Elevating user trust in our API ecosystem - <AUTHOR> https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/g-suite/elevating-user-trust-in-our-api-ecosystems <comment><USER2> I've been caught by this change. Google have requested that my app be audited by one of the suggested security firms. The lowest quote I have right now is $22k.

We're a bootstrapped business with nowhere near this kind of cash, so this effectively means Google are shutting our service down.

What's crazy is that while this might help protect from negligent developers accidentally losing a few user keys, it doesn't really solve the real problems like it's claiming to. It in no way protects you from the worst offenders, the Cambridge Analytica's out there, the ones with plenty of cash, from still stealing or abusing your data. They can just pay to make this go away.

This is seriously bad news for any independent developers or small companies who are building apps on top of Google's API.

<comment><USER3> I'm in the same situation and I can't figure out Google's reasoning here.

It seems like an attempt to address bad publicity in the articles mentioned below - which largely boiled down to misleading reporting. And the remedy doesn't accomplish much outside hurting small developers and Google's reputation in the ecosystem.

I'll never build anything on top of Google again. I might end up repurposing my work on top Outlook instead. From what I've heard, they are much more supportive of their developers.

[https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/add- ins/](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/add-ins/)

<comment><USER4> Not sure why Outlook is really relevant? Google still let's G Suite users do whatever they want.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Well, that's a no-go. We're a small startup that's scraping by and only recently we're starting to get some traction on our GMail integration. If we're asked to undergo such a review, we don't have the $15k+ to spare, so we'll likely say goodbye to the ecosystem. Like someone else said in this story, we're probably just going to focus on Microsoft which is much more developer friendly.

Worst of all, this won't stop intentional bad actors from stealing user data for whatever purposes they have in mind. Big pockets are going to laugh even at a $75k fee.

<comment><USER6> Is it possible to build a browser extension to replace the existing functionality?

<comment><USER5> It is, but it's an inferior proposition for our business (and for users) without access to the Gmail store. In fact we used to have our functionality as a Chrome extension but Google aggressively marketed the native approach when they published the "New Gmail". And we went for it.

<comment><USER6> What about using the Gmail API into an app that gets overlayed into Gmail via chrome extension?

<comment><USER5> It seems like add-ons are still mostly Ok if they use the narrowly defined scopes, instead of say "gmail.readonly" which is a blanket permission. Minor heart attack, but we might be ok.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What an awful choice of a title. (Used to be something like "New Google policy charges devs $15k to access Gmail API")

Also, this isn't a bad move AFAICT (tightening policies and access to a very important API), but it's evidently a reaction to the backlash from that WSJ "exposé" about the scandalous fact that email providers allow third parties to read/manage your inbox... if you give the third parties permissions and access tokens. That was just dirty reporting and intentionally misleading average readers--the comments on that article were all akin to "I knew Google was reading my emails!". And I don't see this change mattering much to those people.

<comment><USER8> AFAIR that WSJ exposé is recent; if so, this is _not_ a reaction to this - last year, I've been working on some code integrating with GMail, and I remember encountering the announcement of this change 6+ months ago.

EDIT: at least I think I do. I tried to find a reference to this in my project note, to confirm the timestamp, but I failed. So it could be I've seen it in October 2018, as 'Ivoirians pointed out.

<comment><USER7> Of course, I can't say for certain this is a reaction, but it seems to me like they're addressing the actual meat of the original article--third party apps can do whatever they want with your emails once they have the keys, like let their employees read through them. The issue was that the policies dictating how apps could use that access didn't seem to have much teeth; thus, the new security review.

Also, this announcement says it first came out in October 2018, while the WSJ article came out in July 2018?

<comment><USER8> > _Also, this announcement says it first came out in October 2018, while the > WSJ article came out in July 2018?_

I tried to confirm the date I saw this in my project notes, and failed, so maybe I indeed saw it in October. If so, and if WSJ report came out months earlier, then maybe it is indeed a reaction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I like this initiative of Google. Currently, I am very cautious about giving apps access to gmail, and I would be much happier, if I knew that the app was evaluated by security professionals.

</comment><comment><USER10> I think this could be improved by carving out some minor exceptions for applications under development or starting off, perhaps with a low user limit to prevent abuse. Their FAQ says you can avoid reviews if you only have a single user, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that you could have a team of 2 or 3 people working on something. Once you have something working you'd probably invite close friends and family as well. Although you can work around that by using G Suite accounts, it kinda sucks that you're forced to pay.

A scaling system based on number of users and other factors would probably be better. Look at the list of requirements for a security audit [0]. I'd imagine many small businesses would struggle to sort out everything listed there.

I'm not a fan of removing user choice. If someone has established trust out- of-band then they should be able to opt-in after acknowledging that they accept and understand the risks. But I guess we need big daddy Google to step in and protect us, since we're too dumb to critically asses the situation.

Something that nobody seems to be mentioning is that you need to perform these security assessments on a yearly basis. Talk about drastically raising the barrier to entry...

[0] [https://support.google.com/cloud/answer/9110914#assessment-i...](https://support.google.com/cloud/answer/9110914#assessment- includes)

<comment><USER11> > it doesn't seem unreasonable that you could have a team of 2 or 3 people > working on something

You can have unlimited developers using the app from accounts with your domain.

You really should get at least 250 users though, since at $10 / user / month that would be enough to cover the cost of the security assessment, and the assets under protection are going to be minimal enough so as to not attract any non-automated attacks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Whatever one's view of this approach, it seems to justify a FAQ entry like "My app doesn't charge money. How does Google recommend I proceed?"

Even if the answer is that Google is indeed shutting out free/not-for-profit and pre-revenue apps (collateral damage), it should at least be stated explicitly.

</comment><comment><USER13> I have a few convenience scripts that access the Gmail API for my own inbox, and only my own account. Does anybody know if there is some kind of "under development" flag I can set so that I don't have to undergo this review? Am I going to need to convert them to directly using IMAP or something similar?

I'm not horribly against this policy, email is pretty central to a lot of peoples' world, and I suspect there's lots of really really scummy actors out there. In an ideal world I'd be able to say "hey this is my email and I personally wrote the code accessing it, so let it do what it wants".

<comment><USER2> This is part of the verification step, and you don't need to get your app verified if you only have one user.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Would something like gmailieer[0][1] be affected? (Or, in general, FOSS software for syncing with one's gmail data.)

It uses some of the "restricted" scopes[2].

Also, what does the verification as "non-malicious software" entail?

