Mark Twain's Mind Waves - <AUTHOR> https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2020/08/25/mark-twains-mind-waves/ <comment><USER2> I had this happen recently with such incredibly strong coincidental timing (a few hours after years of no contact) that I had to do some research. One word is "synchronicity", but it's a somewhat disparaging term that does not really allow for a possible physical explanation.

Skipping over any quantum entangle-y coolness, my personal guess is that since we are strongly cyclical creatures, if two people have experienced a strong memory together (or some unity of mind/spirit), their minds likely re-process those memories on similar receding timelines. It's well known that the brain has a forgetfulness curve, and I'm sure it has a "remembering curve" just as well.

It'd be interesting to do a study where you pair up random people and have them experience some really unique memory together and then for 5-10 years have them write down the date/time(s) they re-experience it. That of course might mess with the curve since it would aid in memory, but I'm not the scientist here...

<comment><USER3> I think a common trigger may play a role, e.g. evocative weather/smells, a related news event, similar life changes. The key is a subtle trigger, so you don't consciously register the connection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just yesterday I was thinking of the difference in the perceived sounds of many clock radios tuned to the same, or to different, radio stations.

Last week I came across a comment on HN having the quote "History never repeats itself, but it does tend to rhyme", perhaps attributable to Mark Twain.

Now this. That there is any significance to these coincidences remains as unclear as the thesis of this article.

<comment><USER5> Apparently the line about history never repeating itself, but rhyming, comes from about 1970:

[https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/01/12/history- rhymes/](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/01/12/history-rhymes/)

[https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/his...](https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/history_doesnt_repeat_itself_but_it_does_rhyme)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm a believer in only science, but I don't think it's too metaphysical to at least entertain the idea that we may be one consciousness experiencing itself from 7.8 billion different perspectives. These events would make sense in this context.

<comment><USER7> Well of course we're all one consciousness experiencing itself. How else would you run the simulation?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am building a.. uhh.. parody.. text editor.. game.. toy called Mark Twain Simulator(1), and I did not know this. This is too great not to absorb into my project at a foundational level. It's now in my DNA and will never leave.

(1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZlz_T_9aaU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZlz_T_9aaU)

</comment><comment><USER9> Also fun is Jung's work on synchronicity and of course this gem-

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

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't really buy the setup. Often the situations in these style articles seem completely contrived; same as puff peices.

</comment><comment><USER11> Just wanted to mention, tangentially, that I'm currently halfway through Twain's _Roughing It_ , which comes up in the article. If you enjoy wry humor, I heartily recommend the book (as well as Grover Gardner's narration, included with Audible subscription).

</comment><comment><USER12> David Malouf writes about similar phenomena. I think he even uses a similar term "waves of thought emanating out from somebody around the room" or something, effecting other people.

</comment><comment><USER13> "turn clown"? I tried searching and using context. Nothing.

Does it mean, "make a lot of money", "write fantastical stories", or "become like someone else (the clown)"?

</comment><comment><USER14> These are always unsettling when they occur, even if they are ultimately mere coincidences.

When I was in my early 20s, my older brother (and only sibling) was overseas in the military and we had rare contact. We almost never exchanged emails or phone calls. One day our father died suddenly of a massive heart attack. I found out shortly after it happened, and proceeded to attempt to contact my brother, calling his house in Germany repeatedly across many hours (while attending to other family matters). While I was doing that, unbeknownst to me he was simultaneously sending me five or six emails out of the blue while at work, spanning various topics (he was entirely unaware our father had died). I didn't get the emails until after we spoke - I was busy trying to call him and with everything going on I didn't think to bother to check my email. He probably hadn't sent me an email in years. What are the odds he'd be trying to reach me at that particular moment, while I'm trying to call him about something so critically important to both of us.

In my early 20s, my mother died of small-cell lung cancer (30+ years of smoking), after about a 15 month fight with it. The disease progressed very rapidly in the later stages. In the last weeks, her drift toward death was essentially being managed, as there was nothing else that could be done (a hailmary round of intense radiation therapy dropped her off a final cliff, she died quickly after that). She was being cared for at home in the final two months, which is what she wanted. I would occasionally go visit and spend time with her, although she was out of it mentally in the final weeks, as her organs were gradually shutting down. I hadn't gone to visit her in a week or so. I unintentionally fell asleep the evening I planned to go visit, waking up late, a bit after 11pm; that was far too late to go visit unannounced, but I did it anyway, I felt compelled that night. So I drove to her house and I spent several hours with her, just the two of us. The TV or radio was always left on for her through the night (she couldn't communicate at this point), with an assumption that it might be comforting if she was still receiving input in some regard. I left at maybe 2am, turning off the TV as I left (I was supposed to leave it on, it was just an automatic action), and she died a few hours later that morning. Where did the strong compulsion to go see her that specific night come from? It was particularly odd, somewhere in my brain I knew I needed to regardless of how late it was, it couldn't wait until the next night.

I'm an atheistically and scientifically inclined type, non-religious, without a mystically-oriented mind, and these types of coincidences or oddities always throw me a bit regardless. If you live long enough you inevitably see many of them and they're always surreal. For the most part I chalk it up to the sheer volume of events (micro or otherwise) that occur across a lifetime, such that unlikely coincidences and strange events are bound to be produced.

The most common one seems to be where you're actively thinking about someone you haven't spoken to in a long while, and suddenly they call or text. It's always freaky and I don't think I've ever met someone it hasn't happened to.

I think our brains are subconsciously capable of rather remarkable calculations, estimations, extrapolations and timings that are still vastly underestimated. Roaming this planet with so many other people, the collisions of these capabilities produce remarkable coincidences as our daily lives unfold and cross paths. It makes sense, as we're all clones in the same human family (I don't mean that literally), we probably have the same impulses derived from a subconscious timer: both parties feeling a similar thing in the same rough time frame. It makes sense that we'd have similar bounds and reactions to reaching them, based on a shared relationship. And I think that mostly explains Twain's concept of mental telegraphy.

<comment><USER15> >I'm an atheistically and scientifically inclined type, non-religious, without a mystically-oriented mind, and these types of coincidences or oddities always throw me a bit regardless.

Personally, I've had enough weird things happen to me in my life that I've left that entire thing open to explanations simply aren't covered by our current body of scientific knowledge. I'm a non-mystical atheist also, but I'm not willing to completely write off the unexplained as simply "coincidence" just because a lot of folks ascribe it to religion or other magic. I mean, what did people think of bacterial/viral infection 200 years ago? A lot of crazy mystical stuff, for sure, all laughably inaccurate. What sort of stuff will they laugh at US about in 200 years?</comment></comment>


Rate my web app: PassKey - <AUTHOR> https://passkeyapp.com/

<comment><USER2> Your application is going to fail, because very few people are going to trust it, which is going to drive conversions (which are already terribly low for new web apps) through the floor, and because you are competing with things like 1password that already work well across multiple devices.

And, while I don't want to send the wrong message about this (because I think you _should_ use language like this to communicate security to end-users), your security language addresses none of my concerns as a security practitioner. What's being stored in bookmarklets in my browser? If I, as an attacker, can read bookmarks from your browser, I have all your passwords, or something that equates to them? What's being encrypted? How?

<comment><AUTHOR> Valid points in the 1st paragraph. However, this is a hobby project. I'm not competing with anything really. My initial goal when I thought about building PassKey was to see if it was possible at all to get it to work using a bookmarklet. In that sense, it's been a success.

I wanted to share it on HN to get feedback regarding implementation, and I got positive feedback (thanks!). Perhaps business-wise it's not such a great idea, but it wasn't my goal.

The bookmark only stores the encryption key. Even if you get hold of someone's encryption key, it's useless because you don't know their PassKey username and password (to get into the database).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I like the site. It's uncluttered but seems to give just the right information in an appropriate level of detail.

I've never really looked deeply at "password keeper" applications before (I think because Firefox seems to a reasonably good job of it), but your approach seems like a good one. I think if I tried hard enough I might be able to come up with a JavaScript-based attack vector to steal the browser's key, but I suppose that would be a lot of work for relatively little payoff (unless they've already stolen your database and are now looking for decryption keys).

I'm curious about your business model. Do you intend to make money from this? How?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

I hadn't looked at password managers before I built PassKey. I tend to use at least 3 computers on a daily basis and with PassKey (unlike browser built-in password managers) I can sign in to web apps from any machine (just need to get the bookmark).

I don't think it's possible to remotely steal the encryption key as JavaScript doesn't have access to browser's bookmarks.

Don't have a business model at the moment. It was a hobby project.

<comment><USER3> > I don't think it's possible to remotely steal the encryption key as > JavaScript doesn't have access to browser's bookmarks.

I think a trusted site might be able to read the bookmark URL from the history object, but that seems to be sandboxed in general and might not contain javascript: links in the first place. If you were more clever with JavaScript than I am you might be able to do something like (1) pop open the current page in a new window to hide what you're about to do from the user, (2) invoke history.back() in the "parent" window, and (3) read the URL from window.location

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This looks to be a fairly strong implementation, and I have no doubt you've done your homework, and it might make a decent open source project.

But this is not going to be a successful business ever. The end user has no way to know if your application is legitimate or not, Google, Facebook and Twitter can run authorization services that third parties can rely on because they provide valuable services that establish their user's trust in them. You are asking them to hand over their passwords to everything because you have a clean well-lit website.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a very valid point and I have thought about it.

