed, and we're turned off by the traditional mechanics to keep us viewing. There are many alternatives to the service Facebook offers, but I'd like to people aren't 'showing off' as much anymore and are having more 1-to-1 or small friend-group experiences. The larger community is almost always toxic.

Look at cord-cutting: For the longest time we just ignored commercials, until we didn't.

<comment><USER5> "But you can't invest in things you can't quantify."

From:[https://genius.com/Frank-zappa-drooling-midrange- accountants...](https://genius.com/Frank-zappa-drooling-midrange-accountants- on-easter-hay-lyrics)

Once upon a time, a record company had A&R people in it who would take a chance, make a decision, use their gut reaction, sign a group, and see what they could do with it. Okay? That was, whoa, a long time ago. It's not that way anymore. All decisions about who get signed and what happens to the record are made by these drooling little midrange accountants. And everything is based on the numbers games in there. And the taste of the accountants is what is ruling the mass media."

Continues at link.

This attitude is like trying to predict the weather tomorrow by just guessing it'll be the same as today. You're right most of the time...

<comment><USER6> `A&R` by Bill Flanagan[0] is a fun read about the now deceased world of A&R. Of special interest to anyone interested in the music business who wasn't around pre-internet.

[0] [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1163779.A_R](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1163779.A_R)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I really wish social media would "peak" to towards meeting people in real life semi-spontaneously.

No profiles, no media uploads, no digital showboating. The best relationships I have with other people fall in this category. Real life,common interests,no digital uploads.

Just add attributes of your geolocation and hobbies [biking, yoga,tensorflow,etc] or let it crawl your digital profile(s) to autobuild your attributes identity. The system will group people with similar personalities/attributes. Every once in a while, "the system" it sends you a text "Free at 9am? Mountain biking at X park for an hour with beer after with 3 new people? Text yes to opt-in"

Get revenue by having businesses bid on being the beer spot. Refine the algorithm by having an anonymous rating system after the fact.

I like Meetup but it must be taxing to always manage the organization/logistics of a meeting.

Yes. I just realized I blended the show Betas,an episode of Black Mirror, and the 2016 movie Nerve together.

Edit: Grammar

<comment><USER8> This does seem like a powerful idea. The problem of networking friends, family, and co-workers has more or less been solved, but the problem of putting together complete strangers with shared interests and coincident physical locality really hasn't even been attacked except in very constrained use cases (i.e., dating services).

It's possible that the next big wave of social networks will be less "Facebook" and more "Spacebook."

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure how you can say this when Meetup has been around for years. It does exactly what you describe.

<comment><USER8> By the same token, what does Facebook do that MySpace didn't?

<comment><USER9> My comment was in response to:

"the problem of putting together complete strangers with shared interests and coincident physical locality really hasn't even been attacked except in very constrained use cases (i.e., dating services)."

When clearly Meetup have both attacked and been very successful in "putting together complete strangers with shared interests and coincident physical locality". That's exactly what they do, would you not agree?

<comment><USER8> I'm honestly not that familiar with Meetup. I thought it was basically just a calendar for keeping track of local events. Do people maintain profiles or personal pages on it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> How did this article make the New York Times? It's awful.

I listened to the entire Snap conference call and Spiegel directly attributed the drop in active users to the app redesign, a fact that wasn't mentioned until 2/3 of the way through the article.

Moreover, they gave no guidance for DAU projections, and merely said that historically fewer users are active in the third quarter than the second. This does not equate to a longer trend, it simply implies that fewer people are active in the late summer months than the late spring/early summer which seems to make sense.

It seems like the NYT more and more either wants to report negatively on the social media industry or has more success from these sensationalist headlines. What happened to thoughtful fact-based reporting?

<comment><USER11> >Spiegel directly attributed the drop in active users to the app redesign

I wouldn't be surprised. Navigation is all over the place in Snapshot. Try sending a snap, and now I'm suddenly view stories from people I don't know, with no clear way of getting out. I can see some users jut giving up on using the app.

<comment><USER12> Just anecdotally, most of my friends stopped using Snapchat after the horrific redesign and moved to Instagram stories. Can't say I blame them

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Seems like just a Snap peak to me. Article doesn't mention Instagram, its most direct competitor, or tons of other non-Facebook/Twitter social networks that are gaining popularity (Reddit, Pinterest, LinkedIn, Twitch, even WhatsApp, and many country-specific ones).

<comment><USER14> As a long time Snapchat user i know my friends at this point like Instagram more. Snapchat's recent interface changes make little sense and sometimes serve to actively confuse the user experience. Classic case of fixing something that wasn't broken.

<comment><USER15> They made the change so they could build out their ad platform and make money. Which they beat estimates on revenue

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> To me Snapchat is just instagram with a shit user interface that I don't have the time to learn.

<comment><USER17> Well, if you're using anything with ads, expect the experience to suck.

<comment><USER18> Snap's UI is horrendous and it has nothing to do with ads. Kids can invest innumerable hours to find and utilize all the hidden ways to interact but your average adult is just going to do the basics and will put it down.

That's fine. Kids are often the market these social media companies target as they launch anyway.

<comment><USER16> Snaps ui is one step above a text based terminal, I just have to learn all the swipes and taps and menu layouts through trial and error.

<comment><USER18> At least software that ran in a text based terminal would customarily come with a manual.

Snap is a lot like that magic bag in Harry Potter that was bigger on the inside. You never knew what was in there till you stuck your hands in and hoped for the best.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Does HN qualify as "social media"?

We are not anywhere near "Peak Social Media". Otherwise investor valuations would not be what they are.

Even discounting they can predict the future, Zuck hasn't even got started on his VR/AR "ready player 1" social network dream yet, decentralized social media hasn't had its try for the title yet, and the non-social big 5 are still waiting for FB weakness for their chance to strike with something new.

Not to mention whatever comes out of the BRICS countries that may be some innovation over SV social media tech.

This baby still has a lot of miles left in it, I think.

Fundamentally, people's desire for distraction / convenient "human connection" has not yet been sated. (Will it ever?)

<comment><USER20> Investor validations of tech before the bubble wasn't super accurate. I mean facebook lost 20% of it's value in a day, how does that not scream speculative bubble?

<comment><USER21> Facebook's PE is like 25. Best to stay focused on valuation metrics. Historically it's a steal, in fact I expect it slide back to 30 in the near term

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> My main question is: Where are people going? It seems like there is a slight dip in usage across all social media, but I'm trying to figure out where those hours/days/weeks are being spent. Are people turning to more real-life activities, just broadcasting and communicating less, turning to other up and coming platforms, or relying more on private messaging?

<comment><USER23> Outside?

<comment><USER24> Arts & crafts. They're all 'makers' now.

<comment><USER25> I think that's very good, to be honest.

<comment><USER24> For myself, I just got a saxophone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> We dropped Snap because it moved from being that nice platform to share tidbits of your life with your friends to a platform made to push ads in your face.