[0] [https://github.com/gauteh/gmailieer/](https://github.com/gauteh/gmailieer/)

[1] A cli program that downloads one's (i.e. the user's) gmail e-mails onto one's computer (without touching any third-party servers on the way) — it's effectively a better offlineimap for gmail, for use with notmuch.[3]

[2] [https://support.google.com/cloud/answer/9110914#restricted-s...](https://support.google.com/cloud/answer/9110914#restricted- scopes)

[3] [http://notmuchmail.org/](http://notmuchmail.org/)

<comment><USER2> What I have found out by talking with the Google verification team is that if the requests are made from the client and not from a server then they do not require audit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I am actually very happy about this. For too long, private data has been viewed as an easy business opportunity. Now we are getting to the point where private data is being viewed as a liability.

<comment><USER5> The thing is a bad actor with deep pockets is going to sail by this review because their security systems and practices might be top notch, but the moment they're rubberstamped, they can turn on evil mode and start doing whatever they want with your data. Small players get cut off if they can't afford the fee, even if they're honest and secure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> We just got blindsided with a $16,500 charge from Experian for a security audit. Previously they accepted out PCI letter now they insist on selecting an auditor and sending them onsite for us to continue using their API. Maybe this will become the norm gong forward? Any vendor you get PII from will insist on you paying for an audit of their choice?

</comment><comment><USER17> I don't get the scope. So, an app I've made within the company which is reading company inbox (located on a server) using Gmail API, does this policy apply for e.g.? Or it's related to some kind of oauth rather?

<comment><USER11> > When can I skip publishing my app for a review?

"The owner and users of your apps belong to the same G Suite domain or customer."

[https://support.google.com/cloud/answer/9110914?visit_id=636...](https://support.google.com/cloud/answer/9110914?visit_id=636840431142079898-1547745173&rd=1#ensure- approval)

<comment><USER17> Thank you for pointing out, so looks like it is 'oauth' related.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Ouch, this is likely to affect us as well. We ask our users to give us access to their contacts and calendars. This is opt in and helps us help them. This all completely optional, opt in, we comply with GDPR, and use common sense.

Having a whole lot of bureaucracy and cost from Google is not going to help and is going to cause us a lot of hassle.

To me this sounds very much like an anti competitive measure aimed at shutting down the vast majority of third party software currently accessing their APIs and forcing users to use their official apps to access their email.

Linkedin did a similar move a few years ago where they basically shut down their entire API ecosystem in favor of tightly controlled partnerships with selected partners. Twitter killed the market for third party UIs as well.

</comment><comment><USER19> I would love to know what connection the "industry leading assessors" have to any Google employees at all. Surely they are completely impartial and unrelated, when 15 to 75 thousand dollars is on the line!

<comment><USER20> I mean by gut response was "That's a lot" But then as a consumer I much prefer that figure to $50

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Google Cloud Blog article title: Elevating user trust in our API ecosystem

$15k+ barrier refers to a mandatory security assessment fee \-- see "How will the security assessment work?" on the FAQ

<comment><USER22> We've reverted the title from "New Google policy creates $15k barrier to entry for apps using the Gmail API", which breaks the guidelines by editorializing.</comment></comment>


Credit Card Hackers Visit Hotels All Too Often  - <AUTHOR> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Credit-Card-Hackers-Visit-nytimes-3300094848.html?x=0

<comment><USER2> Here's a really low-tech way to steal credit card info while at a hotel:

Use a lobby phone to call up to a room. Say you're from the front desk, and there was an error in billing and you need to verify the credit card info. 9/10 people will voluntarily hand over a card number, expiration date, and CVV2 number without hesitation. Offer complimentary room service to seal the deal.

<comment><USER3> The complimentary room service thing is probably a poor choice, as the people you conned will likely call the front desk when it doesn't arrive, realize something is up, and cancel the card.

<comment><USER2> Usually when the hotel offers room service (legitimately), the guest has to call and place an order, and it is usually credited at checkout. That gives you 3 days lead time on average.</comment></comment></comment>


Intel Launches 4k-enabled Quad Core NUC - <AUTHOR> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/nuc/nuc-kit-nuc6i7kyk-features-configurations.html <comment><USER2> A few of my friends and I are working on the design of a robust, portable computing form factor. After previously consdering various of the Gigabyte Brix Pro series, we settled on the Skull Canyon as the core of the ensemble, currently composed of:

1) Intel NUC Kit NUC6i7KYK

2) 32 (2 x 16) GiB DDR4 2133MHz RAM (G.SKILL Ripjaws) 3) 512 GB M.2 NVMe SSD (Samsung 950 Pro)

4) 9.7" 2048x1536 DisplayPort Monitor (Adafruit Qualia kit)

5) 104 key mechanical keyboard w/Cherry MX Blue switches (DAS Professional)

Everything worked the first time it was plugged together, and now the system can run StarCraft II: LoTV with medium settings under Wine on Arch GNU/Linux. The next steps are to transform the output from a LiFePo4 motorcycle battery (via a DC-DC converter) to the correct voltage, furnish a case and smaller keyboard, and start testing/optimizing the setup in the field.

Edit: The 45W TDP of the NUC6i7KYK was its main advantage when compared to discretely sourcing comparable or superior components for a mini-ITX build. Even after doubling the power draw to account for a screen, speakers, and additional cooling, two kilograms of lithium should provide two hours of roaming battery life (and weight minimization is low on our priority list).

<comment><USER3> > 4) 9.7" 2048x1536 DisplayPort Monitor (Adafruit Qualia kit)

That monitor is horribly overpriced for what you get.

The LCD can be purchased in QTY 1 from AliExpress for $25 USD with free shipping to almost anywhere in the world. [1]

A guy in Japan makes a DP board which is better than the Adafruit one and which you can buy for about $40 USD shipped from Japan (3,500 JPY + 800 JPY shipping). [2]

I've bought 5 so far and they all work great. One was DOA but the seller kindly shipped me a replacement free of charge. It's also 5V powered, so you can power it directly from the computer using a USB cable, no need for an extra 9V (seriously, 9V. why?) power supply.

You can easily laser cut a stand from plywood or lexan to mount the LCD. Or, you can buy the actual iPad aluminium housing ($22 + $8 for the digitizer glass) and mount the adapter on the back.

It really bothers me that Adafruit is selling that kit for $225 when you can build one yourself for well under $100. Their profit margins must be insane.

[1] [http://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=SB...](http://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=SB_20160615051558&SearchText=LP097qx1)

(If the link is broken, just search AliExpress for the LP097QX1)

[2] [http://abusemark.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&...](http://abusemark.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3&products_id=47&zenid=lcgtihp4gkkl5a14ub8tic3c45)

<comment><USER4> I don't doubt for many products you can assemble it yourself more cheaply with the input of time. But, a price factor of 2.25 over raw parts (COGS, cost of goods sold) is pretty reasonable overhead. It's not the best margin, but it's right within reasonable for paying for assembly, inventory housing, warranty coverage, etc.

