Users are suggesting that group video chat app "Houseparty" may have been hacked - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/search <comment><AUTHOR> EDIT: I'm sorry, for some reason the link I submitted isn't working. I don't know if mods can fix it?

It should be pointing to these search results: [https://twitter.com/search?q=houseparty%20app%20hack&src=typ...](https://twitter.com/search?q=houseparty%20app%20hack&src=typed_query) — but HN seems to have altered the URL.

\---

In case you're unfamiliar: Houseparty is a social video chat app, where groups of friends (and friends-of-friends) join an impromptu and casual video hangout.

I'd never heard of Houseparty until COVID-19, but suddenly it seems like everyone's using it. I think I was able to connect with 20+ people I knew, right off the bat, after joining a couple of days ago. It's definitely gone viral with young people here in the UK.

I've found it a surprisingly fun way to socialise and hang with friends, whilst the UK is in lockdown. It has an interesting mechanic where you can add "friends of friends" to the chat — like bringing a plus-one along to a party — so it's connecting strangers in an interesting way (though not without some unintended consequences: [https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/houseparty-users- share-horror-...](https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/houseparty-users-share-horror- stories-21779631) )

I would've posted a better link than some top Twitter results, but this doesn't seem to have hit any reputable sources yet, so we just have these early warnings to go by.

<comment><USER2> I've been doing some digging for the last hour or so, haven't been able to find any reputable sources talking about it at all either.

Seems that you can longer delete your account from the app anymore, you need to email support.

No word from Life on Air Inc nor Epic Games yet either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Crazy coincidence but the day or two after I downloaded house party I found out my spotify account was compromised (emails showing logins from U.S then soon after Russia).

I've never really experienced any of my accounts in anything being hacked, and while I don't necessarily believe it's linked to HouseParty it does seem like a big coincidence</comment>


Basic income may be needed to combat robot-induced unemployment - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/basic-income-artificial-intelligence-ai-robots-automation-moshe-vardi-a6884086.html <comment><USER4> No, it's needed because forcing people to perform increasingly pointless tasks for wealthier humans in order to be granted the right to live is obscene.

Unemployment is _good_. Being poor is bad. They are only correlated because we decided that made sense in the past. It doesn't any more.

<comment><USER5> Context: I'm a big proponent of the basic income.

That said, it seems too much to say "Unemployment is good." It's hard to disentangle the effects of poverty versus unemployment, but there are pretty strong hints that having a (good) job is good for health--prolonged unemployment from solidly middle class jobs leads to depression, and people die at higher rates after retiring.

People need a purpose and outlet for their creativity, and a sense of order and direction for their lives: sitting at home all day playing video games would be disastrous, and encouraging automation (which a basic income will do) will make it even harder to get entry level positions. We've got to enable some kind of meaningful labor (market-compensated or not) that people still can engage in after the basic income is implemented.

<comment><USER6> there're two distinct senses for the word "work" that're pertinent. let's call it toil when we're given work to do, and play when we find our own work to do. in my experience, i see we're conditioned from childhood to think that toil is the normal way in which we're to make ourselves useful, or rather that it's the normal way in which we're _made_ useful. we're also conditioned to think that play is kids stuff, that it isn't serious. so play becomes stunted, not maturing past kids stuff, and toil becomes serious and responsible, when actually it's infantile.

so, you get laid off and find yourself, first of all under stress because your financial situation is uncertain, but secondly wasting away as a person and frittering you newly abundant free time playing video games. i don't think that points to your deep need to toil, to be given work to do. it's evidence of a poorly developed ability to play, that is to find work to put yourself to.

as for me, i've had a few stints of unemployment and it's improved everything in my life, except my bank account. and when i got work again, everything became worse, again, except my bank account. now, like i said, this is just my own experience, but though i _hear_ often enough that people have a real need to toil, i've never _seen_ it in my actual experience. on the other hand i can see a real human need to play, which most people are deprived of. and, of course, a need for money, which is the only tangible thing people get from their toil.

<comment><USER7> Spot on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am genuinely concerned for the millions of Americans who drive for a living. Autonomous vehicle technology is a clear and present risk to that class of work. Like the rust belt of the 80s and 90s as manufacturing moved out of the US, there will be a major shift in where people work and what kind of work they do. Many, if not most, of those affected will go through hell getting their lives sorted out again.