The "Snapchat" we have today is an entire different app experience to the one we all adopted into our lives. If you build a new app and then skin it to make it pass like something else, users are going to notice and move on.

It doesn't help that they keep moving features around. First your friends' stories were on the left swipe screen. Then they moved them among the ads to the right. Then then moved them back left... and now they are back on the right screen with the ads. To be honest, I haven't watched any of my friends' story in age because why bother learning where they are every few months?

</comment><comment><USER27> Users are jumping ship to Instagram. Once they duplicated the functionality it was the nail in the coffin for snap. If I had a ton of cash lying around I'd short the stock to zero. Insta was Facebooks greatest acquisition.

<comment><USER28> Three thousand dollars will get you options until 2020 that you can cash in for $50k worth. You don't need a ton of cash if you think they're going to zero.

<comment><USER29> How exactly do I do this?

<comment><USER30> Remember that even Myspace is still around. Betting zero is a radical act.

<comment><USER31> Myspace was never itself a publically traded company. They had the backings of News Corp to not die.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> What does this title even mean? We aren't at peak social media until we are embedded in a mechano-biological matrix hive mind. I'm not joking.

<comment><USER33> "Peak social media" (like "peak oil") doesn't mean maximum theoretically attainable consumption, but the point in time at which consumption is highest, and can thereafter be expected to only ever be less.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm one of them. I deactivated my Facebook in January too.

I use Twitter for 5-10 minutes a day to keep up with a few topics of interest.

Instagram for 5-10 minutes a day to get some cool nature and travel photos, a few people I genuinely care about.

HN and Reddit keep in the loop for all the things I am interested in and allow me to discuss them anonymously with other people who are as into them as I am.

I just see my family and friends in person.

</comment><comment><USER35> Or just that Instagram stories is killing them

</comment><comment><USER36> I am pretty sure 250 million+ people in my country India are still not on SO CALLED social network, they are not even on internet yet. So , we are far away from Peak Social.

</comment><comment><USER37> As compared to the situation 3 years back, now none of my friend (me included) is even slightly active on any social media (except for whatsapp). Even people are getting less active on whatsapp. I am a member of like 12 whatsapp group, and almost 10 of those are silent most of the time.

I wonder if this is generally true. May be I (and my friends) am getting older.

</comment><comment><USER38> Snapchat lost three million users over a quarter.

Instagram added 200m+ monthly users over the past year.[1]

And the story is that social media is peaking?

[1] [https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/20/instagram-1-billion- users/](https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/20/instagram-1-billion-users/)

</comment><comment><USER39> Finally. I hate (most) social media. Everybody ought to go back to email, phone, and in-person. Much more human and much less "how many likes can I get with this glammed-up photo".

</comment><comment><USER40> All that happened is that Instagram won the competition. I'm not sure what are the teens doing, but a lot of older, less invested, users moved on (or were on Instagram in the first place and just stuck to it).

</comment><comment><USER41> Snapchat used to work lag free on my device. Now it lags so much that it takes over a minute to launch the app, take & send 1 pic.

Might not be the app's fault, but that's the reason i don't use it much

</comment><comment><USER42> Everything's a pendulum, especially, (un)fortunately, pendulums.

I, personally, doubt social media is really peaking. Maybe it is. Seems like more of the same, people switching providers. Going from that crufty thing the old folks use to something n new. Isn't Instagram the new hotness, spreading like crazy? How are they not even mentioned in the article?!? Seems pretty sloppy, or worse disingenuous but maybe I'm missing something.

So, then isn't Snap due for a fall? How does one provider falling signify a collapse of growing, still nascent, medium?

</comment><comment><USER43> God, I hope so.

</comment><comment><USER44> Can't speak for everyone, but personally I just got tired of Snap's bad UX and moved to a different platform.

Now a lot of my friends have moved to Discord, WhatsApp, and Slack. Really been digging Discord lately, wish they had some way to make money I believed would work so I knew they were going to be around for a while.

<comment><USER45> >wish they had some way to make money

No one wants to pay for things anymore so what we have is a cycle of good tech that runs on investor money and makes none on it's own and then it gets sold to microsoft or whoever and they attempt to turn it in to something that makes money on it's own without charging for the service until everyone gets so sick of the product they move to the next new thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Couldn't it be that users are switching more and more to Instagram from Snapchat? For sure my view is biased but all my friends that were using snap a year ago are now primarily pushing content through Instagram and all are ditching Snapchat ...

</comment><comment><USER47> Or it could signal that snap has a weak value proposition that was easily emulated by Instagram and Facebook messenger devs (AR selfie face filters and stickers etc.) Thoughts?

</comment><comment><USER48> I believe social media fatigue is setting in.

Twitter is becoming the political infighting network. If it wasn't for Donald John Trump and the millions following or belittling him - what is there to do for the masses on Twitter?

Facebook struggles with revelations about their deep privacy invasions and complete lack of vision/product development for years and it seems Snap having never figured out what they really are or should be is now losing users too.

Let's just say, having been a Myspacer back in the day - I know how quickly the tide can turn once user growth starts to staqnate.

</comment><comment><USER49> One can use Google Trends to analyze Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp.

</comment><comment><USER50> Or just a bad redesign

</comment><comment><USER51> Everyone's moved to WhatsApp and IG these days. If you know asians, WeChat is also very strong. People are just moving on.

<comment> King-Aaron I found it interesting when visiting south-east asia that many government style posters - such as reporting vandalism or unclean bathrooms - all had a WeChat number to contact as opposed to any sort of traditional telephone number.

<comment><USER52> Which countries in SE Asia? Most of them don't have a particularly strong WeChat penetration.

<comment> King-Aaron Mainly through Malaysia that I noticed it

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> oh god yes I sure hope so

</comment><comment><USER54> Or maybe not.

</comment><comment><USER55> There is nothing of value to read here, so...

Let me say just this: click bait.

</comment><comment><USER56> no, this isn't about snaps on linux

<comment><USER53> haha that was my first thought too, but then I read "social media" and started to realize which "snap" they were talking about</comment></comment>


Using Rust Lambdas in Production - <AUTHOR> https://www.cvpartner.com/blog/using-rust-lambdas-in-production <comment><USER2> What are the reasons to say rusoto clients are expesive to create?</comment>


How Sequoia forced Tony Hsieh to sell Zappos - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/06/07/how-sequoia-forced-tony-hsieh-to-sell-zappos/

<comment><USER2> or, "How taking venture capital is a risk, and where the control lays even if you're successful."

(also: _especially_ if you're successful).

Except that Tony Hsieh is now on a committee with Jeff Bezos, and 4 executives from Amazon and Zappos. It will still operate as their own entity, run by Tony, and they've basically placated the VCs with Amazon stock while he gets full control over the company, culture, and with access to Amazon's resources. They went inside the deal in a couple of places, check out Inc.'s article on the subject.