For reference: [https://www.eevblog.com/2016/06/03/eevblog-887-the- economics...](https://www.eevblog.com/2016/06/03/eevblog-887-the-economics-of- selling-hardware/)

<comment><USER3> > But, a price factor of 2.25 over raw parts (COGS, cost of goods sold) is > pretty reasonable overhead.

If this were a normal commercial product, I would agree with you.

But the fact is, when you buy this Adafruit kit, you're getting the raw parts which you have to assemble, the monitor has fewer features than a normal desktop LCD monitor (only one resolution supported, only DisplayPort input) and given that it's the bare LCD, is much more fragile than a commercial monitor.

So, yes, normally it is absolutely reasonable and expected for a manufacturer to charge 2-2.5x the price of raw goods. But in this case you're literally paying Adafruit 200% to do simple supply chain logistics for you, and you're getting a pile of parts which you can buy (with free shipping!) from FleaBay/AliExpress with a few clicks of your mouse.

<comment><USER4> For this kit, you're assembling the plastic enclosure, but the electronics are pre-assembled (and I assume pre-tested), so it's not exactly a bag of parts. I'd agree that it is not a full retail product. I'd say it is a somewhat boutique, low-volume product - for that I've seen much much higher then 3x COGS.

Maybe I'm just at a low hassle tolerance from having to juggle too many past return transactions on AlieBay components and am overvaluing getting the logistics done for getting working electronics without going through the time of finding the right LCD, integrating the parts, getting it to drive correctly, etc.

Overall, I guess I'm someone whose also willing to let a bit of extra margin go to Adafruit which keeps doing interesting things. In the end, there's plenty of room for everyone to make their own price/value judgement, I certainly don't think my view should override others in this area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For anyone else baffled by another TLA: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Unit_of_Computing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Unit_of_Computing)

<comment><USER6> And for someone baffled by TLA?

<comment><USER7> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three- letter_acronym](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-letter_acronym)

<comment><USER6> Thanks! Funny that I knew NUC but not TLA.

I'd love to see forums that automatically cited acronyms like this.

<comment><USER8> Sounds like there's a market for a browser extension for this.

<comment><USER9> Indeed. But I'd worry about both false positives and far too many meanings for the same letters based on context.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, that might be the case. I think it would have to require user activation. Maybe select acronym, right-click, click "Define" and it displays a list of possibilities.

I might try and make one just to keep my JavaScript sharp -- been away from it for a while.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Pretty decent GPU performance, 80% performance of the non-overclocked 4790K, which is my go to desktop processor these days. And it has 40% of the performance of the top end processors available.

The GPU is rated 1,921 on the PassMark website, which is about 6x slower than the top GPUs. It is 3x slower than what were mid-range GPUs 4 years ago. It is okay-ish, but it is pretty slow compared to what is available.

Thus it is a good desktop machine for non-3D workflows. Like using Word or Web Browsing at 4K. I can not imagine anyone having problems with that. It will likely be quite snappy.

I think anyone interested in 3D games will be dissatisfied with the GPU performance, and that will be very pronounced at high screen (4K) resolutions.

I could see picking these up for our non-developer non-content creator employees. But not for our developers or 3D artists.

<comment><USER11> Web browsing at 4K is a surprisingly expensive task in itself. I own a Surface Book and one of my biggest gripes (aside from the broken firmware) is that the integrated GPU is too weak to drive browser rendering fast enough to keep up with the touch screen on the vast majority of websites* . This gets a lot worse when hooked up to an actual external 4k display - the scrolling latency is pretty unpleasant.

* It seems that they optimized Edge to have really good scrolling performance, but ff/chrome/opera all have serious scrolling issues.

<comment><USER12> I have the same problem globally in Linux. On dual 4k monitors, scrolling isn't an animation so much as it's a slow progression of frames in a slideshow.

<comment><USER13> I notice the same with a maximized Firefox on 4K, but it became much snappier after I deactivated smooth scrolling in about:config. For fullscreen videos in Firefox, it helps to suspend compositing (Alt+Shift+F12 in KWin).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Really nice, except the design. I mean it looks like the front ports where aligned via CSS vertical-align. And the skull probably looks cool if you're 14.

<comment><USER15> FYI, plain lid (sans-Skull) is included in the package.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> We had a previous discussion about this, and for its price ($675 with no RAM or SSD?) you can build a really nice mini-ITX system that uses a full size PCI-Express 3.0 video card. The mini-itx system will run circles around this with its laptop CPU. With the right mini-itx case it will still fit nicely into a home theatre setup or in relatively small spaces.

<comment><USER17> I got one of these the day it came out.

Yes its potentially more expensive than an Mini-ITX system. But it depends on your priorities.

For me form factor, and power usage, were most important.

This is my new setup: [http://lloydsparkes.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2016/06/CCaptur...](http://lloydsparkes.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2016/06/CCapture-6.jpg)

And for a development work station, with light gaming (I have an Xbox One for gaming) the performance is amazing!

<comment><USER18> Given the size of those 2 monitors it doesn't really look like a smallee form factor would have been an issue?

<comment><USER19> I'm thinking about doing a similar setup and I like the smaller form factor because I can attach it to the back of a monitor and not even have to look at it.

<comment><USER20> Take a look at the Antec ISK-110. Not as small as the NUCs, but lets you build your own machine on the cheap, and still designed to be attached to the back of a monitor.

(Won't fit a standalone GPU, but I don't think anything that can be attached to a monitor can)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Strangely, none of the pictures gives you a point of reference to it's actual size (which is 8.3" x 4.5" x 1.1").

Usually they show it being held up or next to a common reference, like a quarter, or coffee cup, or the front page of today's newspaper.

<comment><USER17> Its about the size of a VHS tape

<comment><USER22> A what?

<comment><USER23> A thing that only fools that don't appreciate quality purchase.

It's a little bit bigger than a betamax.

<comment><USER24> It's a little bigger than a deck of 50 punch cards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> 4k (3840 × 2160 @ 60Hz) is already possible since the NUC Rock Canyon models[0] and Maple Canyon models[1], all based on 5th gen core processors code named Broadwell, available since Q1/2015.

The latest are the Swift Canyon models[2] based on the 6th gen core processors code named Skylake, available since Q4/2015, joined now by Skull Canyon[3].

[0] [http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/77659](http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/77659)

[1] [http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/75423](http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/75423)

[2] [http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/85413](http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/85413)

[3] [http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/74691](http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/74691)

<comment><USER26> It seems that all those top out at dual core, btw. Any quad core?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Mentioned by Jeff Atwood [https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-golden-age- of-x86-gaming/](https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-golden-age-of-x86-gaming/)

</comment><comment><USER28> The gaming performance is too low to justify the price. Intel Graphics is still nowhere near the performance of discrete GPU from Nvidia or AMD.

