Remove Google Search History Before New Privacy Policy Takes Effect - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/how-remove-your-google-search-history-googles-new-privacy-policy-takes-effect <comment><USER2> The official title of the article is "How to Remove Your Google Search History Before Google's New Privacy Policy Takes Effect", and the writing itself is much more neutral than this submission title.

I'm still not sure why people are afraid of Google's new privacy policy. I understand that there are people who have specific privacy needs, but outside that scope I doubt you have anything to worry about.

It's doubtful at best that Google's "log" of you would become compromised (unless your personal account were compromised, but then this would have been a problem anyways!). It also isn't the case that some Google employee is reading row after row of Google's customer DB snooping on individuals.

Google isn't some unified entity; your data is being manipulated by advertising algorithms to tailor ads for you. Unless you care about a CPU "knowing" your secrets, or you have specific privacy needs/concerns, none of this is a problem.

Maybe someone can surprise me with some good reasons to be concerned, but until then I am trusting Google.

<comment><USER3> My concern is that someone out there is accumulating a huge amount of very personal information about me. It happens to be a corporation that has a legal obligation not to me but to its shareholders and that obligation is to maximise profit. It also has a legal obligation to the US government and the US courts, a government I have no right to elect and a legal system I cannot afford.

And here's my point: I simply cannot know or control what profit maximising ideas they may come up with in the future or what kinds of ideas politicians may deem necessary in order to win an election.

Some say that it will always be more profitable for Google to "respect my privacy". The problem is that the meaning of "respect my privacy" is a matter of fast changing attitudes. It's not my personal privacy they need to be concerned about, it's what the vast majority of their users will passively accept.

Their privacy policy says they can do anything with my data to create new services and improve existing ones. That means they can do anything. Full stop.

The reason why I'm more concerned about their new privacy policy than about the old one is that lots of small piles of information are less dangerous than one big pile of information, exactly for the reason they are creating it: The value of accumulated information is more than the sum of its parts.

The conclusions that can be drawn from that combined dataset are a lot more reliable and robust. Right now, much of the data that is out there about us is basically garbage and everyone knows it. No one can know if it means anything that I supposedly visited this or that site. But if they can also analyse what I searched for, what my emails are about, what blogs I read, which people I communicate with, etc, they can learn something about my intentions, not just about my actions and they can throw out the garbage.

I don't want all my intentions to be known or to be knowable to anyone on earth because I cannot know or control the intentions of those wanting to know my intentions. It's a onesided shift of power away from me and I can never take it back.

Once the data has become so much more reliable and the conclusions so much more robust, the desire to use that information for all kinds of new purposes will grow accordingly. The pressure on Google to use that knowledge to increase profit will grow. The incentive for criminals to steal the data will grow. The pressure on governments to proactively spy on everyone to prevent this or that type of crime will grow.

This is not me saying "Google has turned evil". It's just a recognition of an inevitable social and economic dynamic ensuing from the possibilities that well intregrated, high quality, sets of personal data provide.

I know more than the vast majority of people about data analysis and hence I will not delegate what "respecting my privacy" means to that majority of passive Google (or Faceboook, ...) users.

<comment><USER4> > It happens to be a corporation that has a legal obligation not to me but to > its shareholders and that obligation is to maximise profit.

That's a myth. I belived it was true until someone here on HN linked to a Harvard Business Review article debunking it. Unfortunately I can't find the article, but here's a blog post discussing the issue: [http://truthonthemarket.com/2010/07/27/the-shareholder- wealt...](http://truthonthemarket.com/2010/07/27/the-shareholder-wealth- maximization-myth/)

<comment><USER3> This article is all about errors that a management team could make, but I'm talking about their intentions. Google's management team cannot intentionally pursue goals that are bad for shareholders.

I doubt that it would be legal to do so, but I'm not a lawyer, so suffice it to say that it's not practical because they would be removed from their management positions very quickly.

<comment><USER4> Point taken.

It just irks me that people often use the myth that they must maximise shareholder profits _at all cost_ as a reason for why companies act evil. The Harvard Business Review article, that a still can't find unfortunately, also talked about how this myth is pervasive in management circles, and leads to bad business practices and corporations being socially unresponsible. I got the impression that you were insinuating this.

<comment><USER5> Could it be this article? [http://hbr.org/2010/04/the-myth-of-shareholder- capitalism/ar...](http://hbr.org/2010/04/the-myth-of-shareholder- capitalism/ar/1)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm pretty sure EFF is wrong here. Google's Web History is basically a public version of your search history. You can turn on or off whether you want Google to rub your face in its knowledge about you. But it retains that knowledge even if you turn off the rub-in-your-face personalization part.

Google retains a complete history of your interactions with them, which is not subject to this Web History setting, not deletable, not removable, and will be shared across its properties.

Short reply: This doesn't remove Google's search history of your searches at all.

<comment><USER7> Interesting.

Can you prove that?

If so, this could be a very hot potato.

If google states "Your web history is currently empty" and "web history is paused" but they continue to track your searches in a way that is tied to your identity then I think they're in breach of several laws.

They could chose to withold the ability to disable tracking. But by giving you the impression that they're not tracking you I think they're definitely across the line if they continue to track you in spite of that.

> Google retains a complete history of your interactions with them, which is > not subject to this Web History setting, not deletable, not removable, and > will be shared across its properties.

Is a pretty heavy accusation to make without hard proof. And if it turns out to be true I'd hate to be the one to have to explain to the EU regulatory body how "your search history is empty" can co-exist with "we have a complete history of your activity". If it is a history on my activity then my search history can not be empty and if it is empty then google should no longer have it either.

<comment><USER6> Uh, this is not a secret. Google says specifically that web history is a way to personalize your search results, nothing more. Web history is an add-on to Google's normal tracking.

"You can delete information from Web History using the remove feature, and it will be removed from the service. However, as is common practice in the industry, and as outlined in the Google Privacy Policy, Google maintains a separate logs system for auditing purposes and to help us improve the quality of our services for users."

This refers you to the main privacy policy, which says very clearly that Google stores every request you make along with cookies that uniquely identify your account.

<http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/>

Web History is an add-on tracking system. Google does not permit opting-out of Google's regular tracking system, which at one point stored every request you had ever made to any Google server, but which I think now may be semi- anonymized after a couple of years, if I remember their changing policies correctly. Although, the Privacy Policy makes no such promise, so perhaps they do still keep every request ever made in Google's existence. Google absolutely has a perfect record of every interaction you've had with them for the past year or two. Even if Web History is "off".

<comment><USER7> I'm sorry but I distinctly got the impression that 'opting out' of the search history feature meant that google would not be saving my search history and I'm quite surprised that this is not the case.

It is of course possible that I'm alone in this but somehow I doubt that.

<comment><USER8> I'm surprised that you would come to that conclusion. I would think that most "mega power-users" (as I'm now labeling you :) would simply assume that they were turning off some kind of public-facing display of their search history, and that you were not opting out of their ability to target ads at you with greater precision.

I would not be surprised if many people got the same impression.

<comment><USER7> I think what blindsided me was a combination of two factors: (1) I want to believe that google tries to be the 'good guy', (2) the specific wording of the history feature which states that "Get results and recommendations that are tailored to your preferences.", as in "before you enable this feature we can not do that". That feels like an opt-in.

The fact that it is only available to logged in users and that - as far as I can see - it is not public facing, but just to you specifically further increased that expectation.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, I can see now why it would give off that impression. That feature is going to give them so many issues in the future. I wouldn't be surprised to hear about its removal one day.

<comment><USER9> > "Google maintains a separate logs system"

Could the difference be that Google associates data with your Google account if you have Web History turned on, but only uses IP addresses in their "logs system"?

If this was the case, IMHO, it would be consistent enough with expectations.

<comment><USER8> Based on Google's "What Google knows about you" page[1] I would have to conclude that their logs associate your search behavior with your account either way.

[1] <https://www.google.com/settings/ads/onweb/>

<comment><USER10> That's the doubleclick cookie personalization, which they aren't allowed to tie to your account based on the doubleclick acquisition agreement (which is why "on the web" and "on search and gmail" are separate and why if you go in an incognito window or block doubleclick cookies it will say it has nothing on you).

<http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I for one am glad that Google at least provides this option. I'm sure if Facebook, Zynga, or many of the current startup psoter-boys would _not_ , given the same opportunity.

</comment><comment><USER12> Someone should write a Firefox plugin to allow people to anonymously exchange google cookies, like you can with the grocery store club cards.

<comment><USER13> <http://www.googlesharing.net/>

<comment><USER14> It sounds good in concept, but I'm concerned that somebody searching for child pornography or similar could be associated with myself. I have the same fear of running a TOR exit node.

<comment><USER15> It gives you plausible deniability, which is the point. Nobody can prove you really did those searches (though you can't prove the converse either).

<comment><USER16> It might give you plausible deniability in front of a jury (emphasis on _might_ ), but that says nothing about assumptions or biases made by law enforcement officials or prosecutors.