<comment><USER3> _It will still operate as their own entity, run by Tony_

For now, at least. As _staunch_ commented on the other thread (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1409915>), this is still really a honeymoon period.

<comment><USER2> By the looks of it, as long as he continues to reach his numbers he'll have things the way he wants it. Not to say that he got out Scott-free, but in this case he at least gave himself control over his own destiny.

It was the price he paid to get the company where it was that he was in that bind (a good bind to be in, if you ask me), and the best move he could have made to keep the company and the destiny of the culture in his hands.

 _(Edit: An argument against this case would be Tivoli. It was bought out by IBM and slowly the cultures merged.)_

<comment><USER4> ...as long as he continues to reach his numbers. The real position he wanted to be in was to be able to ignore short term numbers for long term positioning. I think it's safe to say he can't really do that anymore.

<comment><USER2> I agree. His move was still better than having the VCs choose the highest bidder leaving him without a company to run. I think he reached a local maximum given his situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's rather interesting that Alfred Lin, the other board member who opposed the VC board, ended up going to work for Sequoia Capital..

<comment><USER6> Maybe he wants to apply the cluebat from the inside? If some at Sequoia saw the wisdom in what they were saying, that might have been why they hired him....

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This piece pulls long quotes the INC article with little added value.

If you want to get the whole story, support the original publisher and read what several commenters considered the best article they'd read all day...skip this and read the original:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1409858>

<comment><USER6> I strongly disagree: the author is trying to make a specific point, mostly by using long quotes from the original article, but he adds various links about the point and his own commentary.

And it's an important point: if you accept VC money in this post-Sarbox don't expect an IPO exit environment keeping control is going to be nearly impossible. The best possible outcome is selling your company to another and most of the time that doesn't end happily for the founders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "— "Tony's social experiments," they called it…" I think I understand what they mean by this.</comment>


I'm here to answer your questions about cellular tech - <AUTHOR> Hi - I work for Qualcomm. I noticed some recent threads where 4G and 5G technologies were discussed. The comments indicated to me that there's a lot of misconceptions about how cellular technologies work, and the relationship between device capabilities and networks.<p>If you want, I'm available to answer any questions you may have. I promise to stick with the technology and not veer towards marketing. I'm much more interested in fostering a better understanding of the technology itself. <comment><USER2> When I authenticate with a tower, given that roaming exists, what/who is my phone authenticating against?

<comment><AUTHOR> Against a pre-authorized list of networks, identified by their PLMN (public land mobile network) IDs stored in the SIM card, and cryptographic keys that the network uses to prove that it really is the network that's authorized in the SIM card. There are two network functions inside the core 4G network responsible for authenticating users, checking what services they're authorized to access, and handling them as they move across towers or roam into/out of range of the network. More here: [http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords- acronyms/100-the-e...](http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords- acronyms/100-the-evolved-packet-core)</comment></comment>


Flat design dangerous? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.uxpin.com/2526/5-dangers-of-flat-design/

<comment><USER2> One of the first requests for a new UI is usually the Flat design. This is usually followed by "hey, can you add a shadow or border something?" which basically turns it non-flat. The color contrast is another big problem people seem to forget.

E.G. [http://www.iamcal.com/toys/colors/](http://www.iamcal.com/toys/colors/)

Windows 8 feels cheap or at least still a work in progress. It sometimes actually reminds me of an early iteration of SkyOS.

Edit: One very seriously messed up design trend that's making the rounds is this habit of putting the page content inside in-page popups. The Chrome Web Store does it as does the default Blogger theme.

If I accidentally click anywhere else on the page (which is possible on a touchpad), the page is gone. Woosh. I now have to use the back button to get back too that.

There was once a video embedded on a site with this in-page popup and it had extended the page horizontally. I tried using the arrow keys to get there, but oops, now I'm on the next article.

I wish Web 3.0 will die soon.

<comment><AUTHOR> ""hey, can you add a shadow or border something?" which basically turns it non-flat." \- you killed me with that one. I must sadly agree.

<comment><USER2> It's so common! Thanks for writing this up; everything was spot on.</comment></comment></comment>


LLVM 3.6 Release Notes - <AUTHOR> http://llvm.org/releases/3.6.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html

<comment><USER2> Looks like the LLVM folks are (finally) starting to get serious about making (fast) precise GC possible [1]? Back when I was (struggling at) working on Rust's GC this was by far the biggest hurdle [2]. Good to see they're getting around to fixing this.

[1]: [http://llvm.org/docs/Statepoints.html](http://llvm.org/docs/Statepoints.html)

[2]: [https://github.com/elliottslaughter/rust-gc- talk](https://github.com/elliottslaughter/rust-gc-talk)

<comment><USER3> Most specifically Azul folks who are contributing to the project: [http://www.philipreames.com/Blog/](http://www.philipreames.com/Blog/)

(Azul Systems does a very concurrent Hotspot based JVM called Zing as well as certified and supported OpenJDK releases.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you want to keep up to date on developments in LLVM, Clang and related projects between releases, you may be interested in my LLVM Weekly newsletter [http://llvmweekly.org/](http://llvmweekly.org/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Clang docs & release notes: [http://llvm.org/releases/3.6.0/tools/clang/docs/](http://llvm.org/releases/3.6.0/tools/clang/docs/) (these are a bit hard to find)

</comment><comment><USER6> Are there any recurring gcc vs llvm (and vs icc) benchmarks to see how they are evolving over time? Something like benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org would be nice.

<comment><USER7> There are some good SPEC numbers on GCC and LLVM here:

[https://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/](https://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/)

The latest runs are GCC 4.9 and LLVM 3.4:

[https://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/2014/2014.html](https://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/2014/2014.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> does anyone know what this means?

        Python 2.7 is now required
        This was done to simplify compatibility with python 3.

<comment><USER9> I'm assuming they allowed <2.7 Python before, which are less compatible with 3.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> And I just compiled LLVM+Clang 3.5.1 a few hours ago - could have timed that one a bit better ;)</comment>


IncludeOS: a minimal unikernel operating system for C++ services - <AUTHOR> https://www.includeos.org/ <comment><USER2> The description on github is much clearer:

> IncludeOS is a minimal unikernel operating system for C++ services running > in the cloud and on real hardware.

<comment><USER3> This is quite helpful, thanks. What would prompt someone to go this way, I wonder? There are some pretty minimal OS options out there these days.

<comment><USER4> See the recent ccc talk on the co2 footprint of services.

<comment><USER5> I can't believe this is a thing. Are software engineers in the "ban straws" phase of global warming now?

<comment><USER6> A better question is Why Not? Is it really so inconceivable to try to apply energy conservation to computing as well?