<comment><USER29> Didn't Intel plan to release Thunderbolt eGPU addons for it?

The price is still silly, but at least you could get decent performance on it if you wanted.

<comment><USER28> The Razer core is $499 for the enclosure only, which make the price even harder to swallow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> A review, in case in interests anyone:

[http://nucblog.net/2016/05/skull-canyon-nuc- review/](http://nucblog.net/2016/05/skull-canyon-nuc-review/)

</comment><comment><USER31> I like that they're putting a Thunderbolt 3 port on it, perhaps this generation of Thunderbolt can escape the high end and be more generally useful?

<comment><USER32> Thunderbolt 3 is going to rule the world (or will shortly).

Thunderbolt 3 is USB3.2 (Or the new USB-C that is being hyped). At the same time it is also Mini-Display Port, and Mini-PCIe.

This connector is posed to eat the world.

<comment><USER33> I've been waiting for a long time for decent TB3 peripherals, manufacturers are very slow. I simply want a thunderbolt to dual hdmi with a few USBs so that I can put my tower on the opposite side of my room.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Intel's website is confusing.

This looks cool, I want to buy one, but there's nothing to suggest how much it costs or where to get one.

<comment><USER9> $649.99 (+tax/postage). You can buy it on NewEgg, B&H Photo, and Adorama search for NUC6i7KYK. Amazon has a listing but it is for a third party seller who is charging $669 (+$19).

Best of luck :)

<comment><USER34> Good to know, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> So it has three video outputs, but can it drive all three?

The big advantage of a stationary computer over a laptop these days is that it can drive displays, in the plural, so that your use-case is the only factor deciding how many screens to have.

<comment><USER17> Intel say it can drive 3x 4k Screens at the same time (2 over DP @ 60Hz, 1 over HDMI 2 ~ 30Hz if I recall correctly)

<comment><USER35> What? It doesn't have 2×DP according to the specs at the top of the page.

<comment><USER36> With DP you may daisy-chain additional displays off the first.

[http://www.displayport.org/cables/driving-multiple- displays-...](http://www.displayport.org/cables/driving-multiple-displays- from-a-single-displayport-output/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Did Intel just release a PC with a skull on it?

<comment><USER38> Don't worry, it comes with an "Additional lid without skull on it".

<comment><USER39> Can I get an additional lid with flames so that it will go faster?

<comment><USER40> Yes, if you have a 3D printer: [http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/boards-and- ki...](http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/boards-and-kits/intel- nuc-kits/000005873.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I use a bunch of NUCs for prototyping cluster development for Cassandra, Celery, and Storm. I believe the economics are much better than doing the same with cloud, because I don't feel that nagging "tick tock" of metered usage. I bought 6 gigabyte BRIX PROs, stuffed them each with 16GB RAM and 1TB SSD, each has 4790 CPUs, and I feel very good about prototyping in my own time on this little cluster, for deployment later. Perfect "training" system.

</comment><comment><USER42> It's not new news, they were released a month ago. I have one, it's pretty fast but it's also much nosier than less powerful mini PCs.

</comment><comment><USER43> AMD has for several years, the almost free compared to intel prices, 4cored 5350 apu. it serves 4k out of display port ot hdmi. and is very low watt (my htpc runs passively cooled. though not pumping 4k, wich is useless still)

sadly it's mostly ignored by everyone because there's only two relevant motherboards for it.

<comment><USER44> Like you, I'm surprised that AMD doesn't have the NUC equivalent. Back when Via invented the "ITX" standard and Intel dismissed it, AMD sold quite a few CPUs in that form factor. Now while "NUC" is an Intel take on small, it could easily be done by AMD (and as you point out possibly better than Intel can). Further if AMD was the system supplier (like Intel is for the NUC) they could get better margins on the chips they sold in those systems.

Its too bad really.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I'm tempted to replace my NUC5i7RYH with this one. Although Linux support has been spotty and the xfsettingsd bug was _quite_ painful.

That said, something like this with a terabyte of cross-point (aka "Optane") flash in it will no doubt eventually be my working desktop.

</comment><comment><USER45> Still waiting for HTPCs that support HDMI 2.0a aka HDR support. Unfortunately this one doesn't.

</comment><comment><USER46> ZBOX NEN seems to be better for gaming due to 970M, albeit a bit pricier. 4x faster GPU, even some 4k games are playable. And very quiet.

</comment><comment><USER47> AMD releases a few low budget cards later this month (RX460 ~$100) so you can build a halfway decent gaming rack for $400-500.

</comment><comment><USER48> No a/d wifi... :|

</comment><comment><USER49> Way way too pricy

</comment><comment><USER50> Pretty decent GPU performance, 80% performance of the non-overclocked 4790K, which is my go to desktop processor these days

I would get one of these the day it come out.

</comment><comment><USER51> Yeah pretty slick, but the fans kick in when you're doing heavy workloads, I guess that's better than melting.

</comment><comment><USER48> no a/d wifi... :|

</comment><comment><USER52> > wicked ... totally cool

...With words like this and the skull design, at least their marketing department are "down with the kids" \- rad!</comment>


Square plans sale as losses widen - <AUTHOR> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mobile-payment-startup-square-plans-063838922.html

<comment><USER2> Titles like that are purely click bait (the article's title. not your post's title) There have been numerous statements from Square and employees clearing up any rumors the WSJ stirred up with their piece.</comment>


Go's updated generic proposal (Contracts) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/4a54a00950b56dd0096482d0edae46969d7432a6/design/go2draft-contracts.md <comment><USER2> It is not a proposal, it is a draft.

The new draft improves the contract part. But generic declaration part still looks some verbose. There are many repetitiveness, such as the Map example: [https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/4a54a00950b56dd00964...](https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/4a54a00950b56dd0096482d0edae46969d7432a6/design/go2draft- contracts.md#containers)

        func New(type K, V)(compare func(K, K) int) *Map(K, V)
        func (m *Map(K, V)) Insert(key K, val V) bool
        func (m *Map(K, V)) find(key K) **node(K, V)
        func (m *Map(K, V)) Insert(key K, val V) bool
        func (m *Map(K, V)) Find(key K) (V, bool)
        func (m *Map(K, V)) InOrder() *Iterator(K, V)

And I didn't find how to write a contract which requires a type must have some specified fields in this draft.

<comment><USER3> I would believe Generics are highly reusable code, you shouldn't have to write and read them often. The verbosity you lost in those few lines are earned every time another piece of code use them.

Also you cannot just criticize without also proposing a solution :)

<comment><USER4> Generics are highly reusable is true.

But people don't read and write them often because of the language design.

Most Hindley Milner typed languages like ML and Haskell by default are generic by default and it's not harder or more complex than non-generic code.