To be honest, I started building it when I got fed up with entering passwords manually throughout the day. It was more of a hobby project.

There are similar services (Last Pass, Passpack -- in my opinion both much more bloated than PassKey) which are businesses (whether successful or not -- I don't know.

Having said that; I didn't build it with making a ton of money in mind (although it would be nice).

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> PassKey is a web based password manager; it allows you to sign in with 1 click to your online accounts.

It's easy to use, you mainly interact with it via a bookmark(let).

It's secure:

      * All connections are HTTPS
      * Passwords are stored encrypted with AES
      * Encryption key is stored in your browser, in a bookmark(let)

I'd love to hear your feedback.

<comment><USER5> I think the point is that we have to trust you, that the passwords are stored encrypted. Right? Or there is a way to see that you are passing the encrypted password and the bookmarklet "decrypts" it locally without passing through your site?

<comment><AUTHOR> Encryption and decryption happen on the server. You need to trust me on that.

I may implement client-side encryption/decryption. I need to look into it.

<comment><USER6> >Encryption and decryption happen on the server. You need to trust me on that.

So in the event that someone breaks into your server, what keeps them from stealing my unique encryption key the next time I use your service?

<comment><AUTHOR> Nothing at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I really like the idea though I won't register. I'd like to have a central password repository, but I want these features:

\- ability to store passwords for non-web services

\- automatically generate passwords based on certain rules (ie always 6 digits)

\- have an API to fetch/store passwords

\- have a browser plugin instead of a bookmarklet (I don't use the bookmark bar in chrome)

<comment><AUTHOR> I hear you. And my reply is: there are other password managers better suited for you.

> ability to store passwords for non-web services

That's not what PassKey was built for. My main goal was to provide 1-click sign in. Web app (which PassKey is) won't be able to sign you in to, say, Skype client. It's technologically impossible.

> automatically generate passwords based on certain rules (ie always 6 digits)

That might be an interesting tool within PassKey and I may consider it.

> have an API to fetch/store passwords

That's an interesting idea. If there's enough interest I may provide an API to fetch/store _encrypted_ passwords. Encryption/decryption would have to happen on API client level for security reasons (ie I don't know the decryption key).

> have a browser plugin instead of a bookmarklet (I don't use the bookmark bar > in chrome)

That defeats my goal to make it a "nothing to install" app.

Bottom line: PassKey was created purely to give you a button in your browser that you click on and it signs you in to the website you're on. Nothing more.

Thanks for your input!

<comment><USER7> Unfortunately, I haven't found a better solution. Currently I am using pwsafe via ssh and it is kinda frustrating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I like the website. It isn't nearly as cluttered as LastPass.com. Which brings up my main question, why would I switch from LastPass.com to you? If I do switch, do I have to enter everything manually? I didn't see any mention of import tools.

<comment><AUTHOR> The ease of use is my main selling point. I've tried LastPass and Passpack and they are much more complicated.

No import tools at the moment but I like the idea. I'll add it to my todo list.</comment></comment>


Announcing the Chrome 64-bit Beta Channel for Windows - <AUTHOR> http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2014/07/announcing-chrome-64-bit-beta-channel.html <comment><USER2> 64-Bit Microsoft Windows ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#64-bit_edit...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#64-bit_editions)) has been a target for Microsoft on the consumer desktop since October 25, 2001. I personally find it pathetic that a story about making a 64-bit version of your program available in 2014 is somehow noteworthy.

Developers, developers, developers....are apparently just as tied down to the boat anchor of the Microsoft monolith as the OS team is.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why is this such an achievement? Is 64-bit on Windows so much harder than on Linux, because they have had 64-bit on Linux for as long as I can remember. (I've been using Linux for 3 years)

<comment><USER4> It's not super hard, it should mostly just work to recompile. But there are a couple of gotchas:

-Dependencies: 32-bit versions can't be used in a 64-bit process. Open source libs can of course be recompiled but the dependency stack may be deep, and all of them must have been tested with 64 bits. Then there are closed libs (like Adobe's), the suppliers need to be prodded to action.

\- The 64-bit Mingw GCC took a loooooooong time to appear in a usable state, not much of a problem for Chrome that can build fine with a Microsoft toolchain.

\- The biggest portability headache is that sizeof(void*) > sizeof(long), which is true on 64-bit Windows and just about nowhere else.

And because 32-bit apps run just fine on 64-bit Windows and a conversion gains little benefit for most apps, there is little rush to do anything. So it all goes at a snail's pace.

The only app I have RAM problems with on Windows is Firefox because they haven't got around to process-per-tab. It is pretty dismaying to watch Mozilla constantly postpone both the 64 bit version and multiple processes. I know phones are fun, but one would think that their moneyspinner would deserve better than that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I hope this gives Mozilla a little kick to get moving with their 64 bit builds of Firefox for Windows too.

<comment><USER6> Probably won't until Servo is ready. I'm more interested in Mozilla releasing its sandboxing system already.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Chrome (on Windows) has been behind the times for a while. No 64-bit support, no HiDPI support. They seem to finally come around and catch up. Thankfully it runs on 64 bit and Retina on a Mac for a lot longer already.</comment>


How A Quiet Developer Grew Goodreads To 2.6 Million Members - <AUTHOR> http://mixergy.com/goodreads-otis-chander/ <comment><USER2> My hosting company is having trouble so my site may be down. If it is, you can see the video here: <http://blip.tv/file/2855708>

And the transcript here: <http://mixergy.etherpad.com/12>

<comment><USER3> Seeing the timeline of the transcript was interesting. He (Andrew) segmented the entire transcript into five minute segments, and then they start filling in. At first, I thought he was doing it all himself, but it seems like the whole point of segmenting it is so a lot of different people can do the transcription in parallel. So either he farmed it out to Amazon Turk, or he's got lots of college student friends.

<comment><USER2> I use Mechanical Turk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm seeing these video interviews more and more; I really wish people would start posting transcripts alongside them. I don't want to devote 30-, 45-, 60-, however-many minutes to watching a video that may or may not be useful.

<comment><USER2> I post them below my videos. I need to find a way to make it clearer.

<comment><USER5> Andrew, fwiw, you have the highest ratio of useful-content / whiny-feedback out of any site that makes it to HN. It must be viscous preparing interesting interviews when you know you will catch the most flack for some tangential thing you "did".

P.S. This is in no way meant to slight the grandparent; I just keep seeing complaints in mixergy threads, even though I find the content most interesting (yes, the transcripts have been there for a while too :-)

<comment><USER2> I'm trying to use the feedback to improve my work. Before reading HN feedback, I didn't realize how important transcripts are to people. Now I try to add them to every interview.

Thanks to a few private message that I got from HN'ers, I even figured out how to use Mechanical Turk to get transcripts that are faster and cheaper than I can get anywhere else (though, admittedly it's not a perfect system).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have been asking Google to remove Goodreads landing pages from search results on searches I run, as I find out that those pages are simply fakes for SEO. That has completely turned me off to actually using Goodreads, which was originally recommended to me by a good friend. A company has to be pretty nasty to get me to disregard a word-of-mouth recommendation by a friend.

<comment><USER7> Can you explain more? I ran a few searches where goodreads results show up and I have a hard time seeing how it's different from Amazon results. The page has useful information about the book, people's ratings and reviews, where I can buy it, etc. How are these "fakes"?

<comment><USER6> In my case, I run Google searches on people's names, and there is a link shown to a [person's name] review of [book] on Goodreads, only the person in question has never posted a review of that book! There is no such content by that person on Goodreads. I definitely know that in the case of my own name, which I check by ego-surfing once in a while to see what people are putting up on the Internet about me. I've seen some other spammers over the years that have been removed from the Google directory, and it looks like Goodreads will have to be the next site to get that treatment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was just beginning to warm up to Mixergy. I liked the Noah Kagan interview, which was also popular here. Gambit seemed like a really great company, and they both kept mentioned how much they liked the food at Chipotle.

Only a week later, Michael Arrington broke the story on how Gambit is one of the companies that got banned by Facebook for running scam offers.

Then, just this evening, I went to the new Chipotle restaurant that just opened in my town, and it sucks! Cold and dry meat, slopped together with some sauce and barely any fresh veggies.

I'm pretty disappointed in Andrew Warner, and I'm going back to staying away from his interviews. (Yes, I take my food pretty seriously)

<comment><USER2> Your comment is making me think that maybe I should find a way to get more community input before doing my interviews so I can improve my research.

Having said that, on the day I did my interview, I don't think the ads that Gambit/Zynga/others ran were considered scams. Facebook itself didn't have a problem with them and respected investors like Fred Wilson didn't object either.

Even the HN community (which is quick to point out what I miss) didn't call the business a scam when I ran my interview. Perception in this industry changed after the TC article. Industry standards changed after that.

What's considered right in an industry often changes. If you listen to my interview with Matt Mullenweg, you'll hear him say that the way he promoted Wordpress in the early days might be considered spam today.

Industry standards change.

Give my work another try akamaka. I keep improving it based on feedback like yours.

And give Chipotle another try. It's really good.

<comment><USER8> Thanks for taking the time to reply. I guess it's a bit unfair for me to expect you to get at the personal motivations and philosophy of a startup founder, while at the same time grilling them on the ethics behind their business. I have to say I did enjoy the interview at the time, and watched the entire thing, and only afterwards did I question its value.