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h Just as importantly, energy use loosely correlates with resource use => cost. If we save the planet, great, but it's also good for our bottom line.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The industry is certainly moving towards less and less stuff included by default in a production environment. What used to be a full install of Debian with your app checked out in /var/www is now a Docker container containing only the packages you need. The even more careful people don't even use Debian, they use a stripped down distribution like Alpine. The even more careful people don't have a distribution, they just have their application and the one or two support files it needs (ca-certs usually). It is intriguing to apply this approach to OS features itself, because less dependence on the OS means that more of the kernel can be safely shared. And, of course, there is less surprise at something that is enabled by default that you don't need. (I feel like 99% of security is disabling stupid things that are on by default. With Linux, you never know if you got them all.)

Being able to share the kernel safely means potentially better utilization. (The progression is dedicated machines -> hypervisor-based VMs -> multiple customers sharing the Linux kernel. gVisor exists for that last step, but I don't see anyone willing to sell me the ability to run my random container next to their mission-critical security-sensitive app, whereas people are perfectly happy to share CPUs with me if there is a hypervisor in the middle. But we're certainly moving in that direction.)

It is also intriguing to imagine a world that moves the other direction; just have a giant computer with thousands of power-efficient CPUs in it and no virtualization. When a request comes in to your app, your CPU is just powered on, your app boots in a millisecond, handles the request, and shuts down. I am not sure even the big cloud providers have solved the time-of-day utilization problems; being able to turn most of the computers off at night has some potential to save money. (I would turn my workstation off at night if it booted in 1 millisecond in the morning, for example. I can also imagine some power savings for mobile devices if they could go hard off for 59 seconds out of every minute.)

<comment><USER8> "Safely" sharing a Linux kernel?

There's no reason to believe Spectre and Meltdown were a one time thing, especially since the response has been to apply ad-hoc fixes just good enough to break the proofs-of-concept. On the contrary, they demonstrate that such vulnerabilities are possible and we should expect to see them again.

Even barring CPU bugs, the kernel is one giant attack surface, all written in C, all running with full ring 0 privileges. Find ONE hole to pwn.

<comment><USER7> It's not mainstream yet but it's the direction people want to go. Like I said, making the OS smaller means less attack surface, so it's certainly something worth investigating. But a lot of work has been done to make Linux safe enough, so that is a likely direction for the mainstream to go.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This looks great, but I'm wary of projects that sound _this_ great but don't include a "downsides" section. I'd love to know what the tradeoffs are, so I don't have to spend time discovering them myself. Please consider adding a section like that.

<comment><USER10> They link to one:

> A longer list of features and limitations can be found on our documentation > site.

But unfortunately it looks like the linked page doesn't actually talk about limitations :) Unless you consider a warning about hlt-ing yourself in the foot a list of limitations I guess.

<comment><USER11> Some downsides then:

\- You can't just port anything to IncludeOS. Since you have direct hardware control and you can schedule work directly to numbered CPUs you can take advantage of things, but if you don't do that then you are just living in a limited C++ environment.

\- The network stack hasn't been built with multiprocessing in mind, and some parts need to be rebuilt because of that

\- There are codepaths that could lead to C++ exceptions, such as being out of memory, which trounces performance.

\- There is a paging and memory allocation system in the OS which doesn't have to be there (for example paging can be "burned in" to the image for the most part, while only leaving room for adding pages for stacks. Memory can be handled by donating everything to the C standard library) - the goal being to keep the attack surface lower.

\- Debugging is hard - you will have to connect to GDB while pausing somewhere in the OS.

This is really just me thinking out loud. Add salt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It would be interesting to run a NodeJS clone or QuickJS ([https://bellard.org/quickjs/](https://bellard.org/quickjs/)) on/with this.

<comment><USER13> This is why I love HN, I never knew about QuickJS. So yeah, that and includeOS...dude...!

<comment><USER14> Duktape is also cool: [https://duktape.org/](https://duktape.org/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So basically you now run your app in ring0, with none of the security mitigations the community developed in the past ten years, and force everybody to code in c/c++. Is it just me or does that sound like a disaster waiting to happen?

<comment><USER16> There is no such language as C/C++.

The alternative for people using this approach is running in a kernel module, or a kernel-bypass setup with root permissions. Grown-up stuff. Eliminating most of the kernel, and using C++ not C is a very substantial improvement over status quo.

<comment><USER17> > There is no such language as C/C++.

This is a _really_ weird hill to die on; I see you've made the same comment several times in this thread. C and C++ fit hand in glove, and lots of folks use them in conjunction. I don't think anybody here has the misconception that C/C++ is a single language, unless perhaps they don't know either.

<comment><USER16> The point is that the practices that almost unavoidably lead to bugs in C code are not even tempting in modern C++. So, if you are interested in correctness and memory safety, stepping to modern C++ provides more value for time invested than the sum of most other choices.

Equating the two is extremely common, even by people who are certainly equipped to know better. When you feel a need to tar C++ as if it were C, you signal the weakness of your argument before you have even expressed it.

<comment><USER17> > you signal the weakness of your argument before you have even expressed it.

Please turn down your flamethrower, that style of conversation is not welcome here.

<comment><USER16> Writing "C/C++", in contexts where it is implied they have the same failure modes, is provocative. Don't like response, don't provoke.

It is fine when talking about ABI or object-code generation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Old concept in HPC world, most of ancient supercomputers had ability to compile compute tasks with unikernel and spawn over compute nodes. Few years ago concept of Xen bases unikernels circulated in xen mail lists, but look like there was little interest in community. Includeos can be a "fat lambda" for those who want to control everything, but how many of such tasks we have

</comment><comment><USER19> Threads from 2015: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10409292](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10409292)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10661746](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10661746)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10741350](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10741350)

2016: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11154168](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11154168)

2017: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13975994](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13975994)

2018: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17848324](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17848324)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18390204](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18390204)

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm really surprised this isn't in Rust considering security is a priority. However, I think something like this will become increasingly common for high performance cloud applications. Many programs do not need a full operating system with processes isolation and hardware drivers if they're going to run alone on a VM anyways.

<comment><USER16> The most urgent goal for this effort is usefulness. Geek trend box-checking has to come second.

<comment><USER20> Rust is not the right choice because it's trendy, but because it provides memory and thread safety properties that are hard to enforce in C++. For systems software the advantages are huge.

<comment><USER16> Rust is also years away from maturity (which it probably will achieve, on schedule). Systems built today need to work with tooling that is mature today.

Memory and thread safety properties can be achieved in C++ by operating at a higher level than C with mature, well-debugged, well-optimized libraries. No pointers means no pointer errors.

Integer overflows are equally possible in Rust and C++. Both offer debug build modes that can watch for those.

<comment><USER21> > No pointers means no pointer errors.

Use after free can be perfectly well expressed with C++ references, or invalidated iterators to standard library containers.

> Integer overflows are equally possible in Rust and C++.

In C++, unsigned integer overflows can often be leveraged into out-of-bounds access; in safe Rust, they cannot.

<comment><USER16> Use-after-free can be expressed in C++, but there is no temptation to do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is this project still active? I don't think it is any more.

<comment><USER23> > Sorry, but no. There are things happening here and there, for example > pthreads just got merged, but otherwise development is very slow. There are > plans to run on RPI4 soon (TM), if that's of any interest, otherwise the > general development is low-frequent.