<comment><USER17> Yes, plausible deniability is pretty useless _after_ the police have arrested you at 6am in your home after bashing down your door, and all your neighbours have found out that you've been accused of being a pedophile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I never realized you could access your search data history. It was really fascinating to see the different visualizations including my search concentration by hour and days of the week.

That said, even as a non-statistician, it wasn't hard to imagine the amount of information Google could infer by focusing on an individual. I had a data set exceeding 50k searches with the resulting click-throughs on my account. (Plus, they can of course leverage their massive db to help eliminate anomalies like Whitney Houston)

In addition to the basics like big item purchase history, hobbies, and problems (e.g. sickness); I wouldn't be surprised if Google could predict my relationship status and sexual preferences.

Custom search results are great, but I'm extremely happy to have been given the option to delete that profile. If anything, it is the single largest factor pushing back to Firefox and possibly DuckDuckGo.

<comment> mike-cardwell Google makes money from your ignorance. They could put a "Disable all Tracking" button in the black bar at the top of all Google properties, but their business model relies on the majority of people not knowing they're being tracked, or not caring enough to go looking into how to disable it.

<comment><USER19> Some people (like me) just don't mind. Tracking is not inherently bad, and they use that data to provide some value for users. If you had to inform everyone and provide opt-ins for every single feature that _someone out there_ might not like, nothing would ever be done on the Internet.

Also, running analysis on this kind of data must be pure awesomeness, from scientist's point of view ;).

<comment><USER20> Remember that "if you're not paying for it, you're the product".

[http://lifehacker.com/5697167/if-youre-not-paying-for-it- you...](http://lifehacker.com/5697167/if-youre-not-paying-for-it-youre-the- product)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Is there a way to export the search history?

I have close to 45k searches over 7 years, would love to keep that data and mine it myself.

<comment><USER22> You can export it as a feed: [http://www.google.com/history/lookup?q=&output=rss&n...](http://www.google.com/history/lookup?q=&output=rss&num=1000)

<comment><USER21> Thanks, it's only exporting 922 searches for me.

Increasing the num=100000 argument doesn't seem to impact this limit.

One would think that your search history should be a core part of their data liberation effort.

<comment><USER23> You can specify the date to export, so could step back exporting batches until you've got everything.

[https://www.google.com/history/lookup?month=11&day=30...](https://www.google.com/history/lookup?month=11&day=30&yr=2008&output=rss&num=9999)

It shouldn't be too hard to write a script to scrape you're whole history...

<comment><USER23> Hacked this together to do the job:

<https://gist.github.com/1884821>

<comment><USER24> Doesn't work for me:

export.rb:1:in `require': no such file to load -- mechanize (LoadError) from export.rb:1

edit: nvm, installed libwww-mechanize-ruby and it's working fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> When I go to <https://google.com/history> while logged into my google mail account, I get redirected to <https://www.google.com/>

The redirected Google home page clearly shows me as logged in. Am I doing it wrong?

<comment><USER26> Likewise for me with the Google Apps account I'm usually signed in as when doing searches.

Going to the non-SSL page <http://google.com/history> (as suggested by someone here) doesn't result in the redirect, but gives the message "Web History is not available for mydomain.com."

As usual, it seems that Google Apps users are in a different (lower) class when it comes to Google functionality.

<comment><USER27> I had to sign out of my Apps account and sign in with my Gmail account. Switching accounts didn't seem to work. I'm assuming (perhaps naively) that Google is synthesizing all my history into that one "primary" account.

I hate that Google Apps accounts are second-class citizens. Especially knowing that you can pay for corporate accounts... seems backwards.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> After doing what EFF recommended, the Web History is "paused" indefinitely. If you want to opt out of the service completely, you can use the following URL:

<https://www.google.com/accounts/DeleteService?service=hist>

</comment><comment><USER29> As far as I know, Google Takeout doesn't support Web History. If they supported it, I'd take out my search history in a heartbeat.

As it stands now, I do sometimes refer back to it, but I don't think it's worth having it if it means giving up the information to advertisers as well.

<comment><USER30> I've got 44k searches I would like to export but their RSS feed only goes back a month for me.

<comment><USER23> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3620376>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'm confused. What does this actually mean?

"You can delete information from Web History using the remove feature, and it will be removed from the service. However, as is common practice in the industry, and as outlined in the Google Privacy Policy, Google maintains a separate logs system for auditing purposes and to help us improve the quality of our services for users."

So.... why would I delete this information if Google still keeps it elsewhere? Do I just have no ability to control what data Google collects on me, even if I agree to stop using its services?

<comment><USER32> I see two reasons why one might want to do it:

1) If someone breaks into your account, that person can steal all your search history. This is why I disabled search history recording a long time ago.

2) It was uncovered that Google passess some of its data about users to third parties, especially ads agencies. Now, with the new policy, you can't be sure that search data leakage will not occur. Moreover, ads agencies use mechanisms like cookie syncing to share user data between themselves.

<comment><USER33> "It was uncovered that Google passess some of its data about users to third parties, especially ads agencies." Can you provide a source to back this statement? (I am not challenging you, just interested to learn about this)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm not convinced this works as it should. I turned of history a while back and have since repeated "remove all history". But I still get these ads related to searches and email that is too obscure to be co-incidence - e.g. Lately I get shown ads (sometimes multiple times daily) for "Foreign SIM cards" as I googled this about a month ago. Especially on Youtube. Anyone else notice this who has turned off their web history?

<comment><USER35> Are you sure they're Google Ads? If you followed a link from the search results, and that link had ads from another search network, that other network would've associated you with that search term.

<comment><USER10> or the same scenario, but with doubleclick ads. The FTC(?) agreement for acquiring doubleclick included a clause that they can't mix google account information and doubleclick logging, but as parent said, the sites you clicked through may have had doubleclick ads and associated that topic (or their brand specifically) with your doubleclick cookie. Deleting it should reset it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I knew about the search history, but apparently a number of people didn't. This makes me wonder: Are there any other semi-hidden Google services which I can "clean out"?

<comment><USER37> If you have a YouTube-account:

<http://www.youtube.com/my_history>

<http://www.youtube.com/my_search_history>

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> There are probably better ways of doing this but I just use Chrome now exclusively for Google services. I don't login to Google on my primary browser anymore. I'm hoping this will limit their stalking a bit. I don't mind if they read my mail since that's the price I pay for using the service but I'm getting a little paranoid about the other things they might be doing. Better to keep it sandboxed away from the rest of my browsing.

</comment><comment><USER39> I always use the following link to search google:

<https://encrypted.google.com/?pws=0>

And I have search history turned off.

</comment><comment><USER40> I use three browsers. Firefox for general browsing (technology and theology), Chromium for Gmail and Facebook, and Opera for blogs.

I figure that keeping Google and Facebook in their own little prison should help greatly with privacy.

I use DDG for searching whenever possible.

Not so much to hide things (as a pastor I got used to being watched 24x7 years ago), but just to preserve what little privacy I have left.

<comment><USER41> I've tried this but find it to quite a pain to remember what browser I should be looking at what in.

What I want is a browser where I can be logged into Google, and any link I click will open that link in my "private" (not logged into Google) browser. Same with Facebook, Twitter, etc.

So I've started developing XUL apps to run each in their own sandbox.

<comment><USER40> I agree that it could get tedious, but I'm compartmentalized (not OCD ;-) enough in how I do things, that it has worked well for me so far.

Your XUL apps approach sounds interesting. Can you offer any pointers on what you do and how others could do it too?

<comment><USER41> It's pretty simple right now. I only spent an hour or so on it and will post it to GitHub when I get some more time to iron out a few kinks.

Basically you open the XUL app for the service you want to access. It acts as a chromeless firefox browser and intercepts any links you click. If it's an external link it opens it in your default browser where you wouldn't be logged into google preserving a bit of anonymity.

<comment><USER40> Thanks.

I also found this link <http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/tutorials/x-xulintro/> after a little searching. I'll try it out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Wow, did not know that this existed. Now I know that across 11 thousand searches on Google, AAPL was my top search, and that my search activity spikes on Mondays and declines through the rest of the week: <http://o7.no/wiL2jx>

</comment><comment><USER43> I use google apps for domains and I get the following message: "Web History is not available for MY_DOMAIN. Learn more about Google products you can use with MY_EMAIL."

Is Google collecting this data and not giving me the option to turn it off, or are they not collecting the data?

<comment><USER22> If it's not enabled, the logs are not associated with your account. You could enable the service in the apps control panel (assuming you're the administrator) and check for yourself, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Interesting. Although I'm not sure I care if Google applications have access to information about my location, interests, age, sexual orientation, religion, health concerns. I'm a 42, male, married, Catholic software developer living in Brazil.

</comment><comment><USER45> Looks like government doesn't like either, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020391830457723...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203918304577239793006074440.html)

</comment><comment><USER46> youtube.com doesn't have any obvious method of removing of past watched videos and is even more nefarious than Google will probably ever be (before March 1st, 2012 at least) about tracking visitors.

Additionally, YouTube has become pretty much just a branch of the RIAA and MPAA and their local equivalents, and I'd rather burn down my house than allow them access to my data.