As for Chipotle, I am living pretty far from where it originated. Maybe the quality control is lower here. I'll give it another try when I'm in California.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> His story out of college sounds just like mine. Mechanical engineer, disillusioned with the M.E. environment and excited about computers and the internet. Same time frame too. Glad to see he is successful with his current startup.

</comment><comment><USER10> I can't get to it right now, must be getting hit hard. [http://126.96.36.199/search?hl=en&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%...](http://220.127.116.11/search?hl=en&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fmixergy.com%2Fgoodreads- otis-chander%2F&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&strip=1)

</comment><comment><USER11> I'd heard of Goodreads before, but was already using LibraryThing.com by then. Now I'll have to take a second look at goodreads and see what's new.

Incidentally, does anybody know if there's an easy way to transfer books between those two sites?

</comment><comment><USER12> This looks like a ruby on rails application. The restful url's, the nginx as a webserver frontend and use of prototype javascript library is all very common for RoR.</comment>


MyTym, a Time Tracking django application. Source available as GPL. [Day 3, 7days7apps] - <AUTHOR> http://day3.7days7apps.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Source is available at <http://7days7apps.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/timetrack0.01/>

If you wanna check this, and not register, You can login as demo/demo or demo2/demo2.

<comment><USER3> Judging by the source I give you a +1 for django/python coding style.

Very well done overall.

One thing I might suggest since you are open sourcing this - <USER2> documentation as to why you make certain decisions. Quickly skimming the source, I am left wondering why you went that route in todidlist.dynaforms.

If you want to move the conversation to another venue, my email is in my profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am just trying to finish and deploy an app every day, so I am not able to document the code as much as I would like to. That said, In django, you need to define each field for the form. With a todo list I need a form which can have an arbitrary number of fields. And all the fields should have the same field type. So the way then I would like to declare the form is

[<http://day2.7days7apps.com/paste/244/>]

So I need to muck around a bit with Metaclasses, and subclass Forms to Dynaforms.

Ps. How do I paste code here? The formatting is lost, if I just paste.

<comment><USER3> in your edit screen there should be a help button...you need to indent the code portion like

       this

Interesting technique in the forms - I would never thought of doing it that way. I find newforms to still not be ideal and do a fair number of my own hacks. Thanks for the response :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why top students don't want to teach [chart] - <AUTHOR> http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/newsletters/chartfocus/2010_12.htm

<comment><USER2> Seems like the one who has nothing else to do, or no expertise / interest in subject becomes a teacher. I can say that with confidence about my school. My physics teacher, for example, was hardly interested in explaining why we solved a particular problem in 'a way'.

If you ask him, He'd say "Just do it, will ya?" He wasn't into Physics at all. While this should be opposite. Most passionate people should teach. I know I could have learned most of it myself - but when it comes to 'real problem' and inspiring me to teach - you need a "great teacher". A thought leader.

My Chemistry teacher was an exception. He never started or ended lectures like others saying - "This chapter has xx quota in exams so study it well." He'd go in depths explaining real life problems and his lecture would complete on notes like, "When you become scientists - you will solve this problem [Liquidation of Hydrogen for example]"

Man that was a teacher, he inspired us to study Chemistry, looked at us as scientist and loved Chemistry himself.</comment>


Google: "Software patents are bad, so we're accumulating lots of them" - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/4389901283 <comment><USER2> What exactly is he attacking Google for here?

Is it the fact that they're buying patents and feeding into a dysfunctional system? He seems to acknowledge that Google needs a large patent portfolio in order to defend itself from others, so it's probably not that. Or is it the fact that Google appears to be hypocritical in its stance towards patents, by taking actions which it could _theoretically_ use to attack underdogs that can't defend themselves while claiming that they're just for their own protection? If that is indeed what he's claiming, then until that _actually happens_ , this is just FUD.

</comment><comment><USER3> Generally it is very easy to attack big companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc.. However the recent change of direction[^1] that Google announced for Android (or, Android source), should make everyone agree with Marco when he says

>Sure. It's in everyone's best interest. Unless Google wants to sue _you_ , or the vendor of a product you use, for patent infringement.

[^1]: Not that the change is bad per se: it could be very good for the end user, which is now subject to the carrier will more than what he should.

<comment><USER4> How does Google deciding to hold back on releasing the source code for a tablet version of android until they merge it with the phone version have anything to do with Google building up a larger patent portfolio, other than that they're both things that people are getting irritated at Google about? Really, I can't understand how you're connecting them, much less reaching the conclusion that the former means that everyone needs to agree with a statement about the latter.

<comment><USER3> They said that the definition of open means being able to use git with the source code of Android. And freedom. This is no longer the case, they changed direction. Now carriers need to talk to Rubin and tell him what their plans are.

They said that they want to acquire patents to prevent companies to sue them. Unless they change idea, as with the aforementioned.

Then you're right, everybody has to agree with part I cited from Marco, since when they sue you, it's not in everyone's best interest. Everyone but you, at least.

<comment><USER2> > Now carriers need to talk to Rubin and tell him what their plans are.

That is not correct.

Carriers need to talk to Rubin and tell him what their plans are _in order to gain early access to the source code_.

The source code will still be published into a public git repository, and anyone, including carriers and manufacturers, can still acquire, modify, redistribute and ship it from there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Even if Google turns evil, or goes bust in say 5 years time and sells these patents to trolls, they'll still have taken these patents off the market for that time period.

It's not something to celebrate, but it's a thin silver lining on the grey cloud of patent insanity that hangs over the tech world.

Relatedly, I've realised that it's a shame that Google didn't adopt the motto "At least we're better than Hitler and the Nazis". Then any random fanboy troll unhappy with them offering too much competition for their favourite corporation would have to say things like:

 _"Google is using this blog post to pre-spin their attempt to get a much larger patent portfolio so we don't all accuse them of trying to accumulate too many patents, since that's "worse than Hitler and the Nazis""_

and then Godwin themselves.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think the article is more in the guise of: just buy the portfolio, and shut up.

It's a fact that, in this messed up system, they need them in order to succeed.

Now, if they can just stop pretending that they are in this business for us, and not to make a profit, would be nice.

</comment><comment><USER7> Interesting non mention of Apple patents there

<comment><USER8> And why should he mention Apple? It's not like he's making a pro-patent argument and just failing to address a huge counterexample. He's disagreeing with Google's behavior - should he take the chance to bash every large company other there?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Yay. Gruber has competition.

<comment><USER9> Yup, that downvote was predictable too :)</comment></comment>


Secure your code: OpenVPN in the cloud - <AUTHOR> http://code.mixpanel.com/openvpn-in-the-rackspace-cloud/ <comment><USER2> I'm not totally wild about OpenVPN. If you asked me which I'd rather expose, SSH or OpenVPN, I'd have to flip a coin. In either case, it's easy to realize the "right" configuration, with a single "bastion" host (hate that word) that provides authorized clients with transparent access to servers.

One thing you can say for SSH is that it gets a lot more audit attention than OpenVPN does.

In either case, the problem I think most startups should move to solve early is multi-factor authentication. I have friends building things with Yubikeys, and others building things with SMS-based auth; either are better than straight passwords, which are (among other things) a policy nightmare.

<comment><USER3> OpenVPN can be configured to be stealthy (to start a connection, the first packet must be signed with a shared-secret, otherwise it doesn't respond), while SSH doesn't. And OpenVPN has the performance advantage (tunneling is done over UDP instead of SSH's TCP - TCP over TCP brings about a couple of performance problems, especially when there's congestion).

<comment><USER2> The whole stealth thing (and "port knocking" along with it) is wildly overrated. If your security depends on people not knowing you're running SSH or OpenVPN, you have bigger problems.

If you want to get all cutesy, go hack SSH to add an extra round or two to OpenSSL's AES. That'll learn 'em.

<comment><USER4> it depends upon your threat model.

there's probably a bug in some code on your system that's exploitable. maybe openvpn or ssh or its configuration (c.f., debian crypto bug).

under this model, anything that increases the time til (inevitable, under this threat model) success, works.

running ssh or openvpn on a different port or whatever to "hide" it, will help against mass scans for common exploits. it increases the work to find the problem. of course it won't really help against a concerted, targeted attack. but i'm pretty sure unskilled, mass attacks are more common than targeted attacks.

<comment><USER2> The guy with the OpenVPN zero day probably isn't getting slowed down by your stealth configuration. At least, that's how my threat model works.

If you believe in stuff like this, then do it right: require the attacker to know a secret algorithm (like "AES with 3 extra rounds") to talk to you.

<comment><USER4> does the guy with zero day want to:

1\. break into your machine?

2\. break into some machine?

if (1) then i certainly agree that none of this really matters (i apologise if that wasn't clear from my previous comment).

on the other hand, if his objective is (2), and not everyone is using some of this obfuscation, then this separates you from the crowd for a little while (but my model is that as time goes on, you are inevitably exploited).

i realise after your company was exploited it might make you feel like (1) is always the case but for many (2) is the salient threat.

<comment><USER2> Generally speaking, the people running around with OpenVPN and SSH zero day are looking to break into _your_ machine. The people looking to break into _any_ machine are either targeting Windows clientsides, or weeks-to-months-old web vulnerabilities.