[https://github.com/includeos/IncludeOS/issues/2183](https://github.com/includeos/IncludeOS/issues/2183)

<comment><USER24> The Pi 4 would be cool. I've always wanted to mess with a unikernel but they either seemed to be dead, barely started, or written in an unusual choice of language.

Anyone else have a unikernel recommendation besides IncludeOS + rpi 4?

<comment><USER22> If you are interested in Rust, there's HermitCore and you can run them on the Raspberry Pi via Firecracker.

[https://hermitcore.org/](https://hermitcore.org/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What caught my eye was the openness for vulnerability disclosures. Right on the front page. Good stuff

</comment><comment><USER26> I feel like most commenters in this thread didn't read this page that explains the goals of the project with far more detail:

[http://www.includeos.org/technology.html](http://www.includeos.org/technology.html)

</comment><comment><USER27> It's like sticking the program floppy into the Apple II disk drive and powering up. Or is that too simple an analogy?

<comment><USER11> I like that analogy. I guess these images are more single-purpose minded, and often will do things read-only. Perfect for immutable infrastructure, but it's not a requirement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> A viable alternative that supports more languages is OSv: [https://github.com/cloudius-systems/osv](https://github.com/cloudius- systems/osv)

</comment><comment><USER29> I think the biggest bummer is the lack of threads. Everything seems to be running in a single loop:

> Node.js-style callback-based programming - everything happens in one > efficient thread with no I/O blocking or unnecessary guest-side context > switching.

Unless I'm missing something.

</comment><comment><USER30> Article blows it around the third para by asserting that publishers could/should make ebooks much cheaper than paper ones (because obviously paper costs money, right?).

Then asserts that the retail price for the paper edition is the point ebooks should undercut by, oh, 25%.

This ignores the fact that publishers are not retailers, they're manufacturers; the retail sector takes 50-70% of the price the customer pays for a book, _and this includes Amazon 's kindle store_. In actual fact, the physical cost of goods for a paper book is less than 10% of the price the customer pays. Another 10% is editorial/typesetting costs which are exactly the same for the ebook, maybe 10% goes to the author, and 50-70% to Jeff Bezos and co.

<comment><USER31> I think you may have commented under the wrong post.

<comment><USER30> D'oh, I think you might just possibly be right!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Had a few hangouts meeting with the original includeos team.

Great technology, top tier team. Although I believe their distance to Silicone Valley and relatively cheap capital causes their difficulty.

</comment><comment><USER33> This is pointless. Run Linux and isolate it to the first core. Lock your own app to the other cores, with no context switching. Gdb works. SSH works. Awesome.

</comment><comment><USER34> It'll be interesting to write a container system using this and build an orchestrated with this in mind. Would give you a truly minimal container OS.

<comment><USER35> "Container" and "OS" don't mean anything in the context of unikernels. Unikernels are applications with everything they need to run (on bare metal or a hypervisor) baked into the application. So there is no OS to speak of, and the "orchestrator" is probably something like AWS EC2.

<comment><USER36> OP likely meant service orchestration

<comment><USER35> I think that's what I meant as well, but I'm not sure what you mean by "service orchestration". If Kubernetes is an example of a service orchestrator, then I think something like EC2 would be the unikernel analog.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I keep hoping for a model like this to displace Docker.

</comment><comment><USER38> Is there similar thing like this but for Node JS server? I think the direction is totally right. Just hope we can do this for the JS world.

</comment><comment><USER39> good luck turning your debugging tools on anything that produces.

<comment><USER16> You debug it the same way you debug embedded systems. GDB stubs, and a mapped, shared page.

Advantage over embedded being you don't need jtag hardware.

<comment><USER39> that's rather my point.

<comment><USER16> I debug regular apps, via gdbserver, routinely, in exactly the way one would debug embedded apps, and give up no convenience at all, but gain quite a lot. Gdb runs on my full-featured development environment, and the target process runs under docker, or on some other machine with the funny network hardware. I hardly ever start a new Gdb session; I just point it at binaries that I run wherever is convenient. Debugging a unikernel is trivially different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Would it be possible to build a C/C++ app with #include <os> at the top and then compile it to a fully bootable image, and then boot a real server using that?

<comment><USER41> They claim that it works on real x86 hardware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I couldn't find a mention on what drivers for hardware devices it supports

<comment><USER29> It's basically only meant to be used on hypervisors:

[https://includeos.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Features.html](https://includeos.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Features.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Hardware support is fairly limited

</comment><comment><USER44> Sounds like torrents for apps

</comment><comment><USER45> For zero overhead, I have this weird idea of shipping source code, recompiling it with all the optimizations needed, and executing it without virtualization but under a different user id.

So I stick to ./configure ; make ; make install

<comment><USER46> Userid means user management and context switching etc, means overhead

<comment><USER47> Imaginary overhead doesn't count. Show me the benchmarks.

<comment><USER48> Context switching is expensive when you're writing high-performance code. Conventional OSes require that you context switch to the kernel to perform I/O (disk or network), to say nothing of other processes vying for CPU time as well.

All this is well-documented and -understood. The overhead is in no way imaginary.

Unikernels don't need to do context switches, by virtue of not having processes.

<comment><USER49> Since io_uring, this isn't the case for most IO on Linux anymore.

<comment><USER48> I'm not terribly familiar with io_uring, and haven't used it myself yet, but does it not still require a syscall to drive things, even though the buffers are shared? Brief investigation suggests the need for that might go away in the future? But all this io_uring stuff seems fairly immature yet and not widely used, though still definitely of interest.

<comment><USER16> Syscalls to set up, otherwise just watch for atomically updated pointers to change..</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


CODE Keyboard with MX Clear switches back in stock - <AUTHOR> http://www.wasdkeyboards.com/index.php/products/code-keyboard.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't see an announcement but I've been waiting for the MX Clears to be available for like 3 months. Figured HN would want to know.</comment>


Silicon Valley to millennials: Drop dead - <AUTHOR> http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/18/opinions/wheeler-silicon-valley-jobs/index.html

<comment><USER2> Of course technology is going to make jobs obsolete, the job decline is inevitable. The statistics in the article are loosely based with Silicon Valley at all.

Seems like a rant piece.

<comment><USER3> Do you not think the fact that a large proportion of jobs will be made obsolete by technology in favour of lower-paid or casual work is worth a rant, then?

<comment><USER4> The less people have to work the better, especially when it comes to menial jobs. If political and social policy fails to reflect changes in the economy and the jobs market then that is a political failure and should be treated as such. If we go on the premise that fascism is good and socially minded governance is bad (as seems to be the trend in many places in the world today including in the States) then of course things will go pear shaped but to point the finger at technological innovators and blame them is ridiculous and if I dare say irresponsible.