That's why I've been blocking YouTube from setting cookies on my computer, and that's why other people should do too.

<comment><USER37> <http://www.youtube.com/my_history>

<http://www.youtube.com/my_search_history>

I am not saying that the average user knows about them, though, but they're not that hard to find.

(Also, since you seem to talk about YouTube and Google as separate companies: They're not. Google owns YouTube and their new policy applies there as well.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I never had it turned on in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER48> Show of hands:

Who is actually going to do this? Who isn't?

<comment><USER49> I've just done so, and I intend on keeping Web History turned off. I simply do not derive enough benefit from having this data around for myself (when's the last time you benefited from Web History), and unlike other permanent data such as G+ posts, comments etc I do not self-censor searches that I would like to conduct, so I find it very plausible that someone with more processing power than me could find out more about me than I intend.

<comment><USER50> I was just about to and then realised that I had turned it off a while ago. The fact that I had completely forgotten it shows that I don't need this data.

However, it's also not something I'm hugely concerned about; as others have said the main danger is from some unscrupulous individual gaining access to your account. In terms of Google having access to my data, I would imagine my data will never be seen by human eyes. Having said that, one does need to remember the inherent permanence of data on the internet, as Facebook's timeline has shown sometimes your data can surface in unexpected ways.

<comment><USER44> You don't need it, but it makes search matching more efficient for the people that have it on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> When somebody's life is horribly dismembered as a result of Google's _insane_ privacy policy (new or old), please let me know. I'll start thinking about privacy and necessary safety measures at that point.

Until then, please stop whining about privacy, because frankly, I just don't see how any of this really matters. My life has yet to be negatively impacted by Google and I don't foresee it happening in the near future.

<comment><USER52> To be fair, I haven't seen a load of claims about how this is "insane" or "horrible" within the context of this article. It just provides a useful instruction as to how those that wish to opt-out, may do so.

It's fine that you don't see how this matters but it does matter to some and having the choice and understanding how to exercise that choice is essential.

<comment><USER51> Apologies. I wasn't referring to this article in particular, but the hype in general over Google's changing privacy policies.

<comment><USER52> Fair enough. I do get your point - people seem to go mad about privacy in general. It does sometimes feel (to me) like people aren't as bothered about it with Google as they are with Apple, Amazon or Facebook, but maybe that's just me.

No need to apologise, wasn't trying to call you out or anything, just felt like this was one of the few posts I've read that doesn't whine too much about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Can someone possibly paraphrase the new privacy policy? Or at least point out significant changes please.

</comment><comment><USER54> <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/>

</comment><comment><USER55> The web history seem to have been off for me by default.

</comment><comment><USER56> The issue is not with start-ups or established players its with US Congress and the DOJ who have consistently used 911 to over-reach to control things so that they do not have to hear dissent. Sort of what the standard Russian citizen experiences on a daily basis, bbut they are not alone in that experience.

Thus, when did we become a less free 'Third World Country'?

My apologies to citizens in Third World countries as I lack the vocab early this morning to express it in a different way.

</comment><comment><USER57> when i go to that page with my spam account, which i'm logged in by mistake when i do most of my searches anyway, i get one screen asking to enable web history, with a button saying "no thanks". and i never get to the calendar screen.

with my de facto account, it shows the calendar. and there's no way i can find a way to that "no thanks" button</comment>


Markdown-based notepad - <AUTHOR> https://wri.pe/ It started from my personal problem, "I want to take memos using markdown!" I use a memo app everyday. I used Evernote, but it's too big for writing memo.
I thought "I'm a programmer, so I can create a memo app easily!" I started to create a memo app with the following features.
- markdown format - gmail like Archive feature - Calendar view - iPhone/iPad support - keyboard shortcuts
I thought some people could have same problem when I was creating it. So I decide to release it to public.
Today, I released my tool "https://wri.pe". Especially, Tech people would love it!
Screenshots are here. http://www.flickr.com/photos/masuidrive/sets/72157633740687207/
Feedback on how to improve it is also very welcome.
I hope you love https://wri.pe . <comment><USER2> Can you please provide a demo, animated tutorial, or _something_ before requiring sign in via yet another third-party service?

<comment><USER3> Providing a demo - great. But why all the complaints about requiring third- party login? It wasn't so long ago we were all complaining about "yet another account" and asking sites to support third-party logins.

<comment><USER4> That's not what he means and you know it.

They require Social connect without a demo or any substantive reason to do so.

<comment><USER3> I didn't interpret it that way at all - if the issue was just "demo before sign-in" the comment would have not specified "third-party". However I'll concede I was somewhat directed at the 5 other comments saying similar things in this thread.

As far as social connect - it's using the most popular authentication service (Facebook, where you can usually control any social permissions), and a dev- specific auth service (GitHub). Sounds a lot better to me than creating a new account somewhere else, particularly as I trust those two providers with authentication.

<comment><USER5> >> _Facebook, where "you can" "usually" control any social permissions_

That's a topic where the debate is on for years!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is writing a markdown text editor the new "hello world"?

Check out these:

<http://www.koi-writer.com/editor/>

<http://darkcopy.com/>

<http://gun.io/w/yyhegyfn6>

<https://quabel.com/>

<http://www.wabisabi.cc/>

<https://writeapp.me/>

<http://pen.io/>

<https://draftin.com/>

</comment><comment><USER7> _Sign in with Facebook | Sign in with Github_

You lost me at Hello.

</comment><comment><USER8> Great work!

Makes me incredibly nostalgic for Google Notebook (the highest of complements)!

Notebook could be something like this nowadays if the company hadn't begun to reject their side projects. Google's "Keep" is nothing like the journaling/meeting/class note app that Notebook was, or this is. I look forward to using it.

</comment><comment><USER9> Can you please provide a way to log in that doesn't involve me using a third- party service? To ask someone to sign in using Facebook or GitHub you need a _really_ good reason.

Also, can you provide a video or something? I know someone else already mentioned this, but I think it's really essential.

<comment><USER3> Why a better reason than a normal account creation process? Are the per-site accounts of old really a better system than leaving auth to the big players?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I can't tell at a glance - does this have any benefits over something like Simplenote? Simplenote has many solid apps and is pretty well established.

<comment><AUTHOR> wri.pe has two key features.

\- gmail like Archive \- Calendar view

Dates writen in the title or body of your notes are automatically inserted in your calendar.

please try to use wri.pe.

<comment><USER11> _"please try to use wri.pe."_

I don't use Facebook, and do not have a github account as I am not a coder. Do I conclude that you do are not targeting your application at me?

How would I _export_ notes with a timeline a few years down the line?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _Sign in with Facebook or Github_

Why, oh, why does everyone insist on Facebook authentication? Aren't there any people like me, who _do not_ have a Facebook account, and do not wish to obtain one simply for a text editor?

It's a text editor, I don't think sign-in should be required.

</comment><comment><USER13> I would avoid Facebook account, too much personal information there. Try twitter, instead.

</comment><comment><USER14> It is like you read my mind. I've been thinking I'd love to have a simple web based markdown editor.

<comment><USER15> I wrote one for my blog, maybe it is of use for you, too.

<http://bigwhoop.github.io/lyme/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think the problem raised about login is due to the limited options, either Facebook or Github.

People don't trust websites that quickly ask for their Facebook account. It looks spammy.

I'm all for third-party authentication, I hate creating yet another account. I think the balance is to offer more choices than just Facebook or Github. And I don't like linking my Github to things that are not directly involving my code.

The way StackExchange does is the right way, I believe. Offering more neutral, flexible OAuth providers than only Facebook (and in that case a smaller player like Github).

This is meant as a constructive comment, if anybody ends up at this line thinking I'm just whining.

</comment><comment><USER17> Am I the only one who thinks that this kind of apps would be so much better if they ran natively?

It's one of the things why I don't like Chrome os concept - some things should not be ran in the browser. A text editor is one of them.

</comment><comment><USER18> Neat! Does it support tables? This is one of the biggests disadvantages of the existing solutions.

<comment><USER18> Ok, tried it and it does! That's pretty neat. However, the formatting is slightly different than on github.

My next question would be how to change the size of the preview area. It seems to be fixed width, adjusted for a 1024px screen.

<comment><AUTHOR> wri.pe support resizing preview area now. please try it after reload sevral times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Review article in Startup Dating.

Wri.pe: A simple and handy note-taking app from Japan <http://www.startup- dating.com/2013/06/wri-pe-note-taking-app>

</comment><comment><USER19> What does notepad app have to do with facebook account?.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is this open source (if no, why not)?

You should also put some more effort into the demo video. _At least_ use a clean Safari browser.

</comment><comment><USER21> great pain less apps!!

</comment><comment><USER5> Any API exposed? Any desktop/mobile apps out there or are in the pipeline?

Because I really doubt that a YAMNA[1] is going to matter much or is brining anything better or new[2] on the table.

[1] Yet Another Markdown/Note App :-) (minus the smiley)

[2] I could not find a demo that I can use first hand before _logging in_ via GitHub, _Fb_ is out of question anyway.