There are other affects of autonomous vehicles to consider. Labor is a major cost of shipping or taxiing. Accidents and the resulting repair, liability and insurance costs are expected to come down with autonomous vehicles. So the cost of just about everything we buy will come down, and we'll spend that difference elsewhere. Those 'elsewheres' will then see more employment.

What we can expect, at a macroeconomic level, is not massive national unemployment, but a transition period as the work opportunities change.

At a micro economic level, it will be very painful for millions as they go through the transition. I don't know if a basic income can make this transition smoother for the country, but it is worth studying.

<comment><USER9> 300 years ago, humans couldn't even imagine the way the planet (economy, rules etc) would work in 2015. It's natural, that this cycle will repeat itself again and again. Do not worry about drivers, there was a lot of jobs that were eliminated by time/technology and humans survived. Maybe in 2100 people will not need to work at all. This revolution is coming, it's part of evolution, stop fighting it, embrace it and learn how to live in new reality, because you can't stop it.

<comment><USER10> _300 years ago, humans couldn 't even imagine the way the planet (economy, rules etc) would work in 2015._

Except the (potentially) sweeping changes due to automation & other technologies aren't expected to happen in 300 years -- more like 5-20 years. Do you see a difference here?

 _This revolution is coming, it 's part of evolution, stop fighting it, embrace it and learn how to live in new reality,_

Do you really think your own livelihood -- and that of people close to you -- is that immune from the potential negative consequences of the "revolution"?

 _because you can 't stop it._

Not entirely. But we can _moderate_ and _regulate_ it if we wish (and we pay close attention). That's the key issue, here -- not simply "either fight it or embrace it."

<comment><USER9> _Except the (potentially) sweeping changes due..._

No, it wont be 5-20 years. What i am talking about can't be achieved in 20 years, what you will achieve is part of evolution, not revolution.

 _Do you really think your own livelihood -- and that of people close to you -- is that immune from the potential negative consequences of the "revolution"?_

Don't worry about me, i will survive natural selection.

 _Not entirely. But we can moderate and regulate it if we wish (and we pay close attention). That 's the key issue, here -- not simply "either fight it or embrace it."_

Good luck with that, seriously, you will regulate it for sure as hundreds of other things that needed to be regulated in USA and didn't because of lobbying. How do you want to regulate it ? Did you regulate wall street? How about punishing anyone after 2008? How about HFT? Did you prevented deregulation that caused world crisis? No, you didn't and you know why. What about gun control? how about hundreds others, where big players are involved? So did you do all those things that felt even more right to do than what we are talking about ? No, so please wake up and stop pretending you have any choice.

USA know that technology is the core future of economy, no one will stop it, you know why? Because USA is not the only player in the world, and if USA still want to be in top, it just can't be stopped, because others won't. It's just couple examples from thousand why you can't do anything about what's coming. Big corporations will just benefit too much from it and you will see this argument "we need AI/robots, costs are too high, or we can't compete with the rest of the world". Sorry, but you already lost this war, you just don't know it yet...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A basic income tied to GDP per capita would be interesting. If automation begins pervading every industry, the inherent improvement processes involved would lead to maximally efficient production. A basic income should be tied to the productive power of these systems, as leaving the BI pegged at a certain point could make income inequality much worse than it is now. Capital-holders would begin benefitting tremendously from automation as it improves.

Another thing to ponder is, if certain technological innovations come to pass (ie, an affordable personal-AI system), should the government consider providing those technologies to all of its citizens? The disparity between someone with a personal-AI and someone without would increase exponentially, very quickly. This is simply considering the economic value an AI could provide, in terms of helping with business ideas, self-improvement, secreterial work, etc.

Anyways, massive unemployment is going to occur soon. If governments can't come to terms with providing a universal basic income, I would suggest they begin planning emergency food supply distribution systems immediately. The first thing that people will begin missing is food, and if a government can provide sustenance to needy populations, it would buy itself some time before civil unrest spread throughout the country. [http://livescience.com/52724-can- strategic-games-prevent-foo...](http://livescience.com/52724-can-strategic- games-prevent-food-riots-from-returning.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> The idea of basic income is popular on this site and has many ardent supporters here. Whichever side of the debate you're on, please bear in mind this topic needs an extra effort of patience and civility to have a productive conversation. Politicized topics like this break down into angry confrontations very easily.