<comment><USER3> His point was exactly the opposite. More menial and jobs are being created by technology that concentrates money in the hands of a few people. The interesting and fulfilling middle-class jobs are the ones being squeezed.

Whether he's right or not, your point seems to miss the mark.

<comment><USER5> I think silicon valley gets around this moral quandary by arguing for things like basic income, wherein the logic is that people should have an opportunity to fill their lives with interesting and fulfilling things that don't pay.

I'm personally vulnerable to this line of thinking, but I can definitely see that silicon valley is getting rich but expecting everyone else to chip in to solve the problem and advocating a solution that is a nonstarter in most circles.

I think that, at the very least, Piketty is right and we need a progressive tax on capital gains.

<comment><USER6> Progressive tax on capital gains (or, more simply, just taxing capital gains like regular income) and basic income aren't mutually exclusive alternatives. OTOH, not giving capital gains is currently highly-favorable treatment is at least as much of a "non-starter in most circles" as Basic Income, so its kind of odd to use the non-starter thing to criticize SV for supporting BI while pushing progressive tax on capital gains (unless, of course, you are referring to the progressive tax we already have on capital gains -- capital gains taxes now are progressive, not flat, just at lower levels than regular income taxes; but in that case, you aren't offering any solution at all, just the status quo.)

<comment><USER5> You're totally right, they're not mutually exclusive, and I am personally a fan of both. I can just see it as not necessarily a pragmatic approach.

I would simply envisage less popular resistance to a real progressive tax on capital gains than to a basic income (see: welfare fraud), but maybe I'm wrong.

I don't have a particularly great solution to our problem, but I do think there are meaningful steps we can take between an ideal world and the real one that are better than nothing. Silicon valley should surely start paying people closer to the value they provide.

<comment><USER6> > [...] a real progressive tax on capital gains [...]

What does this mean in concrete terms? We have a real (= non-imaginary, actual, existing) progressive tax on capital gains now. It's also at favorable rates (across the whole spectrum of its progressivity) compared to "regular" income, and especially favored compared to _labor_ income (which pays payroll taxes, which are flat to regressive, on top of income taxes, which are progressive).

In fact, _because_ of payroll taxes, its arguable that we have more "real progressive taxation" of capital gains than of labor income.

<comment><USER5> Sorry, I should have been clearer, higher brackets and rates.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The New Face of Star Wars - <AUTHOR> http://features.cnet.com/the-new-face-of-star-wars/the-new-face-of-star-wars <comment><AUTHOR> Nice article and interview.

Terrible layout and font-choices, however!</comment>


Ask HN: Blindsided by YC competitor after MVP and starting to promote, advice? - <AUTHOR> So a few weeks ago I pushed my startups mvp into production, and then I began to work on SEO to set the stage for promoting my startup. Shoftly after, I discovered a competitor(YC company) that I was blind to. This error in market research is due to them not doing SEO with the same keyword terms as I am, or else I would have found them long time ago when I researched the market.
If mvp is stage-1, promotion is stage-2, then they are on stage-3, they have executed what I envisioned the future iteration of my product would be, basically a functional api that is distributable to developers.
on one hand it's a relief to know you have competitors in a fresh market, which means my biggest hurdle and worry to date, validating product market fit, is gone.
It'd be encouraging to hear some personal stories of similar situation happening to you and what you ended up doing?
OP HERE, posting in comment below due to character limit. <comment><AUTHOR> OP HERE, continuing post in comment due to character limit.

I see several advantage and disadvantages both of our startups have.

first they might be pressured to focus on profitablity since they are funded, I don't.

they have side projects, offering courses on growth, and doing case studies, which I think are being purposed to be potential loss leaders to drive the main business. however the confusing part to me is that they are already monetizing for these side projects, which leads me to conclude that perhaps their investors are getting impatient and are pressuring them for returns already? which means that they are vulnerable to anyone that can offer the same product for free can starve them to death with a runway siege. and it will be hard for them to raise additional funding because if current investors aren't seeing good returns, how will additional investors buy in?

they are also doing a lot of inbound marketing, not yet outbound, means they have no sales team yet, first mover advantage to reach all the potential customers in the market is not yet capitalized.

plus there is always room in other markets on the globe, and I do have the language capability and freedom, and if I were to launch to a market like china for example

They have SDK for android, ios, and maintain libraries in js and python, where I am only doing python and utilizing react(native). Which means I will have smaller potential clientele, but it also means I can iterate much faster.

I do believe both of our startups have numerous similar and different challenges to overcome. I do have a couple ideas on how I could execute better to one day lead the market, if not then at least forever be a barrier to them in their journey to capture the total addressable market. Hey, nothing to lose for me right.

<comment><USER2> I think you are overthinking the issue.

Bottom line is you have competitors, there is nothing you can do about it and there are only three outcomes:

[1] You both are wrong about the market and you die

[2] One of you wins

[3] You both divide the market between you.

While it may appear good to be a monopoly,there are many inherent dangers such as complacency, risk of getting blind-sided etc

Use them as validation for your ideas. Nothing stops you from improving upon and applying their features. You now have another party to measure your effectiveness against.

Mind your business and focus on execution

<comment><USER3> or [4] they both get swallowed up by another competitor

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> 1\. You should work on acquiring customers / beta signups while building MVP, it should be parallel not serial. 2\. Have you done any validations that it's a important problem for your customers i.e. vitamins vs painkiller 3\. You shouldn't be worried about a YC competitor. Focus on building, talking to customers and growth.

</comment><comment><USER5> Don't worry that much. I've seen two YC-funded companies that are similar to my own side project, and both failed to gain traction. As the others said, I'd worry a lot if there was NO competition (and it will be funded, count on it).

Look at different angles than they have :) . For starters, you're not competing on keywords ! :)

</comment><comment><USER6> I-phones and Android phones both exist. I don't think either is likely to die due to the existence of the other.

Just get on with building your thing. This mostly doesn't matter.

</comment><comment><USER7> Having competitors is great! Congratulations on that.

Now is where the real work begins. Continue to improve your product or service and you will prevail.

</comment><comment><USER8> What is your startup?

</comment><comment><USER9> Some people like to buy from the leader and some don't. Position your product as the alternative to theirs.</comment>


We're About to Lose Net Neutrality - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so-the-internets-about-to-lose-its-net-neutrality/ <comment><USER2> What I don't get is on, on one hand, you have the CEO (was it Verizon?) saying "Americans don't want gigabit internet" and continuing to build out these 20-40mbps networks, yet trying to serve TV/video through IP as well. I'm trying to understand the long game here but I'm struggling. The only thing I can think of is that they're trying to get us thinking that 20-40mbps is "worth" $40/month therefore when we finally get 1gbps, they can charge $150/mth (or something to that effect).

<comment><USER3> They're trying to prolong the inevitable death of television.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Net neutrality as it's discussed now focuses on the wrong thing. We need neutral last mile with the ISP of our choice. There are no issues with lack of competition if you are inside major meet me rooms. The only reason att,verizon,etc can have this stranglehold is their government granted monopoly over the last mile.