Thinking of a function 'swap'. The signature should just be swap : (a, b) -> (b, a) instead of swap: <T, U>(x: (T, U)) => (U, T). The language design in most of languages which discourage people using generics.

In fact, non-generic code usually introduce couplings to the argument type, making things harder to change, and violates the least power principle.

<comment><USER5> This works nice for something as simple as a swap. But more complicated use- cases have requirements. I want those explicitly stated rather than inferred by a compiler. Abstracting the actually used features behind names like U: String, T: Map is can keep complexity hidden. Or would you prefer the compiler to auto-generate them for you from usage? (like U: must have ChatAt(int)->Char, Length->int; T: must have put(U), get(U), Length->Int) I certainly prefer names. And those have to be declared somewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've been doing some work in Dart/Flutter recently and I'm finding it to be a nice mix of Java/JavaScript/TypeScript/Golang. It has generics which work pretty well, although I've already found a very small bug in it [1].

Initial reading of this document makes me feel it is really over complicated compared with Dart.

[1] [https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/issues/37626](https://github.com/dart- lang/sdk/issues/37626)

<comment><USER7> Which part is overcomplicated compared with Dart?

<comment><USER6> One thing I _really_ like about Dart is the lack of interface objects, they are implicit. The `contract` proposal feels like having to write interfaces. The inference in Dart is really nice to work with as the compiler gets it right most of the time.

The other thing is the documentation is really easy to grok and come up to speed on:

[https://dart.dev/guides/language/language- tour#generics](https://dart.dev/guides/language/language-tour#generics)

[https://dart.dev/guides/language/sound- dart](https://dart.dev/guides/language/sound-dart)

Edit: Additionally, mocking (with Mockito-Dart) becomes trivial, which is great for unit testing:

      class Thing {
        String boo;
      }

      class MockedThing extends Mock implements Thing {}

      when(thing.boo).thenReturn('ack');

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't understand what's the difference between single-parameter contracts and interfaces. Aren't contracts only useful when there's two or more type parameters involved?

Edit: didn't read through the whole thing, I guess contracts can do things that interfaces don't. I think the overlap still makes things a bit awkward though.

</comment><comment><USER9> Excellent example of clear and concise writing, introducing a subject.

<comment><USER10> Whatever you think of Go as a language, its documentation is outstanding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wish there was a way to have generics without:

* letting people being able to abuse them. C++ cough cough.

* making it clear to people reading the code what is happening.

I've noticed a few things:

* associated types in Rust are much clearer than generics

* one letter generics are "overly generic" and do not describe enough.

* the declaration of the type really adds verbosity

So what can a language do?

1\. Maybe change the syntax to this one:

      func eat(food []generic.Type)

Or

      func eat(food []g::type)

Or something that doesn't involve adding more <> or ()

2\. Forbid one letter generic or force a description of the generic or even better: force listing all the types that are currently using this generic NEXT to the generic!

      g.type -> {egg, bacon}
      func eat(food []g.type)

But then you can't use a generic from another package... but maybe it's a good limitation?

Or force a generic to have a description, which is what golang is doing with interfaces. The problem is that we can't combine difference interfaces like in Rust/ocaml

<comment><USER12> > without... letting people being able to abuse them. C++ cough cough.

Curious what you consider "abuse", given the standard library itself uses generics in all sorts of ways?

<comment><USER11> For example. Typical C++ code:

      Thing<A<B, C<D>, E>>()

<comment><USER12> I know the syntax, but what about this is "abuse" of generics exactly?

<comment><USER11> It makes the code unreadable.

<comment><USER12> That's not people abusing the syntax, that's the syntax being intertwined with the semantics. Mind you, a similar thing can pop up in a language like C#, it just happens less often.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It is just me or do contracts look a lot like type classes.

<comment><USER14> Sshhhht! Industrial players don't like to hear that type systems are a thoroughly mapped space. They like to think that their design is different and does not adhere to the laws of type theory. It is also more fun to watch them struggle essentially reinventing research papers from 20+ years ago.

Edit: yes, I am exaggerating a little, but I find it really amazing how PL design is in practice so removed from its theoretical foundations.

<comment><USER15> > reinventing research papers from 20+ years ago

The first(?) paper on type classes, "Parametric overloading in polymorphic programming languages", is from 1988, so they're reinventing things from at least 31 years ago. I guess in 2050 Go will catchup with today's state of the art.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> There is some more information in this liveblog from Ian's talk, Generics in Go [1], and the *.go2 files in Robert Griesemer's change list [2]

[1]: [https://about.sourcegraph.com/go/gophercon-2019-generics- in-...](https://about.sourcegraph.com/go/gophercon-2019-generics-in-go) [2]: [https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/187317/](https://go- review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/187317/)

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't quite get what contracts are needed for? This

        func Print(type T)(s []T)

could be written as

        func Print(type T implements SomeInterface)(s []T)

What am I missing?

<comment><USER17> You're probably not still looking for an answer, but since I tried to work through this question myself I will answer it, if only for my own benefit:

See the "Mutually referencing type parameters" example. [0] Ignoring the issue of generic types vs functions, suppose you wanted to do shortest path as a fuction using the Node and Edge types described. You could try to write something like

      func ShortestPath(type N implements Node, E implements Edge)(from, to N) []E

but how would it be implemented? Type N only promises that it it implements the Node interface which is just

      Edges() []Edge

but those Edges might not be concrete type E.

So instead you must resort to

      func ShortestPath(from, to Node) []Edge

and use type assertions, which is where we were before generics.

The contracts allow you to constraint the relationship between the concrete types N and E, enabling callers to work with concrete types directly.

[0] [https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/4a54a00950b56dd00964...](https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/4a54a00950b56dd0096482d0edae46969d7432a6/design/go2draft- contracts.md#mutually-referencing-type-parameters)

<comment><USER16> > You're probably not still looking for an answer

On the contrary! I think I got it, thanks.

Not sure which version is simpler though, I've certainly never hit the "Mutually referencing type parameters" issue before. I guess using concrete types and avoiding vtable lookups is an advantage that matters to Go?

<comment><USER17> > I've certainly never hit the "Mutually referencing type parameters" issue > before.

I don't think I have either, but according to that document supporting this use case was considered a minimum requirement for generics. I don't know that much about generics but maybe it comes up more often than we realize.

> I guess using concrete types and avoiding vtable lookups is an advantage > that matters to Go?

It avoids the vtable lookups and also, in cases like the mutually referencing type parameters, provides compile-type type-checking, which you don't get with the interface-only solution.

I'm also not sure how your proposed solution extends to parameterized types. Certainly a central motivation of generics is make something like LinkedList<T> possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Honestly it just reminds me of Rust's traits (granted I didn't read the entite spec.), could this come with operator overloading too?