<comment><USER13> Yes, but if you look over the comments, you'll see that the critics of BI are all either confused, ignorant, or have invalid world-views. ;)

(wish I had an emoji for only-kinda-tongue-in-cheek, i.e. saying something kinda unfair with self-awareness to be half-joking, but actually kinda asserting it anyway)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> People seem to forget history and the fact that statements like this have pretty much always been wrong. There's always something that supposed to replace something else and throw people out of work. Plus, robots are cute.

<comment><USER15> When the industrial revolution put artisans out of work, there were factory jobs to replace what was lost.

They were by far and large, absolutely terrible. Quality of life across Europe plummeted.

<comment><USER16> Quality of life across Europe plummeted? Factories weren't manned by force except that which drove people to avoid starvation in the face of a pitiful agrarian lifestyle.

As T. S. Ashton pointed out ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._S._Ashton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._S._Ashton)) in 1948, the industrial revolution meant the difference between the grinding poverty that had characterized most of human history and the affluence of the modern industrialized nations. No economist today seriously disputes the fact that the industrial revolution began the transformation that has led to extraordinarily high (compared with the rest of human history) living standards for ordinary people throughout the market industrial economies.

<comment><USER17> You are saying the industrial revolution == repetitive factory work under horrible conditions?

The parent comment was talking about artisans losing work, not farmers.

I think technological progress and innovation increased overall quality of life, while many specific things, such as jobs many workers felt they had no choice but to take in the shifting economic reality, were horrible for the people involved.

Saying that most of human history was grinding poverty is again, cherry picking. In terms of personal freedom and free time, as one of the most fundamental measures of value, humans had it way better at many points in history and much of prehistory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> To some degree, I suspect a certain number of human jobs will remain long after automation simply for the sentimental value. Like organic or free range food, where people are willing to pay a premium for goods that aren't made via some industrial type process.

So you'd have 'human made' as a label on the side of slightly more expensive products tailored to slightly more well off people who see it as more ethical. Like a non food version of a farmer's market.

It won't save most of the jobs, but they'll definitely be enough people out there who don't want 'machine made' products by companies only using robots.

On another note, I suspect many of these articles also miss one other thing; there's no reason that every company would use robots or AI. Sure, large companies would. But in the same market would likely be hundreds or thousands of smaller ones with at least some humans in the workforce.

I mean, look at it this way. Go down the high street and look at the shops and restaurants. Sure, big chains exist, whether they be coffee ones like Starbucks and Costa or supermarkets like Walmart or Tesco or the likes, but so do tons of small companies run by people aiming at a local market, or a certain niche, or anything else. They're not all going to buy expensive machinery to run the shop, and they're not all going to go out of business. Heck, it could even be the opposite; quite a few businesses in the real world have actually gotten MORE popular once a Starbucks has moved in next door. People will still buy things from small businesses (especially if they're distrustful of large multinational companies), and those small (and even medium sized) businesses will still hire human staff.

That seems to be overlooked in these discussions. After all, if even something as big as Coca Cola or Disney or McDonalds or whatever has lots of competition, what makes you think your future companies won't?

</comment><comment><USER19> There is so much work out there to be done, it's laughable that we are talking about paying people for doing nothing.

Think about all the elderly retiring people that will need to be cared for. All the working moms who struggle to find people to care for their kids during the day. All the litter and graffiti all over our cities and roads.

Countries like Japan are freaking out about their aging demographics and how they will support them. The solution is definitely not to decrease the amount of people working.

Instead of basic income, why not use the money instead to give a generous wage subsidy to people at the bottom? So that even a street sweeper, caretaker, nanny, or preschool teacher is well financially rewarded?

FWIW, the Scandinavian model, which has some of the highest equality and well- being in the world, requires people to work and has some of the highest labor force participation rates in the world.

<comment><USER7> > "There is so much work out there to be done, it's laughable that we are > talking about paying people for doing nothing."