People with SSH zero-day are not, by and large, looking to burn those vulnerabilities by spraying them into every busybody's honey pot logs.

<comment><USER5> > The people looking to break into any machine are either targeting Windows > clientsides, or weeks-to-months-old web vulnerabilities.

Actually the people looking to break into your machine are targeting windows clientsides and weeks-to-months-old web vulnerabilities.

There's a cost involved in developing 0day, droppers, remote access trojans, maintaining breach and exfil teams etc. If these guys can get into the developer laptops with an email, a wink and a PDF then why waste the 0day? If you're putting all your effort into a custom SSH daemon without expending equivalent effort on your connection sources (especially when connecting to the Internet) then you're doing it wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> We have been using OpenVPN to secure one of our Rackspace servers dedicated to development for the last couple of years. We also have ejabberd running on that box (just talking to the vpn interface). It works great for distributed development and the internal secured jabber IMs are great for transferring sensitive stuff like passwords between remote folks. We also have a persistent conference room for a shared "watercooler".

The main problem we have is key management. Does anyone know of a good admin app for generating, storing and revoking keys?

<comment><USER7> Are you still generating keys by hand or have you found something that works a bit better?

I've been looking around for an admin app as well. It would be even better if I could tie it into an intranet site as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> tinc is really good little secret I have found if you want a true mesh P2P secure overlay network. It's open source, has a good community in freenode #tinc, and really easy to install and use, just read the man page <http://linux.die.net/man/5/tinc.conf>

<http://tinc-vpn.org/>

<comment><USER9> can you tell me what the actual difference between OpenVPN and tinc is? I know OpenVPN very well and really like it. Why would I prefer tinc over OpenVPN (or the other way around)?

In my opinion, they share a lot of the same features like running in userspace, easy configuration, ssl/certificate based authentication - just the same.

<comment> mike-cardwell Front page of the project website:

"Automatic full mesh routing. Regardless of how you set up the tinc daemons to connect to each other, VPN traffic is always (if possible) sent directly to the destination, without going through intermediate hop"

OpenVPN doesn't do that, and it sounds very useful when multiple machines are involved

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> we are doing that in our production environment. We use different boxes (1 on US and 2 on EU), they are connected with openvpn to serv our different needs.

Our personal development boxes are also connected to each others using OPENVPN and firewalled. All the internal code made for our app is using the VPN ips, and every application is listening on these IP only (not localhost nor 0.0.0.0)

(applications are mysql/couchdb/git/apache)

That's pretty great !

</comment><comment><USER11> I was just looking for something like this, literally about 30 seconds before you posted it. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER12> My problem with OpenVPN is that you cannot access it from an iPhone.

</comment><comment><USER13> The diagram has connection lines between all nodes; does this imply N² point- to-point OpenVPN connections, with a subnet for each connection?

<comment><AUTHOR> The lines between the nodes were actually meant to show that those nodes use the Rackspace internal network (ServiceNet) for communication - see the colored labels on the diagram.

<comment><USER13> Ohh, I see, blue = unencrypted. That makes sense, thanks. So there really isn't any gain over using SSH with private key authentication with this?

<comment><USER14> Yeah, there is. First, doing it with SSH+keys requires either multi-step (which is annoying, esp. for copying files), or exposing each servers SSH to the net (which might be unfeasible if you don't have public IPs for everything).

Second, getting a dump of a table from your MySQL DB with SSH+keys:

      ssh prod-db
      mysqldump what-i-need > file.sql
      exit
      scp prod-db:file.sql .

With VPN (assuming the connection is running):

      mysqldump -h prod-db whatever > file.sql

(I'm not saying it's neccesarily a good idea to du dumps of your production db, but that was the example that came to mind.)

There's also stuff like instrumenting a running Tomcat with JVisualVM on a server in your remote environment (which, no, you can't easily do over SSH- forwarded ports.. also, portforwarding is annoying).

Finally, VPN allows you to run internal services. A jabber-server was mentioned in the article, and perhaps a webserver with some reports/dashboard thing, cacti/nagios stuff etc. without worrying about setting up authentication and SSL for each. Each VPN user gets his own IP, so you can just do crude IP allow/deny if you need, or you can put the customer people on one subnet and allow them to access the reports server, and the devs/ops on another that can reach everything.

<comment><USER15> While I think you're right in that VPN setups make a lot of things smoother, SSH actually compares pretty well with the first two of your examples.

"Yeah, there is. First, doing it with SSH+keys requires either multi-step (which is annoying, esp. for copying files), or exposing each servers SSH to the net (which might be unfeasible if you don't have public IPs for everything)."

You can work around much of the annoying stuff in multi-step setups by using SSH's ProxyCommand configuration variable. For example, you could have something like this in your local .ssh/config:

      Host prod-db
        ProxyCommand ssh bastion nc -w1 %h %p

After which 'ssh prod-db' and 'scp prod-db:...' work as if the bastion host wasn't between you and prod-db.

"Second, getting a dump of a table from your MySQL DB with SSH+keys:"

If you can access prod-db with SSH, you can dump the database with a single command:

      $ ssh prod-db mysqldump what-i-need > file.sql</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Windows 10 and .NET Native - <AUTHOR> http://www.anandtech.com/show/9661/windows-10-feature-focus-net-native <comment><USER2> I don't see why anybody should be surprised about the swing back to Ahead-of- Time compiled native code. I'm actually surprised it has taken as long as it has.

Although interpretation and Just-in-Time compilation were not new ideas at the time, Java first brought them to a wide audience around 20 years ago with its use of the JVM.

Anyone who remembers those times, and even many years beyond then, will remember how slow JVM-based applications were compared to native apps.

Even today, there's still a noticeable difference between JVM-based software and native software, although the exceptionally massive increase in computation power have rendered the differences easier to overlook in many cases.

Since then we've seen similar techniques used by a variety of other platforms.

Despite many years of effort and research, and much investment, we've yet to see Just-in-Time compilation rival Ahead-of-Time compilation in terms of the performance.

While Just-in-Time's supporters will claim that it allows for better optimization or better portability, or they can show some contrived benchmarks where it has a slight edge, we haven't seen such techniques stand up in the real world.

Ahead-of-Time C and C++ compilers have consistently compiled software that's very fast, lean, and the best performer in real-world scenarios.

For years, we've had people pointing out this very obvious reality regarding how Ahead-of-Time compilation proves to be superior to Just-in-Time compilation in realistic scenarios. Yet we've seen their claims very forcefully denied by the Just-in-Time advocates.

Maybe after 20 years, it has finally become clear that the Just-in-Time supporters were wrong, and that Ahead-of-Time compilation is the better approach.

With battery-powered devices more prevalent than ever, the need for high- performing and efficient binaries is greater than it has ever been. Returning to Ahead-of-Time compilation is just what we need given these circumstances. It's just a real shame it has taken so long for this important reality to be recognized.

<comment><USER3> There have been AOT compilers from third party JVM vendors almost since the begining. Used mostly by companies that didn't want to expose their bytecode.

However Sun decided to bet the farm on JIT and was against having AOT compilation on the reference JDK. Meaning anyone that wanted a AOT toolchain for Java had to go shopping.

Now, it appears Oracle is of a different opinion.

"Java Goes AOT" at JVM Language Summit 2015

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xybzyv8qbOc&list=PLX8CzqL3Ar...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xybzyv8qbOc&list=PLX8CzqL3ArzUo2dtMurvpUTAaujPMeuuU&index=16)

Being used to memory safe languages with AOT compilation like Turbo Pascal, Modula-2, Modula-3, Oberon, Delphi, Ada among many others, I also would have prefer that Java and .NET had offered the same type of toolchain from the beginning.

Now almost 20 years later, we need to teach young generations that their default implementations were just that, implementations. As they got used to the (wrong) idea that memory safe languages imply a VM.

<comment><USER4> > Being used to memory safe languages with AOT compilation like Turbo Pascal, > Modula-2, Modula-3, Oberon, Delphi, Ada among many others, I also would have > prefer that Java and .NET had offered the same type of toolchain from the > beginning.

Do those languages offer consistent, defined behaviour on all platforms (e.g. for integer overflow)? Particularly in the context of multithreading - do they have a crossplatform memory model? That to me was the big advantage of the JVM.

<comment><USER3> They had their own set of issues, but not even close to the anything goes of undefined behaviour across C compilers.

That was actually a reason why many of us embraced Java.

C compilers were between K&R and C89.

C++ compilers were even worse with the standard still ongoing.

These other languages suffered from not being adopted by OS vendors and as you remember, back then we used to pay for compilers. So not being part of the official OS compilers was a burden to adoption.

Java being C++ like, more consistent behaviour and free (as beer) won the hearts of many.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > _they [desktop apps] really want to move to the new app platform anyway_

1\. Stop anthropomorphizing desktop apps, they don't like it.

2\. Can't tell if the author means "desktop devs want to" (false IMO), "desktop devs _ought_ to" (also false IMO) or "MS wants desktop devs to" (undeniably true).

3\. It depresses me that just as MS is genuinely 'getting' open source, they're completely missing the appeal and value of an open platform. One step forward, two steps back.

EDIT:typo

<comment><USER6> > "MS wants desktop devs to" (undeniably true)

What makes you say this, the publishing of a third app model for Windows, messaging, some combination of the two, something else?