<comment><USER19> It could in future but this document is staying away from overloading. I doubt Go will ever support it really but this design does not do anything to prevent it in future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> If what Generics fundamentally solve is having to type out an almost identical function for many types, why not just have macros?

<comment><USER21> I think most people would agree that templates are more complicated than generics

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> For a second I thought it was related to {pre,post}-conditions.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have knowledge in Python and never developed in Go, so I can't comment the Design choices. On the form, in my humble opinion, the PEP style is easier to read : presenting rational and constraints before the proposed solution.

It would mean moving (and a bit of rewording) "Discarded ideas", "Comparison with Java", "Comparison with C++" before "Design" and after "Background".

As a reader, I prefer to be presented with the problem first (with the constraints and previously explored ideas), then be presented the logical, "obvious", proposed solution.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there an HN leaderboard for story sources? - <AUTHOR>

I'm curious to know which news sites/sources hit the top 30 most frequently... sources ranked by front page presence over 30 day period or so. <comment><USER2> An interesting way to implement this would be to just analyze tweets by @newsyc20 and resolve the domains behind the bitly links. The advantage here is that you don't have to scrape the page (or even interact with Hacker News at all) to determine what gets ranked highly; the disadvantage is that it is the top 20 instead of top 30 and it relies on the twitter feed.

Even more interesting would be if there was a twitter statistics site that this could be fed into. (i.e. no code.)

</comment><comment><USER3> This would give you the top 30 sources for the past 30 days.

 _Note the date is hardcoded_

[http://api.thriftdb.com/api.hnsearch.com/items/_search?q=*&f...](http://api.thriftdb.com/api.hnsearch.com/items/_search?q=*&filter\[fields\]\[type\]=submission&facet\[fields\]\[domain\]\[include\]=true&filter\[fields\]\[create_ts\]=\[2013-12-18T00:00:00Z%20TO%20*\]&facet\[fields\]\[domain\]\[limit\]=30&limit=0&sortby=product\(points,pow\(2,div\(div\(ms\(create_ts,NOW\),3600000)),72)))%20desc&pretty_print=true

<comment><USER2> Awesome (although I'm trusting you that the query properly gets posts that made the top 30). This Bitly link will let you see the pretty printed version without having to manually mangle the URL.

[http://bit.ly/19DzODh](http://bit.ly/19DzODh)

Top ten for the impatient: github.com, medium.com, youtube.com, techcrunch.com, nytimes.com, bbc.co.uk, wired.com, en.wikipedia.org, arstechnica.com, theguardian.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How kind of you to post this right before a long weekend when many people might have time to hack something together ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> You're onto me ;) Hopefully it gets enough votes to get noticed. Then come Monday we will see the following headline: "I Built a HN Leaderboard for Sources over the Long Weekend."</comment></comment>


Steve Souders: Fewer HTTP requests through resource packages - <AUTHOR> http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2009/11/18/fewer-requests-through-resource-packages/

<comment><USER2> I'm glad the comments there brought up content negotiation, where I see more underused potential as new features and plugins are developed. It also seems odd for a browser to give up control over which order resources are loaded in, in the name of performance. Haven't browser authors done a lot of work to first fetch resources _they_ consider critical, make a usable partial rendering, and then fetch the rest?

Before people use this, I would hope they write some code to make their servers package the live resources on the fly. If an author has to do the packaging without a build toolchain (most people don't even use RPMs to get content onto production servers), they are likely to include resources some browsers wouldn't have fetched (or that many pages don't reference at all) and let it get out of date.

</comment><comment><USER3> While this idea is nice, I have a meta-idea:

Since HTML5 introduce WebSocket, why don't we provide a plugin mechanism in browsers that allows downloadable site defined Internet protocols? In fact non-HTTP protocols been around in browsers since stone age, IE, Netscape and Firefox support Gopher in some degree. Chrome silently added libjingle for Bookmark Sync, it's even yields "P2P error" when something goes wrong. Opera has a BitTorrent built in.

Browser is container + Internet IO, period.

This idea should start within hacker & developer community first. I hope browsers could innovate as prosper as WinAmp developer ecosphere used to be. Not just a crappy HTTP requester+fancy HTML renderer with round corners, ogg- only audio, shinny canvas and 3D shit.</comment>


Game AI as a Service? - <AUTHOR> https://www.yurigameai.com/ <comment><USER2> Hey everyone! I'm behind this project and I'll be hanging around to answer any questions about how Yuri works or how you can use it to solve your game AI problems.

The backend tech is heavily inspired by recent advances in reinforcement learning so if you've been wanting to get started with it but don't want to deal with the complexities related to training reinforcement learning algorithms please drop me a note!

</comment><comment><USER3> Great initiative! Extremely professional services and I definitely recommend them for reinforcement learning algorithms.

</comment><comment><USER4> Sounds like a dream</comment>


A list of books recommended by Soman Chainani - <AUTHOR> https://www.mostrecommendedbooks.com/recommender/Soman%20Chainani <comment><USER2> Just another daily collection of Amazon affiliate links with no added content (tag=mostrecommendedbooks-20). reply</comment>


Notification Hub for Android-Inbox for Notifications Powered by Machine Learning - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/notification-hub-for-android-app <comment><AUTHOR> Looking for feedback on our product that we are crowdfunding.</comment>


Varoufakis reveals cloak and dagger 'Plan B' for Greece, awaits treason charges - k-mcgrady http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11764018/Varoufakis-reveals-cloak-and-dagger-Plan-B-for-Greece-awaits-treason-charges.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Frankly, I would think it irresponsible if the Greek government did not have a Plan B in place - be it parallel payments or a return to the Drachma. If (when?) it becomes necessary to do so, such a plan would need to be implemented with haste - they won't have the luxury of telling the markets "we'll be doing this in 3 months, once we work out the details".

<comment><USER2> Plan B in this case case seems to have been for the currently dominant political party to seize the Greek treasury, arrest the leader of the Greek central bank, and use their access to design by fiat, without parliament, a whole new financial system for the country.

This seems approximately akin to, say, Ted Cruz being elected next year, another financial crisis happening shortly thereafter, and Cruz (a) arresting Janet Yellen (b) seizing control of the Federal Reserve and (c) switching us from the dollar back to Continentals.

<comment><USER3> Except to complete the analogy, add 5+ years of great depression with no end in sight (huge foreign debt, GDP in the dumps, 25% unemployment, etc.), the previous political leadership completely discredited after going back on their campaign promises and driving the country into the ground, and undemocratic foreign institutions dictating policy demanding we keep the country in permanent misery.

In such circumstances, I can well imagine a radical politician getting elected and taking drastic measures.

FDR winning election and taking the country off the gold standard is a not incomparable situation from American history.

<comment><USER2> I think there's a distinction that needs to be drawn between the need for some drastic measure to decouple the Greek economy from it's disastrous management by the Troika and the methods used to accomplish it.