</comment><comment><USER5> What happens when Google, Netflix, Microsoft wise up and start charging AT&T and Verizon to access their services? This is how cable works, Comcast pays Fox, ESPN. This will backfire on Verizon and AT&T.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is nothing but bald-faced rent seeking. Middle-men setting up toll booths on a "limited" resource. Limited of course, only by their own investment. The mathematics of this are terrifying. Broadband should be a public utility.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a slippery slope.

When I see people making seemingly irrational decisions I tend to think that there is some information that I don't have but is available to those CEOs who are making these decisions.

Internet businesses have grown like anything in last two decades and we haven't really fully exploited its potential. What Verizon and AT&T are doing is basically killing a Golden goose. AT&T's core strength is to lay out those cable, build towers and give internet endpoints to consumers. AT&T's knowledge about what people can potentially do with those endpoints is as good as an Indian farmer's knowledge about flying planes.

End of net neutrality will add friction to new ideas getting successful. It will also mean internet will have less and less meaning to end consumer eventually leading to a scenario where both internet businesses and ISPs will lose.

For example I have been using a prepaid AT&T card with Google Nexus because I find the contract based shit and expensive data plans nothing but thuggery. I am not willing to live without 3G, 4G and whatever comes next because At&T pricing does not make sense to me (though I can afford it).

</comment><comment><USER8> This whole attempted money grab is a real howler. AT&T and Verizon are already getting paid fairly from their subscribers. The subscribers are paying for YouTube/Netflix/et al to be available to them. Further, YouTube/Netflix/et al are all paying their own respective access fees. Everyone today is getting paid fairly. So while the argument on the surface is about something that's somewhat esoteric, what it really boils down to is that the ISPs want to bill twice for the same service.

<comment><USER9> Not only that, these companies have absorbed state and local subsidies to build out their infrastructures based on the promise that they would provide service to the public good. That invalidates any faux-libertarian defense they might have-- their networks are now in part public property.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Bhewes may be right--but ESPN is special. Most companies, including YC companies, would have to pay. Only the very very few could charge the carriers.

<comment><USER5> Smaller companies already do pay when they buy bandwidth. I don't see the economics working for AT&T and Verizon to charge startups. Maybe some kind of tier bandwidth general cheaper bandwidth and "network optimized" bandwidth for some additional fee.

But beyond that I see the internet playing out like cable but on a larger scale. A simple winner take all game with almost all network capacity dedicated to a few services.

<comment><USER10> The case centered on the question of whether those companies would have to pay twice--once to buy bandwidth from their own ISP and then again to get through a toll to the end user, paying originating ISP then the terminating one.

<comment><USER5> Interesting, I would suspect then that AT&T and Verizon would go after the ISPs to pay up.

<comment><USER5> Though this also makes me wonder when AT&T and Verizon will each buy search engines.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's too late for the telecoms companies to do this. If they try, then Google, Facebook and Amazon will do an end run around them by building their own telecoms networks offering services to all comers and competing against the telecoms companies. And the telecoms companies will all be gone within 3 years.

<comment><USER9> It's in the best interest of Google, Facebook, and Amazon to play ball here. These restrictions will make it harder for DuckDuckGo, Medium, or Craigslist to compete with them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Long-term the only way to avoid this war is to promote opening of spectrum (both licensing and software defined spectrum sharing).

Until then the local access duopoly has too much power, at least in the US, and both well intended and not so well intended legislation will only hamper the market.

<comment><USER10> They all face the same problem: a captured FCC. I agree on opening up spectrum (spread the gospel!) and wish we could adopt policies against the duopoly like open access to the wires. Yochai Benkler has written on both if you're interested (you're probably aware)</comment></comment>


Yuzu – Nintendo Switch Emulator - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/yuzu-emu/yuzu <comment><USER2> Even if you don't believe in emulation due to piracy, having an emulator around for the sake of archiving is good for the future, I think.

<comment><USER3> Emulators don't make piracy legal. So it would be the same argument as for DRM-enabled videos or music. And that is a pretty bad argument.

<comment><USER4> And there's great legal uses for emulation:

[https://hyperkin.com/Retron5/](https://hyperkin.com/Retron5/) (it was pointed out to me they violate open source licenses, so forget this one.)

every game system's "virtual store"

wrapping old games around an emulator to make them (seamlessly) compatible with current computers. Allows the publisher to continue to sell decades old games with vert minimal effort.

I don't know how much rereleases of games use emulation vs rewrites, but I assume at least some use emulation.

I believe I heard that the xbox360 contains an Xbox emulator for backwards compatibility. If it wasn't the Xbox360 it was some other console.

Then there's the failed bleem! commercial emulator.

<comment><USER5> Funnily enough the Retron5 _is_ illegal. Not because it emulates games, but because the emulators it uses are stolen from open source projects that forbid commercial use.

[https://www.libretro.com/index.php/appeal-to-game- journalist...](https://www.libretro.com/index.php/appeal-to-game-journalists- about-retro-bit-and-about-the-new-retro-emulation-industry-in-general/)

<comment><USER6> Aren't open source licenses that forbid commercial use kind of rare? All of the big name ones I can think of have no such provisions.

<comment><USER5> It's more common in the emulation scene. The two emulators that Retron5 infringes on have licenses roughly based on MIT/BSD, but with no-commercial- use clauses added.

[https://github.com/snes9xgit/snes9x/blob/master/docs/snes9x-...](https://github.com/snes9xgit/snes9x/blob/master/docs/snes9x-license.txt)

[https://github.com/ekeeke/Genesis-Plus- GX/blob/master/LICENS...](https://github.com/ekeeke/Genesis-Plus- GX/blob/master/LICENSE.txt)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "At this time, yuzu does not run any commercial Switch games. yuzu can boot some games, to varying degrees of success, but does not implement any of the necessary GPU features to render 3D graphics"

In case anyone thought it was a full-blown emulator

<comment><USER8> Actually, it can render some graphics now: [https://twitter.com/notfunnei/status/952460754996944896](https://twitter.com/notfunnei/status/952460754996944896)

I guess they didn't update the website.

<comment><USER9> The README specifically says 3D graphics, which still seems to be lacking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Glad that the first major Switch emulator is open-source, it sets the standard.

<comment><USER11> Agreed! Cemu is a great piece of software, but coming after Dolphin, the premiere open source console emulation project, it was pretty lame that they opted for closed source.

In the case of Cemu, I understand that closed source = $20k/mo in Patreon subscriptions which enabled a blistering pace of development in 2017. It's my hope that the developers eventually open up the source after the subscriptions dry up.

For long-term support, something that is extremely important when you're dealing with games that will eventually be decades old, open source is critical.

<comment><USER12> Does it have to be closed source for the Patreon? A significant amount of open source developers have their own successful Patreon. And it's freely downloadable so it's not like that is the Patreon incentive.