If automation continues to expand as expected, the majority of tasks humans do could be replaced by machines/AI. At this point, the total volume of work may be high, but the total volume of work only humans can best fulfil may be much lower than it is today. The question becomes, when we can apply automation to most jobs, what will human society look like?

<comment><USER19> Let's worry about that when it happens. My point is that it's premature to talk about introducing a UBI when there's so many needs out there.

Also, caring for children/elderly is not something that is necessarily desirable to automate...

<comment><USER7> > "Let's worry about that when it happens. My point is that it's premature to > talk about introducing a UBI when there's so many needs out there."

The point of talking about an UBI now is to iron out any issues with it before it's needed. Furthermore, whilst the need for it isn't as strong as it might be later, there are certain benefits it could bring to simplifying and improving welfare even in today's society. If you're suggesting there's a risk people will not work, that all depends on the implementation (again, another reason why it's being discussed now). What I believe is likely to happen to the current job market if we had UBI is that people would be freer to switch careers, and as a consequence of this undesirable jobs are likely to have higher wages, and desirable jobs are likely to have lower wages. For example, cleaning jobs would pay more, and marketing jobs would pay less. In other words, the incentives for working would change based on the flexibility of the workforce.

> "Also, caring for children/elderly is not something that is necessarily > desirable to automate..."

Most of that isn't paid work at it stands now, plus it's worth remembering that the automation of the future is likely to be more adaptive to individual needs (i.e. when it's driven by sufficiently sophisticated AI).

Lastly, the aim isn't to remove humans entirely from the world of work, the idea is to change the need for humans to work, the option to work will still be present.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> blubb-fish > a system in which all citizens or residents of a country receive an > unconditional sum of money, in addition to any income they bring in > elsewhere.

It will come - simply b/c a majority will depend on it and politicians depend on majorities.

But it will also be so low that people will merely be able to afford a reasonable modern living standard.

At the same time there will be incentives to take new kind of jobs to pad the basic income.

Those jobs will be servant jobs - bringing people food, driving them around ... serving them ... b/c no robot can give you the feeling of being in a position of power.

So the fate for the uneducated or people educated but in economically irrelevant areas will be basic income plus being a servant.

</comment><comment><USER18> On another note, does all this mean that in the future, intelligent robots will actually be in the same situation as humans? I mean, if simple ones can take care of simple jobs in stuff like manufacturing, driving vehicles, admin work, etc, one with real AI would basically be unemployable. If they don't want to pay humans for work, then they won't want to give a robot a paycheck either. That's going to be an interesting issue too.

</comment><comment><USER9> It's future, in 100 years from now, all food, all energy and most of other services/products will be made without any human interaction. While everything will be produced without wasting any resources (full automation, recycling etc), there is no reason why food and energy should not be free. To work will be a choice not requirement.

<comment><USER20> What you're describing is impossible. There's no such thing as free energy, or a system with perfect efficiency which doesn't waste resources.

<comment><USER9> Do you know how fusion reactors work ? You give it energy to heat it up and you get MORE (edit: transform) energy than you gave from this reaction.

<comment><USER20> >You give it energy to heat it up and you get MORE energy than you gave from this reaction

No, you don't[0][1].

[0][https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59673/why- doesnt...](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59673/why-doesnt- fusion-contradict-the-1st-law-of-thermodynamics)

[1][https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3xxpw9/why_does...](https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3xxpw9/why_doesnt_nuclear_fusion_violate_the_second_law/)

Fusion might be a vastly more efficient version of what we already have, but it's still neither perfect nor infinite. Sooner or later, you run out of fuel, or the reactor breaks down, or you have to build more reactors or something.

<comment><USER9> So you interpreted what i wrote about "infinite" literally..? Ok... We are talking about fusion... So you suggest then i think Sun will never die and has infinite energy too, yes?

Maybe i will explain you what i mean and everyone else mean when they say what i said. It means that we can RELEASE MORE (transform) ENERGY, because energy is never destroyed, it's transformed.