<comment><USER5> Both, plus the fact that significant new tech infrastructure projects like the Windows Runtime are (mostly) restricted to Store apps.

I'm not anti- app stores or declarative UI in general, and I think things like standardized sandboxing would be great for many desktop apps too. But a platform that places you at the whim of a single distribution path, and cripples portability to boot, isn't worth it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's frustrating that the .NET Native compilation is so tied to the Rosylyn toolchain that it can't be used for other languages like F#, even though they're using the same IR.

<comment><USER8> Yeah this seams to me like a repudiation of the whole idea of .NET, as a multi-language system. They may add support for F# later, but by that time, the damage will have been done because the message is clear: "use anything other than C# or VB at your own peril".

Currently F# is completely shut out - it can't even be used to make libraries to be included in these kinds of apps! That makes it more dangerous career- wise to use F# going forward, lest your team get wedged into a position of having to rewrite one of _your_ libraries because of your choice of using your "pet" language. Not good for the career.

The whole _point_ of bytecode is to make things like this language independent. Big failure of vision to let this group do such a hack, IMO.

<comment><USER9> This is most likely just an artifact of F# producing unusual IL that's harder to handle. In my experience, it's less 'we only support C#' and more 'compilers other than C#/VB.net produce very strange IL that is hard to handle well' \- which is true. Given the small # of users that rely on those weird compilers, it's hard to justify supporting them first, especially if they aren't performance-sensitive.

<comment><USER10> I emailed the .NET Native team asking them about this. They confirmed that they reverse out IL to higher-level constructs. So they aren't really working at the IL level, they're working on C# represented as IL.

This isn't entirely uncommon. A lot of code that deals with Expression<T> does so very poorly and won't work on many valid trees because they weren't able to get C# to emit certain expressions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > At this time, it is not available for desktop apps, although that is > certainly something that could come with a future update. It's not > surprising though, since they really want to move to the new app platform > anyway.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'm not investing time and effort into a toolchain that ultimately targets only a single platform, namely Windows 10, because they don't want me to be able to just xcopy a .exe without touching their store

</comment><comment><USER12> How do I verify the app I downloaded was made by the developer? I suppose on phones there's no way to do that now anyway or at least I don't know how on iOS.

My point being if ms is compiling then how do I sign the executable as proof it's from me?

<comment><USER13> Good question. I assume you upload a cert? My question: what happens when I side load on my phone with a different compiler but ship it to MS who uses a different version and the app runs differently?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> You know, this is all very well, but the Windows 10 app market is pretty much non-existent. You know who really uses .NET on Windows? LOB applications, front ends to complex systems. The kind of thing you don't see in the app store.

And that market is better served with, you know, a compiler, that runs on the command line, on a machine under a developer's control.

<comment><USER10> The Windows Store was traditionally just scams with blatant trademark infringement. This has severely damaged their rep. A quick search now shows a lot of it is cleared up. Unfortunately, that just leaves the shovelware junk.

Here is an interesting point: Right now, the #3 top free app is "Freeflix/Free Movies Unlimited"[1] and #4 is a "free Mp3 downloader".

The publisher for the free movies is "Wamba Dev" which results in no related hits on Google outside of Windows Store. Contact is a hotmail account, and the privacy policy is on "dopeware.com".

So Microsoft isn't even able to get real publishers in top positions on its own Store. Pretty damn sad.

Also the Metro runtime is diseased and broken. Opening the Store app right now to do these searches took about 15 seconds. On a decently high-end ThinkPad. It's embarrassingly bad. Even the Metro calc takes 2-3 seconds to open, ffs.

1: [https://www.microsoft.com/en-nz/store/apps/freeflix-free- mov...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-nz/store/apps/freeflix-free-movies- unlimited/9nblggh1z0m4)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> One consequence of these 'app store compiled' models is that the compilation units you upload will have to be licensed to the app store in such a way that the derived native apps are legitimately licensed. That probably rules out, for example, even including LGPL libraries in your app, since the resulting application will statically compile that library code in with .NET components.

<comment><USER16> LGPL doesn't forbid static linking, you'll just have to provide linkable object files (or source code) separately to enable re-linking. ([https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html#section4](https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html#section4))

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'd love to have the JVM equivalent of this for my company's main desktop product, written in Java. Due to being Java (and having an embedded JRE) the app has slow startup, due to the JVM having to be started up. The installer is 90 MB on OS X, 55 MB on Windows, much of which is the embedded JRE. So our our fortnightly updates are much bigger than they need to be.

We tried an AOT compiler called JET. It was fine, albeit expensive. But it has an extremely long build time, no great for our continuous build system. It's support Java version also lags considerably behind the current Oracle Java release.

<comment><USER18> As I understand it, a big part of the slow load time for Java apps is sucking everything on the classpath into RAM, even though most apps will use a fraction of the classes that are loaded.

Java 9's module system should make that a lot less of a problem by giving the JVM guidance on what it should load and skip.

I am not a Java expert, though, so I may have misunderstood what's going on.

<comment><USER19> The JVM class loader by default reads a class on first reference to it in the code it's executing. Never refer to it, never gets loaded.

Startup on the JVM is more affected by the JIT warming up, and the heap getting into a "stable" configuration.

<comment><USER18> Thanks for the correction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Every poorly performance problem I've ever encountered has been due to poor design choices, poor choice of algorithm or, most often, badly implemented algorithms.

Once past the JIT compilation delay the execution speed is not significantly different for AOT and JIT code for mature platforms such as .Net and Java.

There _are_ issues in CPU and RAM resource limited systems such as mobiles and embedded systems. And also web servers - where small improvements in scalability can dramatically affect business viability and profitability.

<comment><USER10> IIRC the .NET Native literature says the main benefits are reducing RAM by a fair amount. Which makes sense - no runtime to load type info and no JIT to run. AFAIK, they aren't claiming the compiled code is _that_ much better than what the JIT does.

Of course it's probable that reducing RAM footprint significantly might improve runtimes if it makes better use of cache.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I just wrote 18,000 programming language statements in Visual Basic .NET, in files with 80,000 lines including comments, blank lines, etc., compiled much of it with a command line script with line

        programPath = dq || SystemRoot || ,
        '\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319\vbc.exe' || dq

and give the rest to the Microsoft Internet Information Server (IIS) to compile and run as Web pages, and it all works, but, still, I can't make any sense out of the OP at all.

E.g., my command line compiles result in a file with extension EXE. What's in that? Sure, I have the Microsoft .NET Framework 4.0 installed, and the VBC.EXE invoked as above is, of course, one of the files in the installation of that .NET Framework.

When from a command line I just run that script that runs that VBC.EXE, I get nice output showing the command line options for the program -- simple, direct, explicit, terrific.

So, how do I connect what that .NET Framework 4.0 VBC.EXE does with the discussion in the OP?

BTW: Why use Visual Basic .NET instead of C#? C# borrows too much of the old C syntax, and Visual Basic has syntax more _traditional_ and more like that of Pascal, PL/I, Fortran, etc., and I find that more traditional syntax easier to write and read and less error prone. But, likely and apparently, the difference between C# and Visual Basic .NET is mostly just _syntactic sugar_ anyway.

By the way, where does the famous CLR -- common language runtime -- enter this picture?

Thanks.

<comment><USER22> What?

<comment><USER21> What part of my question do you not understand?

<comment><USER23> What is the question?

<comment><USER21> The question was:

> So, how do I connect what that .NET Framework 4.0 VBC.EXE does with the > discussion in the OP?

<comment><USER24> The VB compiler compiles your code, not into native machine code, but into an intermediate representation targeting the virtual machine defined by the Common Language Runtime. This intermediate representation is known as CIL (Common Intermediate Language), and it is the bytecode that the .Net CLR then JITs at runtime.

This article is about compiling .Net code direct to machine code and skipping the whole CIL/CLR/JIT chain.

<comment><USER21> Thanks for the progress.

I've used _virtual machines_ for decades, e.g., IBM's VM with the interactive CMS (Conversational Monitor System). In what sense is the Microsoft CIL/CLR a _virtual machine_? E.g., does it have any security properties, e.g., restrictions via some attribute control lists?

The CLI is a _virtual machine_ only in the sense that the _byte codes_ are not actual machine instructions for any real processor core but are just some _intermediate_ code _instructions_ for an _imaginary_ machine that does not really exist and, in that sense, is _virtual_?

So, on Windows, say 7, 8.1, 10, Windows Server of some year, etc., suppose I take a file A.VB I've typed in with Visual Basic .NET source code, give that file A.VB to the .NET program VBC.EXE, which is in the collection of .NET files, and get out from running VBC.EXE file A.EXE. Now A.EXE has _CIL byte code_?

Why _byte_ code? Or, in what sense can each _code_ be only one _byte_ long?

Does this _byte code_ mean that it would be the same for running on 32 bit Intel x86 processors, 64 bit Intel processors, ARM processors, etc.?

The CLR part is mostly _run time_ , that is, code my program A.VB and A.EXE needs to run, that is, in old terms, a _library_ to be _linked in_ via a _linkage editor_? Then with .NET on Windows, the JIT work also plays the role of a linkage editor?

One old trick was, don't even bring in the code to be _linked_ and, really, don't even _link_ to that code and, instead, as the program runs and such code gets called, that is, an attempt is made to use it, in case that happens (which maybe often it won't), there is a software _fault, interrupt_ , or some such and the JIT code, still in Windows and still available to run, only then, after the _interrupt_ , actually gets and links the code that is needed but so far was missing?