<comment><USER11> I imagine they made that choice with the intention of preventing others from wrestling control from the devs with a libre fork at the early stages of development when they weren't sure just how much money they would make through Patreon. The release cycle favors Patreon subscribers by a week or two. As compatibility rounds out, this will be less of a draw.

It's a little similar to how PJ64 did things for a while with their donor system, except AFAIK PJ64 is still closed source.

<comment><USER10> Project 64 is open-source now.

<comment><USER11> Since 2015... wow. I never bothered to check because I haven't been using it much over the last 2-3 years. That's great news!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Much of the Switch's appeal for me was the interesting hardware configuration, I wonder if Nintendo focused less on obfuscating its inner workings compared to other current-gen consoles based on that?

Edit: urgh, was supposed to be a reply to another comment. I guess the point still stands though.

<comment><USER11> I've had every previous Nintendo console to date except for the Wii U. I've gone through 2 SNES's, 2 N64's, 2 Gamecubes, 3 Wii's, but 0 Wii U's.

Nintendo had a great streak going, and they just ruined it with such a shit piece of hardware. Sure, the Wii was pretty terrible, but it redeemed itself with the ease of which it can be hacked and customized, plus the Wiimotes _were_ pretty neat even if not perfect.

My solution to shitty hardware? Buy the games and emulate. Never touch that awful gamepad.

I don't care if full-blown 100% commercial emulation dropped tomorrow, I will still buy a Switch this year and probably another in a couple years.

Hardware design is _extremely_ important, and with Nintendo's commitment to continually finishing last in the GFX arms race, it's all they have. At least with the Switch, they found a way to justify reduced graphical performance with a hybrid mobile design.

As soon as some nice third-party joycons hit the market, I'm in.

<comment><USER14> > Hardware design is extremely important, and with Nintendo's commitment to > continually finishing last in the GFX arms race, it's all they have.

I'd like to point out that the Gamecube was much better than the Playstation 2 in terms of graphics.

In fact, I'd say that they learned their lesson about being a "Me Too" player that generation, and began to focus on usability and innovation instead of raw speed. This is a lesson they should have learned from their portables, but somehow never applied it to their consoles.

<comment><USER11> The Gamecube edged out in certain aspects like lighting and color accuracy, and the Playstation 2 won out in other ways. It was definitely a beefy GPU that stood toe-to-toe with Sony's... ATI did a good job.

Unfortunately, Nintendo thought it was a good idea to barely increase GPU performance between generations and with the Wii we basically got a Gamecube V2 instead of a console that actually competed with the new generation on a hardware level.

<comment><USER15> Right and the GameCube sold ~20 million units, which is abysmal for Nintendo. Far fewer than any other Nintendo console up until that point, only the WiiU has sold worse. But the Wii sold ~100 million units and was an unqualified success.

I think elsonrodriguez's point was this. Nintendo has released consoles with enough power to best all or some competition previously, in the form of the N64 and the GameCube. That power didn't translate into sales. The N64 sold 1/3 as many units as the PSOne. The GameCube sold ~1/8th as many units as the PS2. But the Wii sold more units than the Xbox360 or the PS3.

>Unfortunately, Nintendo thought it was a good idea to barely increase GPU performance between generations and with the Wii we basically got a Gamecube V2 instead of a console that actually competed with the new generation on a hardware level.

Given the Wii's success it seems clear that they didn't need to compete on the hardware level to be successful. And seeing how competing on hardware hasn't worked out for them (terribly well) in the past it's arguably not a good strategy for them to continue.

It certainly seems like Nintendo's biggest success stories don't center around unparalleled technical specs. Rather, low cost hardware that's used really well.

<comment><USER11> > That power didn't translate into sales.

Certainly, but I think there are a lot of factors at play for why the GCN didn't do well. For example, Nintendo tends to get its customer base wrong and often doesn't engage in the kind of hype that Sony and Microsoft do because Nintendo isn't trying to bleed people dry.

> Given the Wii's success it seems clear that they didn't need to compete on > the hardware level to be successful

Again, several factors involved, even Nintendo was surprised by their success.

However, very few fans above 8 y.o. looked at their Wii and said, "Yes, I'm satisfied that this is 480p when literally everything else on the market is 1080p".

A lot of people had expectations going in that were not realized because they were just kind of expected as standard, and Nintendo failed to deliver. Resolution, performance, even DVD playback. They really skimped on the latter, even our toasters can play DVDs these days.

> It certainly seems like Nintendo's biggest success stories don't center > around unparalleled technical specs.

So what do you believe can be attributed to their success?

And the answer isn't low-cost hardware. That only appealed to a certain casual market, and Nintendo suffered for it with the Wii U because that market had already been burned out on Wii gaming and most saw no reason to upgrade.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> <Soapbox>

If you want more interesting consoles that break from the "set top box" paradigm, be sure to buy a switch.

If you want more games that are awesome and fun to play, buy those games.

Only after you've bought them (or can no longer legally buy them), break them apart and create roms and emulators for your own use.

</Soapbox>

Artists will often create even without pay, but the scale and quality of many of these games is beyond what even a group of artists could create in a decade long side project.

</comment><comment><USER17> Interesting that they didn't try to make it run on the nVidia Shield, which has the same hardware as the Switch, but clocked higher.

</comment><comment><USER18> "It's just Emulation!" \- The Challenge of Selling old Games [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16151538](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16151538)

<comment><USER19> While I think that video is great, the games on the Switch are the opposite of old.

<comment><USER18> Yes, but in 5, 10 years they will be just like the games discussed in the presentation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Some of the time stamps I'm seeing on the code are on the order of two years old. How is that possible, considering how long the switch has been out? I guess they were able to reuse a lot of code?

<comment><USER21> Yuzu is fork from an existing emulator for the Nintendo 3DS written by essentially the same developers: [https://citra-emu.org/](https://citra- emu.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> > don't hesitate to join our Discord and talk to bunnei

Is that you bunnie? Or someone from Boston who was inspired by bunnie?

(bunnie = [https://www.bunniestudios.com/](https://www.bunniestudios.com/) reverse engineer too, graduate from MIT)

<comment><USER23> bunnei != bunnie

<comment><USER22> I understand that. It's just a bit of coincidence with naming, the area of interest and also boston.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Hopefully this gets developed more and is actually able to run games

</comment><comment><USER25> the appeal of the switch is portability, if you need a powerful gaming laptop to run it it's defeating the purpose, but for posterity it's a good project to keep an eye on.

<comment><USER26> This is good for some other reasons too:

\- There are some good Switch exclusives that are worth playing even non- portably

\- Eventually, this will probably let us play Switch games in higher resolutions with better textures, post-processing, etc.

\- In the long-term, emulators let gamers get around eternally renewing copyrights, which are basically just rent-seeking.

<comment><USER27> True. I hope that this doesn't scare game developers away though, the switch is truly one of the best console I've own so far and I'd be sad to see developers running away from it because of emulators and piracy.</comment></comment></comment>