In other words the total mass of the tritium and deuterium nuclei before the reaction is greater than the mass of the helium and neutron after fusion has taken place – even though it is the same number of protons and neutrons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> it's funny, i have been promoting this opinion in the opposite direction for the last ten years

once we begin distributing gains to everyone there will be an exponential robotics boon in order to fill all of the positions people walk away from

</comment><comment><USER22> Is a basic income meant to cover healthcare needs?

If yes, what incremental steps could be taken in the US to start reducing healthcare costs down to a level where we can even think about providing a stipend on top of the free healthcare?

<comment><USER23> The thing that is most effective in reducing healthcare costs is prevention.

Easiest way today of increasing "overall health" in the US: better diet and more exercise

I believe this will also be automated and there will be a 'Computer doctor' that can give you guidance and maybe a basic Rx for the majority of problems that take people off work (a lot of which are resolved by staying at home for a couple of days)

Then you would have more complex problems dealt by a doctor

<comment><USER22> Prevention reduces spending. Lack of it doesn't provide a satisfying explanation as to why an xray bill is much higher at a given hospital and things like that.

Or is the lack of preventative care somehow showing up in the price of only some xrays?

<comment><USER23> > Lack of it doesn't provide a satisfying explanation as to why an xray bill > is much higher at a given hospital and things like that.

Of course not, but prevention will lower your "consumption of services"

Providers gauging the price of x-rays are a separate problem

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "May be"? I thought that was the whole point: automation produces wealth but people are put out of jobs to make it happen, so it makes sense that they're compensated by something like a government.

</comment><comment><USER25> Until wealthy people get sick of #feelingthebern and take over government with robotic force. I'm not sure you want to make the majority of people useless beggars.

<comment><USER26> They're already developing autonomous weapons. Once countries no longer need poor people to make up the military and police force, there'll be no incentive to help poor people. They can live in cloistered communities, and with all the means of production as well as war machines, there'll be parallel worlds - <USER2> ultra rich, one ultra poor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Key quote: _" Our current economic system requires people to either have wealth or to work to make a living, with the assumption that the economy creates jobs for all those who need them. If this assumption breaks down - <USER3> progress in automation is likely to break it down, I believe - then we need to rethink the very basic structure of our economic system."_

That's a good statement of the problem. It's useful to get that clear before talking about solutions. Solutions are hypothetical; problems are real.

How far along are we in that direction already? About 14% of the US workforce makes all the stuff - that's manufacturing, construction, mining, and agriculture. That figure was about 50% in 1950 and around 90% in the 19th century.

The conventional wisdom was that more education helps. That is no longer the case. About 37% of employed US college graduates are in jobs which require only a high school diploma.[1] Overproduction of college graduates has reduced the value of a college education substantially.

It's not often mentioned, but there's one class of jobs that's almost totally gone - large numbers of people doing the same thing under close supervision. In 1900, Carnegie Steel had 5000 men with shovels at one plant. Today, you might see one or two people with shovels working, but beyond that, power equipment is brought in. There's a fraction of the population which needs jobs that structured. Many homeless are in that category. (Jobs where drunkenness is tolerated have almost totally disappeared.) That's a problem at the low end. 13.5% of the population has an IQ between 70 and 85. What are they going to do?[2]

Nothing above is really in question. So that's a way to look at the problem as of right now.

Looking ahead, there's this well-known study on jobs likely to be automated soon.[3]

Understanding the changing nature of work is the first step to dealing with it.

[1] [http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Underemploy...](http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Underemployed%20Report%202.pdf) [2] [http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/herman/reports/fut...](http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/herman/reports/futurework/conference/trends/trendsVII.htm) (Note that this paper is from 1999.) [3] [http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2642880/Tabl...](http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2642880/Table-700-jobs- reveals-professions-likely-replaced-robots.html)

<comment><USER28> But in the 1950s this was solved by doing something new : get everyone and their dog a car. This got us to the 1980s or even the 1990s and is still employing large amounts of people, though not as large as before. After that we're getting everybody "services". Phones, bank accounts, insurance, apps, newsletters, ... that did make life better. That got us jobs until 2000/2001 or so.

We just need to find a new "car"/"phone". Something to get for everyone and their dog, that they'd want, ideally with recurring charges, that can't be delivered without employing God knows how many people (ideally something that would improve the more people you employ).