What makes todays reports bombshells isn't the idea that Tsipras (more accurately, the Syriza Left Platform) had a Plan B involving the drachma. Approximately everyone who reported on the Greece/EU showdown noted that Plan B would somehow involve the restoration of the drachma.

The bombshell is that they had a plan to do it by fiat, extrajudicially, in the process seizing 10-15Bn EU from the Greek treasury in the hope that they could parcel the money --- which wasn't properly theirs --- to keep the government running during the transition.

The reports suggest Left Platform, Varoufakis, and Tsipras were planning on rewriting the entire Greek financial system, without any consultation with the Greek people beyond the agreement of the Left Platform faction.

<comment><USER3> What's your alternative suggestion? I haven't seen any plausible proposal for a way Greece could have gotten off the Euro on short notice without the ECB throwing a tantrum and a complete meltdown as a result. _Which is probably why they decided not to do it,_ and are now stuck in permanent miserable limbo.

<comment><USER2> Again: the issue is not Grexit and return of the drachma. That's a realistic, if incredibly painful, option. The issue is doing it abruptly, by fiat, at the behest of a faction of Syriza.

If they had gone ahead with this plan, Syriza would be isolated from everyone --- the Greek people, who would instantly lose the majority of their assets in the euro/drachma haircut, and every lender in the world that might help soften the landing.

That's why the Left Platform leadership had to talk about arresting their own central banker. They'd have been executing a financial coup and rewriting the rules of their economy without consultation with anyone else inside Greece. They'd have been deciding by themselves not just to exit the Eurozone, but to do so abruptly and without the cooperation or assistance of the ECB.

This isn't just about Greece severing ties with the Eurozone; it's about how they would have done it.

 _Edit_

Here's a Greek expat trying to lay out what an orderly transition from Eurozone membership to a drachma economy would look like:

[http://pavlos.geekhost.org/2015/07/05/what-grexit-looks- like...](http://pavlos.geekhost.org/2015/07/05/what-grexit-looks-like/)

<comment><USER3> What makes you think they'd get any kind of cooperation or assistance from the ECB? They've gotten nothing but overt hostility from the ECB for 6 months.

Your link simplifies to an extreme, hand-waving away all the difficult parts of implementing the plan (e.g. how to keep the banks open, how to keep the government functioning, what the response would be of the IMF and ECB, how to prevent capital from immediately fleeing en masse, whether Greece actually has capacity to print and distribute drachmas, etc.). Its suggested approach might or might not work out, but it definitely would not be any kind of smooth ride.

Perhaps he was just overly optimistic in the wake of the referendum No vote. His prediction – "it's likely the institutions will seek a quick compromise to avoid serious damage to themselves and the Euro" – turned out to be fairly inaccurate. Instead they refused to compromise and in fact made even stronger demands than they had before.

<comment><USER4> If by "overt hostility" you mean "lots of money" then sure ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can't see how that's in any way treasonous. Treason is going against your country. Investigating an alternative monetary system -- at the request of the prime minister -- hardly seems like treason. Especially if you're the finance minister. Keeping it a secret doesn't make it treason either.

Treason would be to defect from Greece to the IMF or ECB or Germany with information to sink Greece and eliminate any kind of negotiating power that they might have.

<comment><USER6> No? Grabbing your central bank's reserves _without any involvement of parliament_ and preparing to arrest its chief without any legal justification sounds fine to you?

It would have been the ultimate power grab by Syriza, going against all laws and democracy.

Just because Syriza got a majority in the elections doesn't mean the rule of law has been suspended.

<comment><USER2> People should stop downvoting this comment. He's not making this up. Hugo Dixon has been covering this drama, and his summary is much better than Telegram's:

[http://hugo-dixon.com/2015/07/26/wild-plan-b/](http://hugo- dixon.com/2015/07/26/wild-plan-b/)

This is so batshit crazy my jaw is hanging open.

<comment><USER7> The scheme to arrest the Bank of Greece governor & raiding national mint was separate to the Varoufakis' plan, and to try to combine the two is a huge mistake. That plan was just dumb, while the Varoufakis plan was crazy and or subtle.

I view Varoufakis's plan as a trump card to play against the Troika. The Troika believe that - in the end - the Greeks would always roll over and give in to their proposals.

Varoufakis plan was to be able to say "you didn't count on _this_ crazy plan* and be able to present something that was undoubtedly crazy, but _just credible enough_ to make the Troika think that the Greeks might try it.

Sometimes acting crazy is the best strategy. To quote:

 _it turns out that the best strategy if you get to play the game only once is to make the most credible attempt possible in pretending to be a Hawk while actually being a Dove. When you are in one of the cars heading for each other, growl, scream, throw bottles out he window, swerve and then come back onto the road again. In short give the impression that you are mad and unpredictable, and definitely capable of doing mad things like not swerving under any circumstances. Do not signal that you may compromise, even though you know you will._

[1] [http://karlstrobl.com/2015/05/28/varoufakis-and-game- theory/](http://karlstrobl.com/2015/05/28/varoufakis-and-game-theory/)

<comment><USER8> I don't see that as crazy. The national bank is still led by a member of the old cast, who is hostile to Syriza.

Besides the fact the Troika controlling the data of the finance ministry, the tax files, with no access to the current legal authority, you should also consider the likely possibility of a military coup to get rid of Syriza.

The trumped up language by the germans and their press made it very likely to prepare such a step. This didn't come forward yet. But given the history I call it very likely. Until the referendum backed them up.

And of course the Troika also had their plan B developed in secret, a similar group of 5, getting rid of Greece in the eurozone, despite it was against the EU rules. This was in the news last month. But they never offered Greece assistance to leave the Eurozone. Schaeuble at least talked publicly about it, and was punished for it.

In the grexit scenario raiding their assets is the best thing to do. But the more interesting question is if the military (with support by the Troika) would have taken over. Exciting times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's sad to see them (Varoufakis/Tsipras) being crucified for this. Ironically, it was the Eurozone "leadership" that used threat of Grexit in negotiations, by not accepting any compromise. It only shows they have the "punish someone" mentality, at the cost of Eurozone's future.

I guess that's politics, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Couple days ago, Tsipras was criticized for not having plan B.

<comment><USER2> It's not that they had a Plan B, but what that plan was. Their Plan B was essentially a coup, instrumented through the financial system.

<comment><USER9> I am genuinely curious - what would be a correct Plan B? I am not sure how could you have a Grexit without it being a coup.

Personally, I am not a big fan of central bank independence, as a concept. There is always some dependence, because institutions are staffed and constructed by humans, and I think proclaiming independence is a bit muddy in democracy. If Tsipras took control over Greek Central Bank, it would still have greater democratic legitimacy than the control Eurozone leaders have over ECB (the fact they have some I think can be seen from the fact that ECB didn't provide liquidity to Greece before the referendum - really independent CB in a monetary union would have to do that anyway and let the politicians face the consequences).