<comment><USER22> I usually disagree with complaints that HN is getting more unfriendly, but this is a good example of that. You could at least sugar-coat this criticism, this look to me to be nicely implemented, and there's nothing wrong with YAMNA.</comment></comment>


New NSA leak exposes Red Disk, the Army's failed intelligence system - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/article/nsa-leak-inscom-exposes-red-disk-intelligence-system/ <comment><USER2> God damn fucking loud autoplay audio warning. Motherfuckers.</comment>


6.4 trillion liters of urine may become viable biofuel - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/researchers-attempt-to-turn-6-4-trillion-liters-of-urine-into-viable-biofuel-20111110/ <comment><USER2> I can't read the actual paper, so I don't know what the bacteria is eating - pretty much the only thing in any quantity in urine is urea (and urea is more valuable as fertilizer).

But I will point out that if you have sugar in your urine that is a severe health problem called Diabetes mellitus. Mellitus means sweet, specifically sweet urine which was how Diabetes was originally diagnosed.

<comment><USER3> Reading the actual paper now. Important bits:

 _The composition of excreted normal human urine, is:4 urea 6–18 g day−1, uric acid 1.8 g day−1, creatinine 0.5–0.8 g day−1, amino acids 0.12 g day−1 and peptides 0.5 g day−1. Variable amounts of lactic acid, citric acid, bilirubin and porphyrins, ketone bodies (aceto-acetic acid; β-hydroxybutyrate; acetone), and small amounts of hexose (glucose) and pentose (arabinose) sugars may also be present in normal urine. When considering the bio-available organic content of excreted urine, compounds such as urea and uric acid are not included, since they cannot be utilised as carbon-energy (C/E) sources by the microbial community inside an MFC. In total, the dry weight content of metabolisable organic substrates, within excreted urine, was estimated to be 0.78 g/human/day.4 Due to the insignificant amount of lipid in urine, this has also been ignored. Therefore, the mean calorific value of 1 g of carbohydrates, peptides, proteins or amino-acids (as metabolisable substrates within urine) has been estimated to be 2.08 kcal_

Which, if I'm reading it correctly, means you can extract 1.62 kCal of energy per day from your urine (assuming 100% efficiency).

This is not a lot. Even if you collected all the urine from a city of one million people, it would be roughly 80 kilowatts.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for reading it! It would take a lot more than 80 kilowatts to even collect that much urine, much less actually do anything with it.

This is such a non starter I wonder why they even thought about it for longer than it took to lookup the composition of urine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It just seems like there wasn't much critical thinking in this article. It doesn't give us an idea of the real magnitude of the potential energy that could be produced this way. For example, "6.4 trillion liters" is just a headline grabber (and an effective one), but if it only produces a trivial amount of energy, who cares?

It also doesn't mention that there are useful alternatives that may be more economically worthwhile for waste (see the other comments here).

</comment><comment><USER5> The url craps out on my iPad so... Meh. And what the other poster said ... It's hard to imagine urine being a better fuel than it is fertilizer.</comment>


Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985) - <AUTHOR> http://reprints.longform.org/playboy-interview-steve-jobs <comment><USER5> People talk about CEOs with "vision", and usually it's a substitute for a more concrete explanation of what the value-add of non-technical upper management is.

Reading this exchange is fascinating. Jobs doesn't spell out the future - <USER2> doesn't know it either - but he has an unwavering faith that computers will be central to it, and can even quite effectively explain how and why. The interviewer seems in retrospect hopelessly naive, but he no doubt represented the mainstream opinion of the time. For Jobs to understand this and bet his career on it (remember, most people betting their careers on computers would have been able to find work even if they had never left the science lab or big corporations - Jobs was speculating on a completely different future) shows, I think, that he deserves the place and high-regard in technological history he has been given.

<comment><USER6> "Jobs: The most compelling reason for most people to buy a computer for the home will be to link it into a nationwide communications network. We're just in the beginning stages of what will be a truly remarkable breakthrough for most people—as remarkable as the telephone."

Steve saw the internet coming in 1985. Wow.

<comment><USER7> _> Steve saw the internet coming in 1985. Wow. _

This will probably blow your mind:

[https://youtu.be/Ao9X1GsUPys?t=125](https://youtu.be/Ao9X1GsUPys?t=125)

1988 presentation where Alan Kay confidently predicts media-driven websites that became the norm only around 2010. He also talks about virtual reality and real-time 3d graphics.

We _still_ haven't caught up with his vision for exploratory interactive computing and user-driven simulations.

The fact that computers can/will/should be networked and also used for interactive collaboration rather than just raw number crunching was evident to some people as far as 1962. Maybe even earlier.

[http://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/138/](http://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/138/)

Augmenting Human Intellect is not an easy read, but it is well worth it, and not just as a matter of historic curiosity.

<comment><USER8> > [https://youtu.be/Ao9X1GsUPys?t=125](https://youtu.be/Ao9X1GsUPys?t=125) > > 1988 presentation where Alan Kay [...]

I'm getting no sound throughout the whole video, and youtube lists it as having music from a particular Debussy recording, which is then also unavailable ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhogGOTnT9I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhogGOTnT9I))

Muting the sound is the usual response to streams and videos that plays audio that someone claims to own the rights to. Is this another casualty to how easy youtube makes it for copyright trolls (or people indistinguishable to copyright trolls)?

<comment><USER7> It plays fine for me, but it does have a 3D demo with some classical music at the end, so maybe YouTube disabled sound based on your location.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love the analogy between early command-line computer interfaces and the telegraph, versus graphical computer interfaces and the telephone.

It's also funny to that when he elaborates on this by saying we prefer not to describe where something is but just point to it, he did so with his finger. Of course in context he meant on a computer it's better to point with a mouse than enter commands, but it so nicely foreshadows his intuitive embrace of touch interfaces decades later.

<comment> globular-toast I don't agree with the analogy. Telephones derive their power from the use of language just like command-line interfaces. Point and click interfaces will never surpass the power of language because it is language that makes us human.

<comment><USER9> You're completely missing the point. Language is about an awful lot more than words, it's about expressiveness and emotional content as well as just textual information. He talked about telephones letting people sing - <USER3> themselves though voice beyond mere words.

A command line interface isn't a great medium for singing, but graphical interfaces enabled sophisticated music production software, desktop publishing using beautiful fonts and images (examples he used). It enables expressiveness beyond what can be captured in mere text. But it can do plain text just fine too.

But the main point he made was not that these things can't be done using a command line, it's that a graphical interface democratises access by removing the need to learn special incantations to interact creatively with content.

<comment><USER10> Your examples are not very convincing. Desktop publishing powers tabloids while a great book remains a great book even in pure text format. Expressiveness is not limited to a medium, and if you ever used a command line interface you would understand the concept it pipes and arguments is way more expressive than a round of 100 clicks to do the same thing thru a GUI.

GUI do democratise access to capabilities, but unless you work only with pixels GUIs are inferior in every single way.

<comment><USER9> "If you ever used a command lien interface".

That's a good one, I've been using Unix/Linux systems daily since the early 90s and test people on their Bash skills in job interviews.

<comment><USER11> "Command lien interface" \- a modality of interaction in which the empowered party (lienor) exerts control over someone with valuable property (lienee) via commands backed by a ephemeral interface that does not need to exist at compile time (lien), but is practical for eliminating bugs that arise from causality in economic systems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So it's right there in 1985 (emphasis mine):

"Jobs: That's inevitably what happens. That's why I think _death is the most wonderful invention of life. It purges the system of these old models that are obsolete._ " (He was speaking about the computer hardware).

20 years later "2005 Stanford Commencement Address":

[https://singjupost.com/steve-jobs-2005-stanford- commencement...](https://singjupost.com/steve-jobs-2005-stanford-commencement- address-full-transcript/?singlepage=1)

"About a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. (...) Having lived through it, I can now say this to you with a bit more certainty than when death was a useful but purely intellectual concept: No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because _Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new._

Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.

Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary."

There is also a coda: in 2010, at D8 conference (Jobs died 2011), Jobs got a question:

"Q: A few years ago you gave a preparation speech at Stanford (...) Now few years later and a couple of years wiser would you add anything to that speech?"

"Jobs: Oh, I have no idea. Probably I would have just turned out the volume on it because the last few years have reminded me that life is fragile."

(Or was it "turn up"? Do we hear what we want to hear there? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5f8bqYYwps&t=4400](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5f8bqYYwps&t=4400) )

<comment><USER13> Definitely sounds like "turn up" to me. Plus "turn out the volume" isn't idiomatic in Standard American English.

<comment><USER12> > "turn out the volume" isn't idiomatic

Indeed, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > The famous story about the boxes is when Woz called the Vatican and told > them he was Henry Kissinger. They had someone going to wake the Pope up in > the middle of the night before they figured out it wasn't really Kissinger.

These were really different times.

<comment><USER15> [https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/10/lindsey-graham- trum...](https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/10/lindsey-graham-trump-hoax- call-043991)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This interview offers so many insights, it's unbelievable.