Because, whilst I don't subscribe to the positive side of Ayn Rand's philosophy, I do subscribe to the negative side. Having the government redivide wealth from the productive to everyone is something that may soften the short-term impact of unemployment, but in the medium/long term it's a disaster. I even agree that redividing wealth combined with human greed manifesting through corruption will make it impossible to turn back from redividing policies once they reach a certain percentage of the economy, by blocking any and all innovation (because it would require changing the redivision policies, which is too dangerous politically. Much easier to just block, say, autonomous cars. Meanwhile drivers die, or worse, kill others, are away from their families for weeks/months, and don't do anything useful. They're not improving anyone's life by having that job over not having that job. It would pretty much be better for everyone, including them, to just have them sitting at home watching TV. And why ? Because figuring out redividing policies would lead to political infighting, or even real fighting (just watch some European demonstrations by farmers, or students)).

I agree that the economy is there so people can live, and live well, not the other way around. But having the private sector do that is almost infinitely preferable over having government redivide wealth. We essentially need to find something new we can and want to do with the economy, that would improve our lives, and require large amounts of people helping to make that happen.</comment></comment>


Disconnected: My year without the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/10/tech/web/paul-miller-internet-year/ <comment><USER2> The link behind "came back online May 1" goes to [http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/1/4279674/im-still-here- back-...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/1/4279674/im-still-here-back-online- after-a-year-without-the-internet) which is an essay he wrote summarizing his findings. I recommend reading it, it's very thoughtful.</comment>


FDA authorizes CRISPR-based test for Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/7/21250487/fda-crispr-test-coronavirus-covid-19 <comment><USER2> > this marks the first time the FDA has allowed a CRISPR-based tool to be used > in patients

I was waiting for something like this.

> CRISPR-based techniques, on the other hand, are relatively fast and only > need basic equipment found in most labs

Amazing to see that it's actually well equipped for the current situation, wouldn't have thought that CRISPR research was that far!</comment>


Show HN: Digester – Tweets, RSS Feeds etc. sent as daily or weekly email digests - <AUTHOR> https://digester.app <comment><AUTHOR> Author here.

The fundamental goal of digester is really to consume news/updates in a more calm way. We all want to stay up to date, but constantly refreshing Twitter or being interrupted by push notifications is not how we should be spending our day.

I'm very interested in feedback -- please just comment here or you can reach me at info at (the digester domain).

If you want me to import all the accounts you follow on twitter, please let me know at the above e-mail address and I'll do that (not yet possible via the app).

If you think digester would be helpful if it had feature X, please let me know what X is.

For the curios techies: I built this all on my own using Rust in the backend and Vue in the frontend. Happy to answer questions about these picks as well :)

</comment><comment><USER2> I'm one of the beta users, and Digester is great. Want to know the new releases of your favourite GitHub repositories without filling up your inbox? Want to get a digest of the tweets from a list of Twitter users? Want to get back to knowing new blog posts by following RSS feeds? All possible. Happy user here.

<comment><USER3> > Want to know the new releases of your favourite GitHub repositories without > filling up your inbox?

GitHub supports RSS feeds for repository releases. Just add ".atom" to the URL, e.g.: [https://github.com/darekkay/static- marks/releases.atom](https://github.com/darekkay/static-marks/releases.atom)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Saw [https://twitter.com/digesterapp/status/1251164938606804992](https://twitter.com/digesterapp/status/1251164938606804992) \- is Digester built in Rust? How is building a webapp in Rust these days?

<comment><AUTHOR> I used rocket ([https://rocket.rs](https://rocket.rs)) mostly because at the time (Nov '19) it seemed to be the one with by far the best documentation. I think that these days, I would probably go with actix ([https://github.com/actix/actix-web](https://github.com/actix/actix-web)), because rocket does not appear to me as being actively maintained and not having async support (yet? there is a branch..) means I need workarounds to integrate with libraries that are async only.

But still, rocket is pretty great. Implementing an endpoint is as simple as a few lines and great integration with serde as well as diesel means you can integrate pretty quickly.</comment></comment>


Human Connectome Project Updates - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/biomedical/imaging/brain-scanning-just-got-very-good-and-very-unsettling?utm_content=buffera9ad6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.V3RLFDgLxrs.hackernews <comment><USER2> The article title is rather clickbaity. The only unsettling aspect is this:

> The HCP project has also moved brain scanning into the realm of the feature > film Minority Report by showing that a person's brain activity is as unique > as a fingerprint and that it can be used to identify a person with 99 > percent accuracy.