Another old trick was, really, never bring that _library_ code in the user's program, do _link_ to it, but have the code it part of the user's address space that is shared with all the user address spaces or even in another security _ring_ \-- maybe Microsoft is also doing some such trick? I just outlined the Windows _Global Cache_ , e.g., mostly from DLLs instead of EXEs?

Okay, I can see the point, as in the OP, of the effort for _native_. Indeed, I've suspected that on Windows frequently used programs are kept in a _cache_ somewhere and, likely, ready to read into an address space or part of a _process_ as fast as possible, maybe even with the usual address _relocation_ work already done. So, this looks like an _under the covers_ version of _native_ for Windows?

Ah, I just looked up Microsoft's _ngen_ , and maybe what I just described was ngen?

I've seen no very clear documentation of these issues. I've been guessing at what happens, and that's not so good.

Thanks for the tutorial.

<comment><USER25> Some of your questions are because there is a lot of overloaded terminology. Virtual Machine, for example, has two meanings:

1) A _system virtual machine_ provides a complete system platform which supports the execution of a complete operating system (OS).[1] These usually emulate an existing architecture, and are built with the purpose of either providing a platform to run programs where the real hardware is not available for use (for example, executing on otherwise obsolete platforms), or of having multiple instances of virtual machines leading to more efficient use of computing resources, both in terms of energy consumption and cost effectiveness (known as hardware virtualization, the key to a cloud computing environment), or both.

2) A _process virtual machine_ (also, language virtual machine) is designed to run a single program, which means that it supports a single process. Such virtual machines are usually closely suited to one or more programming languages and built with the purpose of providing program portability and flexibility (amongst other things). An essential characteristic of a virtual machine is that the software running inside is limited to the resources and abstractions provided by the virtual machine—it cannot break out of its virtual environment.

The CLI is the second type of virtual machine and something like VirtualBox, VMware, and IBM mainframe VM's are the first kind.

> Why byte code? Or, in what sense can each code be only one byte long?

Again, it's not "byte code" it's "bytecode" which is defined here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bytecode](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bytecode)

"Bytecode, also known as p-code (portable code), is a form of instruction set designed for efficient execution by a software interpreter"

<comment><USER21> Thanks.

Okay, I know some about the details of IBM's VM and a little about VMware.

I have wondered: The way VM has worked on IBM mainframe instruction set has been partly due to an accident of the design of that instruction set and, then, some extensions for VM. Really, that way, tough for the program running to know if it is running as a virtual machine or not. So, in particular, the program running on VM can be using privileged instructions and not know that it doesn't really have access to the real hardware.

So I've wondered if the Intel x86 instruction set also has this accident and, thus, can run operating systems that use privileged instructions but not know they are running on a VM. Or maybe the ability to run on a VM was from some extensions to the Intel instruction set. Do you know?

Does the Microsoft CLI/CLR software have some security features beyond just any _native_ program in, say, Fortran or assembler running in an address space, process, or whatever Microsoft calls where a program runs?

I'm beginning to get the prerequisites for reading the OP, that is, understanding what the long standard alternative to native code has been.

Heck, I can understand native code -- at one time I entered some simple programs via the computer console sense switches. And I printed out the _object_ listing from a Fortran compiler and went over the machine language instructions one by one. I discovered that even for some simple code and a good Fortran compiler, assembler could be faster by a factor of several.

Just read the Wikipedia article. Nice and easy.

Thanks.

<comment><USER25> > So I've wondered if the Intel x86 instruction set also has this accident > and, thus, can run operating systems that use privileged instructions but > not know they are running on a VM. Or maybe the ability to run on a VM was > from some extensions to the Intel instruction set. Do you know?

No, originally x86 was very difficult to emulate in a virtual machine. User- mode can be run directly on the processor but, for kernel-level code, binary translation was necessary to dynamically re-write the code containing privileged instructions. However, these days nearly all modern x86 processors now have extra instructions specifically for virtualization.

> Does the Microsoft CLI/CLR software have some security features beyond just > any native program

There are a bunch of sandboxing features available in the CLR but most applications run with full trust and can do anything a native program can do.

<comment><USER21> Super! Thanks, I needed that!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: TechBullets - <AUTHOR> HN,
With an overwhelming amount of tech news being reported every day - I have always struggled to find the time to read the articles, even when I want to.
So I created a solution for myself where I extract key points of the articles and present them as bullet points, for readability. I figured others might be feeling the same way, so I am making it available publicly.
I update it every hour. I would really appreciate any suggestions on improvement. I look forward to hearing your thoughts/feedback.
URL: https://techbullets.com <comment><USER2> It's a great idea, and I definitely relate to the problem you're solving. I've used [http://tldr.io](http://tldr.io) in the past similarly.

Differences: \- they don't include a photo \- usually a smaller number of bullets (3-5) \- their audience is broader than just tech

While I really loved it myself, it seemed like I was the only one summarizing the HN front page. That or this would be so awesome with a little more community embracement.

If you're curious, you can find my summaries at [http://tldr.io/tedmiston](http://tldr.io/tedmiston).

</comment><comment><USER3> The concept reminds me of Infobitt and also S+C's Snippets. I think the concept is a great idea. Your implementation is too verbose still and has too many bullet points - it should be maybe a maximum of 4 bullet points per item, and if you want to read more you have a link to an article somewhere.

</comment><comment><USER4> nice, but one thing the logo looks a bit rubbish on my macbook pro retina

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I just created to throw something out there. Will get a hi-res up there soon</comment></comment>


Show HN: Send files from one computer/server to another hilariously easily - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/whatl3y/txr <comment><USER2> It is great that you are practicing and actully got something running.

If you want to look for inspiration from an established tool, check out wormhole. Their UX is extremely simple.

[https://magic-wormhole.readthedocs.io/en/latest/welcome.html](https://magic- wormhole.readthedocs.io/en/latest/welcome.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow this is excellent, it looks like we were inspired by the same problem and had very similar solutions. I should've known a tool like this existed somewhere, I just didn't look hard enough :). Either way I'm pretty happy with the output of node-txr even if I could've used wormhole without needing to build it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> If you do not need the features of this program, then you could just use "tar | nc" for sending and "nc | tar" for receiving, I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER4> Is this end-to-end encrypted or can the server read all transferred data?

<comment><AUTHOR> As of today the server could read all data, but I believe wouldn't be a huge lift to implement E2E encryption with SSH or PGP keys (or something similar).

<comment><USER4> Yeah PGP might be an option, perhaps it can be used via stdin/stdout pipes to make it an optional dependency.</comment></comment></comment>


AMD Threadripper 3990X Scores Another Win: We Test New SPECWorkstation 3 Update - <AUTHOR> https://www.tomshardware.com/features/amd_threadripper_3990x-spec-workstation_3-performance-update <comment><USER2> Perhaps the craziest part of these graphs is the 3970X, this generation's second best, versus the 2990WX, last generations very best Threadripper processor. Both have 32 cores/64 threads, but the 3970X has 2x the multithreaded performance, literally 100% faster under many workloads. Its base clock is 25% faster but there's still an enormous microarchitectural improvement. Part of this is moving away from the asymmetric NUMA topology of 2990WX. What a feat.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, that is some bias.

Sure, these are great CPUs (I have a 3950x myself), but there is something needs to be mentioned: AMD has artificially restricted the memory limit. They have a max configuration of 256GB. I get that they want to segment these from Epyc, but it already only has four memory channels instead of eight (not a lot with 64cores/ 128 threads). Nor is 256GB a lot for such a CPU (the Ryzen 3000's support 128GB on two channels), previous Threadrippers supported 2TB!

I think AMD went too far here with their artificial limit, so it is worth mentioning.

(I'm not really a fan of TRX40, I think it is overpriced for what you get and they don't even throw in 10gbe when they start at £400+)

</comment><comment><USER4> Talking about a CPU like this to _anyone_ three years ago and you would be called a madman.

But now it's actually here. Kudos to AMD for proving how Intel has held back the industry for years and years.

Now though, what's next? AMD has shocked (disrupted?) the CPU scene with a completely unthinkable increase in computing power at several affordable pricing levels. Everyone can upgrade their rigs to something immensely better, no matter the budget.

So where does AMD go from here?

<comment><USER5> Current cpu chiplets are internally split in two groups, each group has its own L3.

We know that Zen3 does away with that split. That's potentially double the L3 for single cpu, which helps some loads. Additionally, better process might mean they can also make the L3 cache bigger.

AMD hasn't talked much about Zen3 because it's a ways off (H2, potentially Q4), but from the information they've given out, we know that IPC increase is over 15%.

This will widen the gap with Intel, and it's assumed that Intel's negligible advantage in some videogames, to do with memory access latency, will be gone by then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looks like results of a GPU company being in bed with a CPU company. Wonder how much this all stems from the AMD's acquisition in ATI in 2006, and what they learned over their years together...

</comment><comment><USER7> What's PBO here?

<comment><USER8> AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive: [https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/pbo](https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/pbo)

It's automatic overclocking, implemented by extending the normal power management and turbo mechanisms to work with power draw limits the user can set beyond the normal specs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> How are they defining "workstation class"? You can get SMT-4 18-core and 22-core POWER9 workstations with 72 and 88 hardware threads respectively in a single socket.