Who are some visionaries/ industry leaders that have this kind Realistic future insight that are worth paying attention to?

<comment><USER17> Elon Musk. How many companies has he created or is running? Zip2, PayPal, SpaceX (a rocket company? that takes guts), Tesla (a new car company to compete against GM, Ford, Mercedes, BMW etc? that's nuts!), SolarCity, The Boring Company. And now he is promising self-driving cars by next year. (That's nuts!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Jobs: When I went to school, it was right after the Sixties and before this general wave of practical purposefulness had set in. Now students aren't even thinking in idealistic terms, or at least nowhere near as much. They certainly are not letting any of the philosophical issues of the day take up too much of their time as they study their business majors. The idealistic wind of the Sixties was still at our backs, though, and most of the people I know who are my age have that engrained in them forever."

This was pretty striking for me, the goal of becoming rich, or being 'a millionaire' has been pounded into me from a young age to the point where I have difficulty picturing myself obtaining any kind of happiness without some level of financial success. Hopefully the current generations can find fulfillment in different areas. Tying happiness to money is kind of a cruel road to send entire generations down.

</comment><comment><USER19> Playboy: That's what critics charge you with: hooking the enthusiasts with premium prices, then turning around and lowering your prices to catch the rest of the market.

Seems like old tricks are the best tricks, eh?

<comment><USER10> Apple was pretty much always premium though. Way more expensive than equivalent hardware.

<comment><USER20> Price wasn't the main driver, either. Dealer network mattered a LOT.

Lots of kids who grew up away from larger cities ended up with computers from Radio Shack, because they were EVERYWHERE, while Apple or Commodore dealers were harder to find.

But I'm still curious, because I don't remember: How did (e.g.) Apple II pricing compare to equivalent-ish, contemporaneous models from Commodore or Tandy?

<comment><USER21> _How did (e.g.) Apple II pricing compare to equivalent-ish, contemporaneous models from Commodore or Tandy?_

Apple ][: $1,298

Commodore PET: $795

Tandy TRS-80: $600

At these prices, in 1977, only the Apple had color graphics.

<comment><USER22> I was one of the young kids (age 15) who saved up and bought a TRS-80 in 1979. Apple IIe was definitely better, but more expensive. PET was a bit of an odd bird, with chiclet square calculator keys and built in small monitor, no real keyboard. Apple II was the only one that was color, and if I recall it had bitmapped graphics with 256 x 192 resolution. TRS-80 had crude 48 x 128 graphics. My school had an Apple II for use by some science students, and I did some fooling around on it. It was definitely much nicer. But TRS-80 was mostly a tool to learn about computers; somehow I scrounged up resources (probably guided by magazines), got a CPU manual, and did some simple Z80 machine language programming, later got an assembler.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> RIP, Steve. I have ached since he died not only for the loss of what he was, but also for the loss of what could have been. Whatever your view of Apple now, I feel strongly that it is a fraction of what it would have been if Steve had been able to continue on for another 10 years.

</comment><comment><USER24> Tech revolutions are often ushered in by people in their early 20s one pop economist noted. That is when they have some education, lots of energy and few family responsibilities. The PC revolution was by people born in the mid 1950s, dot.com by mid 1970s, mobile by early 1990s ...

<comment><USER25> Wars have also fought by that same age group since the beginning of time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> 1985 haha, that's when I was born!

When I grew up, I had the feeling computers weren't much of a thing in private.

Sure, I had a C64 when I got 8 years old and my first PC with 11, but until I got my PC I knew basically nobody in any age group that had a computer.

To me, the dream Jobs had, that anyone had a computer, became reality end of the 90 and beginning of the 00.

Which is kinda funny. The time everyone really had a computer at home probably didn't even last more than 10 years when it was superseeded by smartphones.

Life is very crazy in retrospect...

I remember talking to some friends at school when I was 16. They told me I should become an administrator and not a developer, because everything we need is already developed. They had games, videos, mp3s what more was there?

<comment><USER20> "Sure, I had a C64 when I got 8 years old and my first PC with 11, but until I got my PC I knew basically nobody in any age group that had a computer."

Wild. Where did you grow up?

I ask because I was born in 1970, and by the time I got a computer (a TRS-80 Color Computer 2; 16K of RAM, baby!) in about 1982, I was far from the first kid I knew to have one (though I definitely was on the leading edge). I wrote all my high school papers on it, and by the time I graduated in 1988 I'd say at least half the papers being turned in had those tell-tale rough edges from tractor-feed paper run through dot-matrix printers. By then, several friends had moved up from CoCo/C64/Apple II style machines to PCs (or, in one case, an early Mac).

My family was firmly middle/upper-middle class, but we were in a very poor state (Mississippi).

Now, most of these were household computers, shared by everyone in the house, but still: the upshot was "lots of PC penetration in homes in south Mississippi by 1988."

<comment><USER27> AFAIK the US got computers earlier than most places, even other First World countries. Large disposable incomes and a large, relatively homogeneous market. My family were middle class (teachers) in the UK, and moderately early adopters; we still only got our first PC in the mid-90s.

<comment><USER20> I guess I knew that. UK also had some pre-PC home computers that were homegrown, right? Acorn, et. al.?

<comment><USER28> The UK seemed to have all of the good stuff in spades. I wouldn't be surprised if a larger percentage of people had computers at home in the UK than the US in the 80's, so much software and hardware was made there, lots of publications like Amiga Format and Commodore User. When you look at the total market the US probably was bigger back then and probably nothing would compare to larger hubs like SV, NY or even Seattle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > Then there was the time Wozniak made something that looked and sounded like > a bomb and took it to the school cafeteria.

Oh my. That's funny.

<comment><USER10> In 2019 that would have ended with a SWAT team guns blazing.

<comment><USER30> And, if not death, prison time for the 'prankster.'

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> >> When you're a carpenter making a beautiful chest of drawers, you're not going to use a piece of plywood on the back, even though it faces the wall and nobody will ever see it. You'll know it's there, so you're going to use a beautiful piece of wood on the back. For you to sleep well at night, the aesthetic, the quality, has to be carried all the way through.

Ironically, the first US IKEA store opened in June that same year.

</comment><comment><USER32> I really enjoyed description of an environment where Jobs grew up. Now kids see electronics only as a screen of smartphone or tablet. No space for technical creativity unless your parents are doing something in this domain. Selling printed circuit board in European Union is a great adventure taking care of CE and WEEE even for experienced adult.

<comment><USER33> It is kind of annoying that there's a two tier market: as a consumer, you can buy all sorts of extremely cheap nifty boards to connect to the Arduino, by having them posted from China to circumvent all the rules. But you can't circumvent the rules yourself.

(Well, you can, the enforcement is pretty adhoc, but there is still a nonzero chance of getting spotted and fined and they can actually collect against you in the EU)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I used to buy the magazine for the articles - <USER4>

<comment><USER35> Not gonna lie. Bought for the pics, stayed for the articles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> A jerk, but a visionary jerk.

<comment><USER19> You say jerk, I love the fact he's honest, unfiltered, and usually dead right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> What's really cute is how Jobs expresses contempt for money, for being a millionaire, praising the Sixties idealism (needless to say, the very spirit of the beginning of internet) at the same time he builds up the most closed, proprietary-obsessed company possible.

</comment><comment><USER38> In the interview at the end Jobs says he loves Sushi. What's the deal here? I thought he only ate fruit or at least certainly not meat/fish. Can someone explain?

<comment><USER39> Eating sushi wasn't something normal people in the US did in 1985. It was a bit of a class marker that he was sophisticated and did crazy things.

I realize that sushi is pretty commonplace now but in 1985, for white Americans it was probably the craziest thing you could think of doing. It really freaked people out. Raw fish?

<comment><USER40> Not so much "crazy" because it was in multiple places in my suburban location at that time. The 'Claire' character of "The Breakfast Club" movie of 1985, brought sushi in (what I remember to be) a bento box with her and I only read her as spoiled, not crazy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> It really saddens me that the Apple I read here is an Apple that would be saddened by the Apple of today</comment>


A Longing for the Lost Landline - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/opinion/landine-phone.html <comment><USER2> Landlines were in the news in Finland recently as Telia (one of the large carriers) disconnected their last landline subscriber connections a few days ago (Finnish): [https://www.telia.fi/telia- yrityksena/medialle/epress?articl...](https://www.telia.fi/telia- yrityksena/medialle/epress?articleId=eab8509e-7629-4bed-a6f1-64c228df4b4d)

The closing of Telia landlines was announced a year ago when approx. 6000 subscribers remained nationwide.

Apparently there are still almost 100k consumer landline subscriptions on other carriers, though. The peak was in 1997 with 2.7M total subscribers. (Finland's population is 5.5M).

Most carriers haven't sold new subscriptions in years, and the prices continue increasing on existing plans as subscriptions dwindle - they are nowadays much more expensive than mobile plans (e.g. Elisa English pricing: [https://elisa.fi/attachment/content/Elisa_Lankapuhelin_hinna...](https://elisa.fi/attachment/content/Elisa_Lankapuhelin_hinnasto_0110_2018_EN.pdf)).