Once someone can scan your brain, they have many other ways to determine who you are. I was expecting something substantive about brain structure/function.

<comment><USER3> And actually, for biometric data, 99% is fairly crappy.

After, a person's birthday identifies them with a greater than 364/365 accuracy.

<comment><USER4> If you give a color badge to each person in the world and you have 365 colors to choose from, how accurately would a specific color identify a person?

<comment><USER5> What is 1-(1/365)?

<comment><USER6> Should probably involve the population there somewhere?

<comment><USER7> Sort of.

If I have a population of 1, or <= 365 and uniform dist of birthdays, the probability of a date being a valid identifier is 100%.

If I have a population of 365 with randomly distributed birthdays, then it is going to be the probability of not sharing a birthday with any of them (very low)

Once you can guarantee at least 2 people with each birthday the identifier is simply zero percent effective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > radiologists to acquire high-resolution images up to 8 times as fast as they > previously could using traditional MRI machines.

I think the author means 'radiographer' not radiologist. I also wonder about the claims as to how this will change clinical imaging. I get that this is a a amazing project, and it will have some far reaching effects but changes to clinical imaging will be limited imho. Multibanding existing sequences will make them faster, but sequences that benefit from the technique (bold and diffusion primarily) are not big clinical techniques. Diffusion is a routine tool but at <2 minutes it's hardly a problem to acquire. Maybe I'm missing something big like everyone getting a a functional scan as part of a routine clinical brains scan?

<comment><USER9> > Diffusion is a routine tool but at <2 minutes it's hardly a problem to > acquire.

The kinds of high-angular coverage scans they are talking about here (60-120+ gradient directions) take 45+ minutes on current clinical scanners. These scans give improved white matter resolution -- both spatially and for complex sub-voxel microstructure. With acceleration and faster gradient ramps the connectome scanner can get that down to under 15 minutes. It's still a long time for routine clinical use (typical U.S. scan sessions are billed in ~40 minute increments), but more feasible than 45+.

<comment><USER8> We are running scans with 64 directions that are 8ish minutes, they look good. I'll have a look when I get into work, because there is obviously a large difference between their sequences and ours. Ours are not product sequences but they aren't anything too radical. Edit: to step further back, are you aware of anything that these undoubtably better scans offer in a clinical setting? How will they change treatment? We would run DTI occasionally when some surgery is planned and the surgeon wants to avoid a particular tract, but this isn't a common occurance.

<comment><USER9> Interesting, thanks. I didn't realize multiband was so fast on the Skyra - good to know.

The big advantage in principle for neurosurgery is better resolution of crossing fibers and complex branching, for example the lower/lateral projections of the CST to hand area. I'm not sure if any clinical software can take advantage of these scans, yet, though -- so processing would probably need to be done under IRB in researchy software. There's also ongoing work in several groups to better resolve and possibly even characterize tissue microstructure in and around tumors using multi-shell DWI (especially relating to edema).

Here's one small study that compared several high-angle methods to standard DTI: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23254805](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23254805)

Walt Schneider's group at Pitt has also done studies in neurosurgery planning and TBI using HARDI-type methods (no cite handy at the moment).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Meta: what a weird and distracting page. From the top there is a menu, logo, menu, breadcrumbs (I guess?), and then content. From left to right there is content, stuff, stuff and more stuff. Only 25% of the page (excluding the header!) is content. It's not even clear to me why I should be interested in looking at the other three columns.

<comment><USER11> I tried widening the screen across both my monitors. It looked... interesting. [http://i.imgur.com/MoKakDW.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/MoKakDW.jpg)

<comment><USER12> I mean, in fairness, if you have a Window that wide, what do you expect to see? It would normally either be blank space, or ridiculously stretched out text. I guess you could split the text into multiple columns like newspapers do, but I haven't seen many websites do that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "To achieve that kind of speed and resolution, the [Connectom] machine draws 22 megawatts of power"

Can that be right? The average large US hospital uses only 2.1MWe on average.