<comment><USER10> Maybe as in "You can actually get off the shelf software for the thing". Power9 may be great for a very few things in particular, but for actual workstation use in an everyday environment x64 wins hands down.

<comment><USER9> I've got Firefox, Krita, LibreOffice, a bunch of games ... most of it directly out of the Fedora package repos.

There is certainly more and better optimized software for x86_64, but this makes it sound like there's nothing, which is false.

<comment><USER8> It would help if you could cite any _workstation_ software, rather than just generic desktop applications. Aside from developing software to run on POWER servers, what workstation tasks is a TALOS II good for?

<comment><USER11> What's your definition of "workstation software"? The parent answered using the definition "off-the-shelf", as asked.

<comment><USER8> "Workstation" is a pretty vague term that has shifted over the years, but anyone who's using it as a distinct category from mainstream desktop computers will have at least _something_ in mind that a workstation would be better at than a regular desktop computer. Web browsing, simple office apps and games definitely don't put you in workstation territory. Krita can be used in a workstation/professional context, but I don't think the choice of CPU is relevant there—GPU, monitor and digitizer are what a professional user of Krita is more likely to care about.

<comment><USER11> With the shift from desktops to phones as personal computing devices, I've seen the beginning of usage of "workstation" to call any box-type computing device used for work.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


CRPG Book Released - <AUTHOR> https://crpgbook.wordpress.com/2018/02/05/update-19-crpg-book-released/ <comment><USER2> > This is the question I'm asked the most: "Will there be a physical > edition?". I would love to have one, but it's something very complicated to > produce – especially for a 528-page color book! Most on-demand printing > services won't do something this big, and even if I cut the book down to > CreateSpace's 480-page limit, it would be a VERY expensive book, costing > over $60!

I think the author is severely underestimating just how much people will pay for a physical book on this kind of topic. I really hope that they find a way to get this printed. $60 isn't even nearing what many people interested in this kind of topic would consider "very expensive."

<comment><AUTHOR> But it would be $60 for a softcover CreateSpace version chopped down to 480 pages. Not exactly a premium product. :/

<comment> Al-Khwarizmi I would happily pay twice that price, or maybe more, for a good-looking version.

I agree with mathgeek, and would like to encourage you to at least do some kind of poll based on a quote from a decent printer. I think you would be pleasantly surprised.

I'm not rich and don't go around throwing $100+ at random whims, but man, we are talking about an impressive tribute and memory of the games I, and many of us, love. A good bunch of the games you cover were an enormous influence during many years in my life (and I still come back to them regularly). It would be one of the most cherished books in my library. Although I love books, these years I'm limiting my physical book purchases to three or so a year due to lack of space, but I would get this one without even a second thought.

I don't want to believe that I live in a world where this book can't get a physical edition to make it justice. One way or another, it must be done.

PS: in page 79, the caption of the last screenshot of Ultima IV seems wrong. I think it was miscopied from a screenshot of The Bard's Tale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Right now I'm playing Divinity: Original Sin 2, and I cannot help feeling that the timing between this book and the game is just unfortunate. It came out just too late (or the book just too early?) for it to have a worthy entry in and a worthy impact on the book, which is a shame. I genuinely consider it a benchmark achievement. Not only does it set the standard for turn-based systems and cooperative (or competitive, if you wish) cRPG gameplay, it oozes good game development which culminates in one of the finest RPGs of the 2010s, only really rivalled by The Witcher 3. I hope its quality and its mastery of its mechanics translates into becoming an influence for RPGs to come.

<comment><USER4> Does 2 have huge walls of text like the first one?

When I tried the first one, I was very impressed by the combat system as shown on the starting tutorial, but as soon as you get to the first city there is too much dialog. I realize that dialog is part of cRPGs, but when the ratio of gameplay to dialog is too low, I'd rather read a book.

<comment><USER3> Oh yeah Cyseal was so much conversation and so little doing. While there's still a lot of dialogue in DOS2, there's a lot less filler now and the balance has done a healthy shift toward action. Writing in general has been tightened up with conversations actually being interesting, funny, and a lot of the time helpful towards solving open quests. Heartily recommend the pet pal perk which will allow you to talk to animals, since a lot of the time they've got very clear-cut clues towards your objectives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Absolutely amazing. I skimmed through the entire book, and the level of detail is insane. Now if only I had a 2nd lifetime or immortality to play all of these games.

I noticed World of Warcraft was missing, which seemed odd at first. But then I noticed:

> This is our first full release. We're very proud of it, but we still > couldn't add all the games we wanted to cover, and sections on MMORPGs, old > hardware and developers had to be cut, so hopefully there will be more > versions in the future.

In case anyone else was wondering.

</comment><comment><USER6> On _Eye of the Beholder_ 's incomplete use of the D&D Ruleset:

 _Looking back on that I can imagine that hardcore roleplayers would be miffed, but to a newcomer like myself it was perfect. I did as the manual suggested and created a mixed party of four characters that could deal with whatever dangers lay ahead, knowing that I could recruit two NPCs in-game if something went wrong._

I don't have the impression that D&D players were particularly miffed about this. At the time I think it was well-understood that implementing the full AD&D ruleset, technically and in spirit, presented insurmountable challenges given the state of technology in the early 90s.

It wans't until Baldur's Gate that any game really managed to blend the adventuring and combat elements of AD&D into a coherent whole. Don't get me wrong the Gold Box games are great and in some ways better even than Baldur's Gate, but the adventure and exploration elements of those games feel bolted on to the deep 2d tactical combat system. I think one of the reasons Baldur's Gate became so popular is because it seemed like the game AD&D fans had been waiting for.

PS congrats on the book release!

</comment><comment><USER7> From the section on Japanese RPGs, Legend of Zelda entry:

 _Shigeru Miyamoto and his team at Nintendo mixed Hydlide with Xanadu, removed all the RPG elements and focused on the most important – the call for adventure._

 _They added an attack button, created a huge world full of secrets, designed clever dungeons, puzzles and boss battles, made magic items alter gameplay and got rid of all the time wasting grinding_

Design decisions that resonate today with Breath of the Wild ;)

This book is a stunning achievement. A true labor of love. That I am sure will provide indelible inspiration for many years to come.

<comment><USER8> >They added an attack button, created a huge world full of secrets, designed clever dungeons, puzzles and boss battles, made magic items alter gameplay and got rid of all the time wasting grinding

As a huge Zelda fan, I think they created an amazing, interactive world for BOTW, but then slapped a bunch of shallow, generic, repetitive, FarCry 3-esque open-world gameplay on top of it and took out the most interesting part of previous Zelda games, the Dungeons. The shrines (the meat of the gameplay) are incredibly boring and unimaginative. The actual content of this game does a serious disservice to the intricate world and the elaborate, experimental gameplay mechanics.

There are no clever dungeons and the entire game is a time-wasting grind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > even if I cut the book down to CreateSpace's 480-page limit, it would be a > VERY expensive book, costing over $60!

On Lulu, full-color, US Letter, 528 pages (they support up to 740) standard paperback with otherwise default options has a $30.39 printing cost, with no volume discount. Volume will drop that.

<comment><USER10> For something like this, you don't want paperback. You want a full-sized, hardcover coffee table book.

Or at least I do. And I'd be willing to drop good money for a copy one it's been through some proper copyediting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The History of Computer RPGs | [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14145252](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14145252) _(Apr 2017)_

>podiki: _There 's also albums on Flickr with 18,000+ images from the games: [https://www.flickr.com/photos/crpgbook/albums](https://www.flickr.com/photos/crpgbook/albums) _

</comment><comment><USER12> An EPUB version would be cool, too. PDF's are kind of a pain to read on tablets.

Also, if you guys would be willing to throw the "raw" source onto something like Github, it might be easier to get people to submit proofreading corrections.

</comment><comment><USER13> [http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/](http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/)

The author of this blog is in the process of playing every CRPG created since 1975. They discuss strengths & weaknesses, its place in the history of RPGs, etc.

<comment><USER14> Was it too much to register crpgaddict.com ? :(

<comment><USER15> You realise that for some (if not most) people, even the _idea_ of registering your own domain sounds like advanced, impossible to understand technical wizardry, right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Reading about Ultima IV is the difference between generations.

Ultima I and II were a hot mess. Ultima III was remarkable. Ultima IV and V were mind blowing when I was a kid. If a 19 year old "CoD Player" can't figure out to RTFM, its their loss.

RPGs aren't easy for a reason, they're supposed to require effort to master and possibly win. And like life, you don't always win.

Kids today want everything handed to them it seems. I lost interest in games decades ago because I thought we'd get better versions of Ultima IV as time went on. Instead we got "interactive" movies for the most part.

Little Johnny wants to be a rock star, but learning guitar is hard. Try this 5 button fake guitar, now you've got talent! So of course mastering the up, down, left, and right arrows would be hard to figure out. </typical old man rant>

[https://imgur.com/a/8Psom](https://imgur.com/a/8Psom)

<comment><USER17> Oh buddy, there is so much laughably wrong with how to create usable products in this.

> If a 19 year old "CoD Player" can't figure out to RTFM, its their loss.