</comment><comment><USER3> There's a much more practical problem with landlines going away - VoIP needs external power to work. With PG&E power outages, cell and VoIP service was largely gone. Having a copper line is a safety concern in such situations.

<comment><USER4> Yup, this combined with a guarantee of service for emergencies makes landlines irreplaceable for some people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What I miss about the landline is the quality of voice compared to cell phones. The latter always sounded tinny to me. It's only just now getting better with stuff like FaceTime audio.</comment>


How Amazon Web Services Uses Formal Methods (2015) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.cslab.pepperdine.edu/warford/math221/How-Amazon-Web-Services-Uses-Formal-Methods.pdf <comment><USER2> One of the teams I worked for in AWS used TLA+ on a new back-end feature that was added. It was one that, if things went wrong, would be extremely bad for customers. The needs for operating on scale only added to the necessary complexity. Paranoia was key.

They'd estimated something like an optimistic 4 months for the work.

Two of the more senior developers were assigned the task, and they had to learn TLA+ and formal methods from scratch. (one dev's main complaint was that he was forced to use Eclipse, I don't know if integration has now happened with other IDEs since then).

It took a little bit for them to get up to speed, but they were soon implementing and catching bugs in the proposed designs, and they had all the bugs ironed out within a few weeks.

They then found that going from TLA+ to actual Java code was almost a "fill in the blanks" exercise. The formal model provided almost the exact structure they needed for their final code. Going from model to code took them very little time at all. It was in production, running in shadow mode after not even 2 months, and was fully live not long afterwards.

TLA+ got subsequently used for a number of other features added to the platform.

There had been general push back among developers that learning TLA+ and doing formal verification was only going to slow them down, but we found it was quite to the opposite. TLA+ actually sped up development, with the big bonus of higher confidence of correctness.

<comment><USER3> How do you believe using TLA+ compares to the "rich static typing" systems that pump up the valuations of Scala and Haskell?

<comment><USER4> Not very comparable. TLA+ involves writing statements in a custom "logic" which adds modalities (i.e. monads) to support 'time' (or rather, state transitions in discrete steps, ala temporal logic) and non-determinism (which is reused to support refinement) to standard propositional logic.

Nothing like this can be done in a standard programming language (even Scala or Haskell), and even in a dependently-typed language you would need to write some support code in order to embed this logic and work with it within the system. (It wouldn't be _hard_ for sure, since even FOL gives you far more power than any (multi-)modal logic, but it's a different, perhaps more elegant take on things than just working directly within TLA).

<comment><USER3> Thanks for your response.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bryon Cook, a principal scientist at Automated Reasoning Group gives an overview of various solvers in-use today at AWS: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKqVY0SSbus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKqVY0SSbus)

Here's a presentation by Eric, a distinguished engineer, and Neha, a principal engineer, on analysing IAM policies (Zelkova?) and Network reachability (Tiros?): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6wsTFnU3eY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6wsTFnU3eY)

This webpage has many more links to blog articles on the topic: [https://aws.amazon.com/security/provable- security/](https://aws.amazon.com/security/provable-security/)

<comment><USER6> Yes, since we published this (I'm one of the authors), the Automated Reasoning Group have done amazing work applying formal methods to a broad range of problems at AWS. We're also still using TLA+ in many places for the reasons the paper describes.

One aspect of TLA+ (and formal specifications in general) that I under appreciated when we wrote this was how useful they are as a communication tool. I've found well-commented TLA+ to be an excellent medium for reviewing and documenting protocols, and having high-bandwidth conversations about them. Complex protocol interactions can be hard to describe clearly in text, but the mix of text and TLA+ (or PlusCal) seems to work well.

<comment><USER7> Does your team hire PhDs with formal verification backgrounds? If so, what is the interview process like? Do you make them go through the standard leetcode type interviews?

<comment><USER8> Side note - did you do a PhD in formal verification? I'd love to hear more about it? I am _seriously_ considering it myself.

<comment><USER7> I have not, but like you am considering getting a PhD in this area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Questions I wondered about that weren't answered until the end of the paper:

Q: Do engineers actually implement AWS systems in TLA+? A: No, TLA+ is called "exhaustively testable pseudo-code" internally, and is only used for designs.

Q: Which AWS systems use it? A: The first was DynamoDB, followed by S3, and now there are 8 additional complex systems that use it for designs.

Q: Who uses TLA+ at Amazon? A: All engineers, from entry level to principal.

I thought it was especially interesting that several engineers at AWS were effectively writing their own model checkers by writing programs that tried to brute force rare combinations of conditions that would lead to system failure. Obviously TLA+ does this better and faster so they switched to that.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for the useful summary.

> All engineers, from entry level to principal.

I'd phrase that as "some engineers of all levels". It's certainly not true that all engineers at AWS use TLA+ :)

<comment><USER9> Yes, thanks for the correction!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've started using TLA+ in my spare time. There are several good sites and books to learn more about it:

\- [https://learntla.com/introduction/](https://learntla.com/introduction/)

\- Pracitcal TLA+

It's much easier to get running with than other formal methods tools like Isabelle and Coq.

<comment><USER6> Practical TLA+ is indeed a great place to start, and Hillel Wayne's writing out formal methods is all worth reading.

Lamport's TLA+ book, and "Specifying Systems" are both available online ([https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/book.html](https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/book.html)). That one's worth a read too. Lamport's approach to teaching TLA+ is different, and probably more suited to the mathematically-inclined.

If you like spelunking through history, I'd also recommend checking out some of Lamport's papers on TLA. I particularly like "What Good is Temporal Logic?" which lays out his early arguments about why temporal logic is useful for solving some classes of problems. The paper is available here: [https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/research/uploads/prod/2016/1...](https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/research/uploads/prod/2016/12/What-Good-Is-Temporal-Logic.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> A thread from 2014, presumably pre-publication:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8096185](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8096185)

A bit more: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9289890](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9289890)

Related from 2015: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9287426](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9287426)

</comment><comment><USER11> Does anyone have resources that talk about writing a TLA+ model for an existing software system as opposed to designing a new system using TLA+ as the design reference?

<comment><USER12> Check out Marianne Bellotti's work. She recently gave a talk at Strange Loop on writing specifications of existing systems: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMSmkRGzQ64](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMSmkRGzQ64)

<comment><USER11> Thank you! I will check this out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I introduced TLA+ to help understand underlying components in the OpenStack ecosystem and at small companies to solve thorny problems. It's well worth learning as it gives you a very different perspective on the design and construction of systems.

In addition to the books and sites mentioned here, there's also a video course with tutorial content produced by the creatore of TLA+: [https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/video/videos.html](https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/video/videos.html)

<comment><USER8> Hey! It sounds like you're using TLA+ in a consulting style role within small companies? How did you manage to get into that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> How do you go from something like TLA+ to a common language and keep the correctness? Are assertions the only way?

</comment><comment><USER15> One thing I'm wondering is whether (or rather, what kind of) bugs arise when you try to translate a model (described as "exhaustively tested pseudocode" elsewhere in this thread) into a real system. For example, if there is if- branch somewhere that gets missed etc?

<comment><USER16> I am the engineer who translated [https://github.com/tlaplus/tlaplus/blob/master/tlatools/src/...](https://github.com/tlaplus/tlaplus/blob/master/tlatools/src/tlc2/tool/fp/OpenAddressing.tla) into Java ([https://github.com/tlaplus/tlaplus/blob/master/tlatools/src/...](https://github.com/tlaplus/tlaplus/blob/master/tlatools/src/tlc2/tool/fp/OffHeapDiskFPSet.java)). The translation took me about half a day. Later, while running scalability experiments, a correctness bug intermittently showed up, on which I spent approximately two weeks to find the root cause. The two weeks included fixing around a dozen bugs in code that was not specified in TLA+. However, none of these bugs were correctness bugs and unrelated to the correctness bug. Eventually, I translated the TLA+ spec into input for Java Pathfinder, which found the cause of the correctness bug immediately: The Java translation contained an off-by-one bug in a for loops (TLA+ is one-indexed while Java is zero-indexed). I am still convinced that a code review would have found the bug and that JPF was a very heavyweight substitute for a fresh pair of eyes. In other words, the bugs that get introduced during the translation phase are shallow and easily corrected.

Note that no other bugs have been reported for the code since.</comment></comment>


Ultrasound Ages Liquor Two Years in Just Three Days - <AUTHOR> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/ultrasound-ages-liquor-two-years-in-just-three-days/ <comment><USER2> Incidentally, I have been doing this for making bitters for years. I have an ultrasonic cleaner and I fill it with a warm water. Then I put liquor and flavorings in a jar - sometimes grain alcohol, sometimes 151, sometimes strong bourbon, depending on the intended result - and hit it with ultrasound for about 30 minutes at 100F. I make about 2-3 fluid ounces at a time and it works great. Not sure I'd call it (Aging), but it certainly does infuse things well. for certain things, like fresh rosemary, you can see the oils separating from the leaves as soon as the ultrasonic starts. it is nearly instantaneous.