(I am really torn here, because, even though I wish Eurozone to succeed, sadly, the existence of EZ and ECB was not established in a democratic process, as it should.)

<comment><USER6> Easy: let parliament vote for Grexit.

<comment><USER10> That's not practical. The plans would've been leaked and people would've tried to take advantage of it.

The idea that a parliamentary decision would have been better than one from the cabinet because the legitimating chain would've been slightly shorter sounds like a rather esoteric reason to judge their actions on.

But as opponents this is a great opportunity. They'll get crushed, I guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Here's FT's (much better) reporting:

[http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2a0a1d94-3201-11e5-8873-775ba...](http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2a0a1d94-3201-11e5-8873-775ba7c2ea3d.html#axzz3h3txW2p8)

(The headline is "Syriza's covert plot during crisis talks to return to drachma" if you want to Google it because of the registration wall).

<comment><USER8> "Much better" is very questionable in this context. It's a aggressive right- winger view point, which again does everything to denounce Syriza as left-wing radicals and supporters, which is explicitly against Syriza's own point of view. Which is a center-left EU-friendly party, holding up to Keynesian principles.

And they call it "plot", where it was a normal grexit plan. It was very similar to the EU troika "plot"/plan for their grexit scenario, throwing them out of the Eurozone. And the Troika actually performed parts of their "evil" plan. Draghi illegally stopped ECB support to blackmail them. Did FT report this as such?

<comment><USER11> Indeed one thing I find shocking is the assumption, even among very smart people, that Syriza is too far left. Too left for what? They are reacting as if it were a Soviet-aligned Communist party with a plan to cancel elections.

This kind of narrow "crush anything that isn't neoliberal capitalism" paranoia is going to make the the crunch even more painful when disemployment really comes into play.

<comment><USER2> Well, part of their plan was to raise 10-20bn from Russia to prop up their economy, and the whole plan was extralegal, so I'm not sure that's too far off the mark.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wish there was a really good source for analysis on the Greek situation that ignored value judgements of what "should" happen.

To me it appears that Varoufakis is the Bobby Fischer of economics at the moment[1]. Of course he had a plan to keep the Greek economy (somewhat) alive if Grexit occurred. It would astonish me if some details of the plan hadn't been leaked to the EU - the Greeks would want them to know about it.

Varoufakis's resignation/sacking was beautifully timed to setup the idea that the Greeks would make some concessions, but couldn't be pushed much further.

And the purpose of this latest thing _isn 't_ to protect Varoufakis against treason charges, it it to drive a bigger wedge between Germany and France before August 20.

(As an aside, Varoufakis used to be Valve's staff economist, and he's a published game theorist. He's pretty good a playing slight differences in motivations against each other)

[1] [http://genius.com/3889915](http://genius.com/3889915)

<comment><USER12> If this summer's negotiations were a deliberate chess move, they are akin to manoeuvring yourself into a Fool's Mate.

Closing all banks for the largest part of a month sinks your economy at a faster pace than any austerity ever could. The country was on the path to recovery since last year but this summer has caused another implosion in economic activity similar to a devaluation - all without getting the eventual side benefits of an actual Grexit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is how absolutistic ruling starts. Most often from crisis and always with the excuse to do good for the country. I agree to some comments here that they needed a plan B, but you can't overstep your even as prime minister or finance minister given authority. Kim Jong-un states that he's just protecting his people from the evil rest of the world.

</comment><comment><USER14> The people orchestraiting the integration of the eurozone want a greek crisis. They need the greek crisis in order to gain political support for the next phase which is fiscal integration. They will generate fear and disorder and then the people would be willing to agree upon the fiscal integration of europe. Varoufakis knows this very well, to quote from the article: "And he (German finance minister Wolfgang Schauble) said explicitly to me that a Grexit is going to equip him with sufficient terrorising power in order to impose upon the French that which Paris has been resisting: a degree of transfer of budget-making powers from Paris to Brussels." Varoufakis

<comment><USER6> _If_ you believe Varoufakis.

It may be Schäuble's game plan, I cannot know about it, but telling all about it to Varoufakis? That's akin to James Bond's opponents always disclosing their secret master plan just before they think they're going to kill Bond. Real world doesn't work like that.

I simply find it implausible. Why should Schäuble admit to all that openly in a discussion with him? What good would it do?

Nothing: if it ever came out (and Varoufakis has constantly been talking to the press), France will be alienated and his alleged goal will be even farther away.

It simply does not add up.

<comment><USER15> You're making the assumption that Schäuble is a reasonable man, which he's proven amply not to be.

<comment><USER6> Character assassination won't make you look any better.

<comment><USER15> Your point is: The things Varoufakis claims Schäuble said and did would not have been said or done by a reasonable person.

To that i am pointing out that Schäuble has in the past said and done many things that were entirely unreasonable, even if some may have been meant well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A currency-independent parallel banking system that uses smartphone apps sounds like a very cool thing, actually. It almost makes me wish that we had a chance to see it implemented.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think the most interesting part was this:

 _The payments would be 'IOUs' based on an experiment by California after the Lehman crisis._

Indicating that precedents set in the US are being used for entire economies - pretty interesting.

<comment><USER18> Keep in mind, Greece is a lot smaller than California. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> V for Varoufakis

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afl9WFGJE0M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afl9WFGJE0M)</comment>


Coda: one-window web development for Mac - <AUTHOR> http://www.panic.com/coda/ <comment><USER2> Just started trying it out.

So far I'm very impressed. Very clean and simple with just the right functionality I need. Will see how it does after using it for a real project...

<comment><USER3> Nice software - but $79 seems a little pricey. I'm not yet convinced the features justify the $30 markup over textmate.

<comment><USER2> Good point :) I've never really used textmate, but have heard great things about it. What's your take on it?

<comment><USER4> Textmate is the shizzle.

<comment><USER5> While Textmate is indeed the shizzle, this app isn't really playing in the same space.

Textmate is a code editor (and a very nice one). Coda is a web design tool, like Dreamweaver (integrated preview pane, built-in GUI support for CSS mangling, etc.). Coda looks to be a lot cleaner than Dreamweaver. I like it -- but I'm not sure I do enough web design to justify switching. It has more to do with the time to learn a new app rather than the cost; while Dreamweaver may be nasty, I've been using it for a long time. If I found myself needing to do a lot of web design, I'd definitely consider a switch. Coda seems elegant and intuitive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow... amazing site design! App's beautiful and extremely useful as well. Nice job, Panic!

</comment><comment><USER7> It looks sexy, but how does it compare to Bluefish?</comment>