Mechanics in games, much like things in user interfaces should be discoverable without reading a manual. The actual act of creating a potion or weapon out of materials or managing your inventory or doing simple combat should not have to be looked up. The process for creating or doing something _well_ can be experimental or based on skill, but the physical act of doing the thing should be easy to understand without reading. This extends beyond games to user interfaces, tools, or many other things. It's clear what a knife does when you look at it, getting good at preparing food takes practice.

> Kids today want everything handed to them it seems. I lost interest in games > decades ago because I thought we'd get better versions of Ultima IV as time > went on. Instead we got "interactive" movies for the most part.

The CRPG scene is going through a renaissance. Games like DotA and many fighting games make their objectives clear but take time and strategy and experimentation to master.

> Little Johnny wants to be a rock star, but learning guitar is hard. Try this > 5 button fake guitar, now you've got talent! So of course mastering the up, > down, left, and right arrows would be hard to figure out.

Playing guitar is a life long endeavor. Comparing it to learning the rules of a single game that you may play for 50 - 100 hours is insane. Nobody thinks someone playing guitar hero has talent, but they do know they are having fun.

"Back-in-my-day-ism" is a cancer in both the consequential and the inconsequential, please really think about what you're saying when you spout it.

<comment><USER18> > Mechanics in games, much like things in user interfaces should be > discoverable without reading a manual.

I tend to believe this, too - and am amazed at how Minecraft knowledge spreads. I don't believe there is any documentation, it all seems to be peer- to-peer over the web.

I'd love to figure out how to generate the interest that drives the amount of time and effort kids spend reading and watching about playing the game, outside of actually playing the game.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It is good to see a CRPG thread on first page, I wish this genre would get more attention amongst all those modern console games.

I am also glad to see Planescape: Torment as first, it was popular to spend time on the question "What can change the nature of a man?" for several pages in the forums back then.

</comment><comment><USER20> Happy to see the full release of this. Thanks to everyone that contributed and a big "thank you" to you that pushed the project along over the years.

(And as I've said back then: If a physical version is possible, I'm highly interested.)

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm happy to see it covers _Legend_ , a game of which I have many fond memories, it was the first RPG I played and sadly highlighted the difference between my (parents') 386 with PC speaker beeping out the music in off-colour cga and my friend's 486 full music and good looking VGA.

The game itself is was fun, more than tricky (almost impossible for the 9 or 10 we were at the time) and there aren't many games which combine all it's best elements. As the book says, the custom spell rune system was a treat. Creating a spell which shot a missle which exploded and also fired other missles around it was really fun.

</comment><comment><USER22> As a long time fan of CRPGs I look forward to reading your book. I don't mean to belittle the accomplishment but calling it, "The CRPG Book Project" is kind of like naming a pet, "The Dog Ownership Project". I mean, for all intents and purposes it seems like you've outright accomplished writing a book at this point and it deserves a sassier title than, "Book Project". Just sayin'.

</comment><comment><USER23> I would definitely pay $60 or more for this. This looks well written and interesting for learning about games I never played back in the day. Bard's tale and Ultima 4 were my first crpg's as a teen in the 80's using my Commodore 64 and 1541 disk drive. I only wish I had the time I had as a teenager to devote to crpg's again.

</comment><comment><USER24> Just a quick skim shows an incredible amount of work and dedication. Great job and sincere thanks - memories flooding back.

(Print copy - yes!)

</comment><comment><USER25> I would love it as a big coffee table book. Would pay $120 no issues. I have read the blog for years.

</comment><comment><USER26> One of the few good things to come out of the hive of scum and villainy that are the rpgcodex forums.

Thanks felipepepe!

</comment><comment><USER27> Really cool. Definitely hope to see MMORPGs in the future - that's been the genre for me since my early days. Unfortunately, last 5 years have been somewhat stale on the front.

</comment><comment><USER28> Cool book. I would be interested in knowing what software was used to make it.

<comment><AUTHOR> InDesign :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> So how many years would it take to complete all of these games?

<comment><USER30> I have no answer to this question, but various people are revisiting old CRPGs in a more or less exhaustive manner. My favourite one is crpgaddict who plays a list of CRPGs in chronological order, with at least 6 hours spent on each one. He's been at it for a decade now, and his list still isn't finished...

[http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/](http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Very slick. Is the source code available somewhere?

<comment><USER15> Doesn't look like it. Too bad, that would do a lot to help with the proofreading part he mentions (and from the comments under his blog it looks like there are a number of enthusiasts who would like to take a stab at translating too).

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> How can this be a serious list without dcss?

<comment><AUTHOR> Check page 350 ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Kindle version please!</comment>


Scannography - <AUTHOR> http://www.scannography.org/ <comment><USER2> reminds me of the cat scanning contest long ago [https://thecatscan.tumblr.com/](https://thecatscan.tumblr.com/) [http://www.cat-scan.com/cat-scan/](http://www.cat-scan.com/cat-scan/)</comment>


Ask HN: What is your favorite way to do introductions with a new team? - <AUTHOR> I'm coming up to my first meeting a with a new team I'm leading and am hoping to do something interesting around introductions beyond the generic formula of Name, position, and favorite ice cream. What is your favorite ways to do introductions? What ways do you find are really helpful early on to develop a strong team before going into the storming phase? <comment><USER2> The best I experienced is to have every member of the team ask the new person 1 to 3 questions. Stuff like what are your hobbies, what's it's like being a beekeeper, etc. As the new person, I didn't think I'd like it, but I really did.

</comment><comment><USER3> Two truths and lie and have everyone in the team make a guess. Can be a lot of fun and you learn a lot about your colleagues.</comment>


Nchan, a pub/sub module for Nginx: 64K websockets in .2sec - <AUTHOR> https://nchan.slact.net/?v0.931 <comment><AUTHOR> After last week's discussion [1], I've made some improvements and bumped up this project from alpha to beta status. I've also run some benchmarks, and they're reasonably impressive. New subscribers, HTTP multipart/mixed and chunked-encoding, have also been added.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10685946](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10685946)</comment>


An NBA Fun Fact About the Shot Clock Software - <AUTHOR> http://www.blogmaverick.com/2008/04/21/an-nba-fun-fact/ <comment><USER2> While it was indeed a "fact" I have to call into question the "fun".</comment>


Python Overtakes Java on GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/programming-languages-python-overtakes-java-on-github-as-google-dart-use-soars/ <comment><USER2> And the most increasingly popular languages are kotlin and typescript.</comment>


An Unexpectedly Long-Expected Party - <AUTHOR> https://perl6advent.wordpress.com/2015/12/24/an-unexpectedly-long-expected-party/ <comment><USER2> _So, I give you Perl 6. She is free to fly. May she have joy in her existence. May she have joy in discovering the world. May she accelerate as long as she will! Cheers!_

Cheers!

</comment><comment><USER3> So, um. This feels like a release announcement, but there's nothing about a release on the mailing list, rakudo.org or perl6.org. Rakudo star is still at 2015.11 in the git repo. Is it not meant to be a release announcement?

<comment><USER4> Please wait until Christmas to unwrap your presents.

This message is more of a thanksgiving than a release announcement. No download links or anything. But to those of us who worked on the Perl 6 project, it was very moving. It's T-hours now, and this rocket is about to launch.

<comment><USER5> Do you know when and where the actual release announcement will be?

<comment><USER5> Thanks to cygx in another thread ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10793782](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10793782)) for the link to the release announcement: [https://perl6advent.wordpress.com/2015/12/25/christmas-is- he...](https://perl6advent.wordpress.com/2015/12/25/christmas-is-here) .

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Cheers!</comment>


Investors to Web Start-Ups: Where's the Advertising? - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118765700693403584.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo

<comment><USER2> I'm sure part of the rationale is - given how cheap bandwidth/hardware/software is getting, if you're charging for your service on the web, chances are someone will come along and give it away for free. I guess when that happens investors aren't really willing to bet that the pay service will continue to grow once there's a free alternative.

Which isn't to say that's always true...

<comment><USER3> >Which isn't to say that's always true...

Exactly... just take eBay as an example. No amount of no-fee auctions has been able to dethrone them. If you think about it, you will notice that as soon as you're mediating the exchange and money changes hands, people don't mind giving you cut at all. They don't even consider the fee when listing/purchasing (well, eBay charges listers so purchasers don't mind). As long as you can attract enough purchasers (i.e. eyeballs), sellers will come. That's why eBay is not squeamish about jacking up the fees...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is counterintuitive to me. I thought VCs did _not_ want uniformity of business models among the startups they fund.</comment>


Climbing the corporate elliptical machine - <AUTHOR> http://blog.inklingmarkets.com/2010/04/corporate-elliptical-machine.html

<comment><USER2> I guess the question can be rephrased to: Do you have a destination?

If your aim is to just "keep climbing to the top", then you're on a threadmill.

If your aim is to "get to a specific place in your life", then you may be on a ladder, though it's arguable whether you're on the right ladder. If the ladder doesn't involve doing the thing that you want to do once you get "there", you're probably on the wrong ladder.</comment>


Night Owls are Smarter - <AUTHOR> http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200911/intelligence-the-evolution-night-owls

<comment><AUTHOR> If you're reading this, odds are you're a night owl.

<comment><USER2> But we all know there's an upper limit.. IQ hits 140 at 2:30am bedtime, and flips to -140 at 3:00am. I'm heading down that slippery slope right about now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is that a statement when you post it at night?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes.</comment></comment>