I suspect that the time is a function of surface area. If instead of wood chips they used shavings, I'd bet that they could take the time down even further.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for sharing this; do you happen to have any guides or blogposts on the subject handy?

<comment><USER2> I don't, other than to say that experimentation is easy - I bought my ultrasonic off of eBay. (bigger is better), makes the device more useful.

I use small spice jars for making my batches, and woody things last longer than squishy ones. i.e. orange rind dried is lasts longer than orange rind fresh. However, fresh orange rind gives a different taste and is cool if you're doing a cocktail night, or something. You can do things that you can't do any other way like this.

Cloves, Sassafras root, ginger, juniper berries, rosemary, lavender, sage. All have great effect.

Also, Ultrasonic makes EXCELLENT sangria. This is the only way to do sangria, IMO.

You can either use bitters to add to sangria, or just put wine and other things directly into the ultrasonic and infuse that way. It works great with herbs. For fruits, you should really just use the juice or crush them with a mortar and pestle. Any fruit soaking in the sangria is purely for show. IMO, all sangria should have sage in it. Sassafras in small quantities makes cheap red wine taste about 2 shelves better. YMMV.

<comment><USER4> Can you share the instructions and ingredients for your sangria?

Also, you said bigger is better. What size/volume would you recommend?

Is there any brand of ultrasonic cleaner that is most recommended or are they basically all the same?

<comment><USER2> If I were doing it again, I'd get one of these: [http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-6L-Ultrasonic-Cleaner- Stainless-...](http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-6L-Ultrasonic-Cleaner-Stainless- Steel-Industry-Heated-Heater-w- Timer-/252186235237?hash=item3ab7789165:g:J-cAAOSwImRYY0u0)

I have a 1.5L one now and it is constantly too small for my jobs. I'd like to see how it does at vacuum sealed meat, prior to sous vide, also.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This reminds me of some of the goofy aging snake-oil techniques that audiophile-type guitarists try on their guitars. Putting them in vibrating jigs and stuff. That said, if there's a way to significantly tighten / age / enhance the density or resonance of wood using some kind of technique, that's pretty awesome. Then drink aged liquor before playing on aged guitar. Win-win.

<comment><USER6> Sounds like a market opportunity: pre-distressed guitars to go with your pre- distressed jeans. :P

<comment> compiler-guy Pre-distressed guitars are sold all the time as "relics". Both Fender and Gibson do it. Their custom shop will relic them to match a particularly famous one or generally.

I would link to a source, but they are all pretty much just advertisements. Your favorite search engine could find them.

<comment><USER7> Here's one, just for the sake of completeness:

[http://www.fendercustomshop.com/series/artist/jaco- pastorius...](http://www.fendercustomshop.com/series/artist/jaco-pastorius- tribute-jazz-bass-rosewood-fingerboard-3-color-sunburst/)

I'm guessing it won't make me play like Jaco. ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wonder if thats part of the process that is used in the Lost Spirits Distillery uses: [https://www.wired.com/2015/04/lost- spirits/](https://www.wired.com/2015/04/lost-spirits/)

Disclaimer: I've purchased some of their Navy Strength rum, and it was incredible. Aging liquor may become a thing of the past.

<comment><USER9> How sweet was said rum? I'm a big fan of Anejos in general though some of them are a bit too sweet for my tastes.

<comment><USER8> It was kinda sweet? It was also cask strength so like 62% - pretty hot so it balanced nicely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm curious, it doesn't mention anything about oxidisation, which I thought was pretty important in ageing in casks and I think may be hard to emulate.

Edit: It does mention about acetic acid increasing though interestingly.

According to wikipedia "Ethanol can be oxidized to acetaldehyde and further oxidized to acetic acid", so I'd be interested to know more about how it is formed in this case.

It does seem like there are lots of other by-products of oxidation though:

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23143031_Isolation_...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23143031_Isolation_and_Structure_of_Whiskey_Polyphenols_Produced_by_Oxidation_of_Oak_Wood_Ellagitannins)

<comment><USER11> Incidentally, ethanol > acetaldehyde > acetic acid is precisely the way the human body metabolizes alcohol in the liver.

<comment><USER10> Interesting! I didn't know that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Also good for drying clothes efficiently[0], with the unfortunate side effect of also weakening and undoing the seams...

[0] [http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/21/technology/ultrasonic- dryer/](http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/21/technology/ultrasonic-dryer/)

</comment><comment><USER13> This reminds me of something I encountered when I used to work in a wine store, which was a sort of copper wand that you would place in a glass of wine and it would "age" the wine. At first I assumed this was snake oil bullshit, but after some research, it turned out there was actually a well documented reaction whereby (IIRC) copper catalyzes the conversion of alcohols into certain ketones and aldehydes, mimicking part of the natural oxidation process.

<comment><USER14> If you really care about fine nuances of taste, drinking almost anything from metal cups has pretty clear effects. Not aluminum, but things like brass or even various iron alloys. Especially if the drink is slightly acidic.

Regular "food" and "drinks" tend to be pretty complex chemical cocktails, so no wonder they have strange reactions with anything even remotely inclined to react chemically.

Now I wonder if the taste of the original Turkish coffee is related in small part to the usage of tiny copper pots for making it.

<comment><USER15> Yes this is typically why European foods are thought to be less acidic in taste, the issue was the pewter dinnerware of the aristocracy. Tomatoes were blamed for a while, but all acids will allow the leaching out of lead from the pewter into the food and then usually death followed. Romans actually used this technique to sweeten foods and usually wine. To extend this to the use of general metal ware is straightforward. Though not lead, necessarily, I am sure that heated/acidic drinks will do something to the food taste, and maybe not just via leaching. Egg white, whipped in a copper bowl, will stand up much longer and are more satin-y than in other bowls. It would be most interesting to compare the different metals and choose the ones that most exemplify the desired results; hopefully not lead poisoning though.

[http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-the-tomato- wa...](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-the-tomato-was-feared- in-europe-for-more-than-200-years-863735/)

[http://io9.gizmodo.com/5877587/the-first-artificial- sweetene...](http://io9.gizmodo.com/5877587/the-first-artificial-sweetener- poisoned-lots-of-romans)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Not sure if the tech is the same but Cleveland Whiskey does something similar and is already on the market. Disclaimer: I invested through YC company Wefunder.

<comment><USER17> This looks different from Cleveland Whiskey. Cleveland accelerates aging by use of high pressure [1].

The technique reported in the NPR article uses ultrasound, apparently at ordinary pressure. The original journal article (pdf) is open sourced at [2].

[1] [https://www.thrillist.com/drink/nation/the-pressure-aged- cle...](https://www.thrillist.com/drink/nation/the-pressure-aged-cleveland- whiskey-taste-test)

[2] [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1350417716...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1350417716304187)

<comment><USER18> So to extrapolate: ultrasound under high pressure and age in 30 minutes.

<comment><USER19> I'm not sure they would go that well together; high pressure inhibits cavitation, I'm pretty sure, and cavitation is the primary mechanism by which the ultrasound method extracts the various compounds from the wood. Maybe if you used higher energy ultrasound?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Relativity Whiskey is doing a similar thing (not the same process, just speed- aging): [https://www.relativity-whiskey.com](https://www.relativity- whiskey.com)

I've had it, and it's very convincing. I'm not an expert by any means, but I doubt I would be able to tell it apart from truly aged whiskey.

<comment><USER15> Stranahan's did the same thing for a while when they were first starting out too. For me, it tasted kinda 'egg-y' and I hated it. Now that they have been out for a few years, their whiskeys are lot better. Something is lost in that 'accelerated' process that makes it taste not so good to me at least.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The TV show Moonshiners has been dealing with accelerated aging processes recently. The method used by a pair of the moonshiners was to highly electrically charge charred wood immersed in the alcohol.

At least according to the show, the two "inventors" had a patent on their method. They were allegedly getting two years of aging in two days.

</comment><comment><USER22> Hey, maybe this can cut my liquor budget in half!

<comment><USER23> Or you can buy twice as much!

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The question is: does it work on cheese?

<comment><USER19> I wouldn't imagine so. The mechanism of action for spirits here is that the ultrasound extracts the various flavor compounds from the wood much quicker than it normally takes the alcohol solution to without ultrasound. But aged cheese's flavor mostly comes from the action of mold and/or bacteria chemically altering the cheese. I can't imagine that blasting ultrasound into the cheese would accelerate this process, sadly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I could have 100 year old scotch in just 150 days? Hoorah!!!

Oh, wait. This is just based on subjective taste? Well, everyone knows that people, in general, don't have any...

<comment><USER26> What advantage would 100 year old scotch have besides subjective taste?

<comment><USER25> That's what makes it a joke, right? Ah, the cleverness that goes over people's heads...

<comment><USER26> Oh, is that what that wooshing sound was?

<comment><USER27> Probably. You can fix that by standing taller though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Maybe this could be marketed as "Yeller Liquor"...

</comment><comment><USER29> But can we age babies this way? Or... are we already?

<comment><USER30> There are no studies showing this process to have any effect on human tissue or blood.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> If this had been a conclusion reached as a result of careful analysis, then I'd be interested. Relying on people to taste-test a difference is just a broadly pointless exercise I think, and doesn't really prove the conclusion the headline is selling.

<comment><USER26> Since good taste is the goal, how else would you evaluate the results? As long as the taste testing was carried out properly (i.e. blinded, randomized), it's fine.</comment></comment>


The Joy of The Joy of Clojure Closure - <AUTHOR> http://blog.fogus.me/2011/03/07/the-joy-of-the-joy-of-clojure/ <comment><USER2> Can't help but be reminded of [http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/03/why-why- functional-progr...](http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/03/why-why-functional- programming-matters.html)

Congrats on the job with Relevance, they seem like a great company :)

<comment><AUTHOR> > Can't help but be reminded...

That's what I was shooting for. :-)

<comment><USER3> You appear to have overshot the target, this book looks _better_ than anything I've written. Nice work!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is there any meaningful way I can buy this book in the UK? I'm fine paying $45 for the book + eBook + MEAP, but I refuse on principle to pay $13 for international untracked surface shipping when Amazon will send it to me for free, tracked (but I can't seem to get the eBook through them).

EDIT: "Buy it" in the sense of getting the eBook now and the paper-version eventually.

</comment><comment><USER5> Hopefully this means that a new PDF is being released soon. The book is great, but I've been disappointed with Manning's early access program. The last update was released in August 2010. Then we jump to March 2011, where we still don't have an update from the publisher.

Apparently I've been spoiled by the frequency of updates from PragProg.

<comment><USER6> Agreed. I bought the MEAP for "Joy of Clojure" in August 2010, and the MEAP for "Taming Text" a couple of months later (November) -- no updates for either book since the initial purchase. I was glad to get the early content, but I've lowered my expectations for future dealings with Manning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Congrats to both of you. I'm still waiting on my hardcopy to read this from cover to cover. If the beta is any indicator, this is going to be a really compelling read.

Any idea when the MEAP orders should start shipping?

<comment><USER8> Yeah, I've been kinda-on-off reading the MEAP PDF, but can't wait to get a print copy to really dig into it.

<comment><USER6> In his post he says that "the paperback will be bound and available sometime in mid-March to book retailers," so I'd assume it will arrive within the next couple of weeks at the latest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Having read the betas, I can't recommend this book strongly enough to people wanting to master Clojure. The authors really know their stuff.

</comment><comment><USER10> This morning I was thinking about writing a tweet why the book is still not available in a dead-wood fashion, because I don't really like reading ebooks/PDFs (I preordered the book as pdf and print version through MEAP). But then it came to me that such a tweet will not speed up the process in any way. So I skipped it...

Nice to see this post now :)

</comment><comment><USER11> I really wish they had picked another cover, though. I know that all these characters are just there to give the various books some sort of identity (like O'Reilly does with animals), but I don't really enjoy seeing a dirty homeless drunkard on top of my favorite Clojure book/ebook.

I'll probably figure out some way to alter the book to avoid being reminded of that cross-eyed Victorian chimney cleaner whenever I think of the joy of Clojure.

<comment><AUTHOR> His nickname throughout the process of writing was Jack... as in "the Ripper". Maybe that'll help dispel the chimney sweep from your mind. ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Congrat's to @fogus and @chouser - it's a wonderful book.

</comment><comment><USER13> So stoked to get this book.

I realize this comment isn't a novel or interesting insight, but I had to express just how amped I am for this to show up at my door.

There's nothing quite like the feel and smell of a new coding tome.

</comment><comment><USER14> Hmm... I pre-ordered this book over a year ago, yet there's no apparent way to change the shipping address.</comment>


After feedback, Dropbox clarified language on licensing - <AUTHOR> http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846&updated

<comment><USER2> I'm just glad they're actually actively looking at the feedback and took the time to respond to it, not once but twice. Most companies wouldn't give it a second thought.

<comment><USER3> Absolutely right; really damn solid of them. Thanks Dropbox team for listening to us internet-backseat-lawyers ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> s/clarified/fixed/

If you search the comment thread, the original wording is "we think it necessary" which should be "we think is necessary".

[http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846&updated#comment-240678381](http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846&updated#comment-240678381)

I'm surprised an editor didn't catch that.

<comment><USER5> It is a clarification, not a fix. It's only a fix for those who aren't lawyers and misunderstood the terms in the first place.

Which goes to show: make your Terms readable to non-lawyers, and you'll incur the wrath of hordes of non-lawyers around the interwebs...</comment></comment>


Ask PG: Why don't my votes count? - <AUTHOR>

I've been a HN member for 1492 days and have a karma of 1568. As best I can tell non of my posts or comments are spammy or flag worthy. Curious why my up-votes don't count? Was I accidentally flagged or blocked? <comment><USER2> Why don't you think your votes are counting? The rank algorithm for posts/comments doesn't have a straight correlation between the # of votes, and placement on the page like Stackoverflow.com or something. It takes how old the post/comment is, coupled with it's growth/momentum (i.e. how many replies/votes a comment has had in the near past), and finally the raw vote count. Couple this with the fact that you can't see how many upvotes other posts/comments have, and it's easy to see how your vote may seem to not count for anything.

Disclaimer: I don't know for sure how the algorithm works, this is just my guess from what I've seen.

<comment><AUTHOR> Because when I vote on something it's not instantly incremented (like everyone else I know) and if I return to something 30 minutes later, it still hasn't changed. It used to be in real time. It hasn't worked in 2-3 months, I figured it was caching or something. But it appears its not...

<comment><USER3> Why was the sibling comment here downvoted? Seems like a reasonable question, I was wondering the same thing?

<comment><USER4> It's incorrect, you can see vote count for articles. I don't know why it was so viciously downvoted though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't know if that is the case, but if you vote on a post, refresh the page, and it is not up by one, then you are in trouble. Try again, as Hacker News is not eventual consistent, and sometimes it doesn't record upvotes.

For comments: you can see if your upvotes are being counted by looking into the user's karma. You can't give lots of karma to one user though. After a few upvotes to a single user, the system will stop recording them. I guess this is a way to prevent karma inflation, and a group of friends cheating themselves into lots of karma.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thats exactly what happens. I vote and nothing happens. Refresh the page, no change. If it was just today I'd say no big deal. But this has been happening for at least 2 or 3 months now. I've been an active member for a long time, I'd love to continue being one...

<comment><USER6> To be clear: Does the vote arrow disappear after you click it (and stay disappeared on reloading)?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You _may_ have fallen afoul of the voting ring detection scheme.

<comment><AUTHOR> Any idea how to get reset? I'm sure I've voted on a few things for friends over the years. But I would hardly call it a voting ring.

<comment><USER7> I honestly have no idea, but I get the impression that the voting ring scheme isn't intended to be too harsh. Try giving and getting a few upvotes unrelated to your friends?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Perhaps (and take this with your grain of salt) you're voting on comments and posts that aren't actually popular with the rest of the users. If you're upvoting comments that other people ignore or downvote, then it would seem to you like your votes are always ignored since the posts and comments end up in the bottom.

Again, only a theory, I mean nothing by it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not the case. I can go upvote a brand new post thats only a minute old and my vote wont be counted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Probably your votes do count, but you don't see the results immediately because the site uses caching extensively.

</comment><comment><USER10> At least your post this time get upvoted.

We get to look into the source code to see what is really happening.

</comment><comment><USER11> Ha... I tried to Upvote this but my votes dont count either!

</comment><comment><USER12> It's because HN can only give out a certain number of votes per day before it reaches max capacity.</comment>


A few folks have asked me what I think of the news... - <AUTHOR> http://lilly.tumblr.com/post/43088488614/a-few-folks-have-asked-me-what-i-think-of-the-news

<comment><USER2> More completely:

        A few folks have asked me what I think of the news
        yesterday that Opera is moving away from their own
        technology stack to build on top of WebKit going
        forward.

For those who click on comments here before going to the article and really don't care, that may save you a few seconds.</comment>


Array initialization with enum indices in C but not C++ - <AUTHOR> http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2011/02/15/array-initialization-with-enum-indices-in-c-but-not-c/ <comment><USER2> It is unfortunate that C++ doesn't handle that syntax.

First thing I'll note...a "switch" statement implicitly defines a lookup table, and is probably the _best_ way to handle this kind of problem regardless of what the language allows.

Having said that, to do initialization on the fly in C++, one trick you can do is to write a function. The main downside is that you must add a "()" wherever the "variable" is used, instead of just a variable name.

So to continue their example, you might say:

        enum {
           PL_SIZE = 56
        };
        static const int *price_lookup() {
            static int *_ = NULL;
            if (!_) {
                _ = new int[PL_SIZE];
                _[APPLES] = 6;
                _[ORANGES] = 10;
                _[STRAWBERRIES] = 55;
            }
            return _;
        }

...and then, e.g. instead of price_lookup[i] you'd have to say price_lookup()[i]. Obviously their ARRSIZE() macro no longer works, either, hence the PL_SIZE definition.</comment>