Source: Table H6 of [https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/reports/2007/larg...](https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/reports/2007/large- hospital.cfm) (57 billion kWhe annually for 3,040 large hospitals)

<comment><AUTHOR> 22MW is comparable to the electricity consumed by the worlds top supercomputer, including cooling system.

It seems they are using a large high performance compute cluster, and not a "branded" supercomputer like the Blue Gene/Q.

[http://www.humanconnectome.org/documentation/HCP- pipelines/m...](http://www.humanconnectome.org/documentation/HCP- pipelines/meg-pipeline.html)

[http://chpc.wustl.edu/who.html](http://chpc.wustl.edu/who.html)

<comment><USER14> I personally don't see any difference between a large enough computing cluster and a supercomputer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Marketing and branding. The BlueGene/Q installation is sold as a package.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is one of the greatest recent resources for human neuroscience. This project is giving hundreds (and soon thousands) of subjects' worth of structural, diffusion and functional datasets. This is a huge step toward developing community consensus on how to model human neuroimaging data, which is hindered by the tendency of most labs to keep their data.

The datasets are also great quality, preprocessed and aligned.

</comment><comment><USER16> Here is a link to the project's website:

[https://www.humanconnectome.org/](https://www.humanconnectome.org/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Assuming development continues as today we should have the first (synaptic level) human connectome ready around 2035. Should be interesting.

</comment><comment><USER18> What a weird, Hacker-News specific URL. Here's a normal one: [http://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human- os/biomedical/imaging/bra...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human- os/biomedical/imaging/brain-scanning-just-got-very-good-and-very-unsettling)

<comment><USER19> Thanks, we updated the submission link.

<comment><USER12> It's not changed for me. I get this url on the HN link:

        spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/biomedical/imaging/brain-scanning-just-got-very-good-and-very-unsettling?utm_content=buffera9ad6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.V3RLFDgLxrs.hackernews</comment></comment></comment>


US Software buyout group Vista to invest $1.5B in India's Reliance Jio Platforms - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/07/reliance-jio-platforms-vista-equity-partners/ <comment><AUTHOR> The deal comes days after Silver Lake said it would invest $750 million in Jio, and Facebook said it would invest $5.7 billion.</comment>


The dirty secret of prototip2 (javascript tooltip) - <AUTHOR> http://craigsworks.com/projects/simpletip/sandbox/ See the (short) e-mail exchange for a sad little story; http://craigsworks.com/projects/simpletip/sandbox/emails.txt <comment><USER2> I don't know either of these people, but Nick clearly has no concept of how copyright actually works. The "result" of code is inherently a process, which isn't copyrightable. Only his verbatim source code is copyrightable.

The entire concept of reverse engineering rests on this distinction.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, that's incredibly lame on Nick's part. If the API is the same, but the underlying code is completely different then that it not a 'port', or a derivative, that is a different product.

That's like saying a Macbook and a Viao both have a screen, keyboard and USB ports and so they're the same thing for licensing purposes... Unlikely.

</comment><comment><USER4> Oh wow. If you mention Simpletip in the contact form on Nick's site you get redirected to here: <http://getafckinlife.ytmnd.com/>

Classy stuff.

(nick's site: <http://www.nickstakenburg.com/>)

EDIT: I can't seem to get it to happen again.

EDIT2: It was his site. <http://i50.tinypic.com/166nh4z.jpg>

<comment><USER5> Worked for me - perhaps because I capitalised it as SimpleTip. Here's the message I sent him :>

        Interesting that you gave Craig Thompson such a hard time over SimpleTip,
        while having NO IDEA about how copyright works when applied to code.

        Absolutely right about reputation, btw. If you want to be taken seriously
        you should realize that showing your ability to be a pompous blowhard
        is the worst kind of advertising you can have for yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nick's acting like a dick.

Craig, please continue to distribute Simpletip. I see that you seem to know more about the licensing issues than Nick.

<comment><USER7> [deleted]

Edit: Removed my comment when I realized this story is over 1 year old...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> just realized simpletip was put back online...

<http://craigsworks.com/projects/simpletip/>

i wonder why the sandbox page was left up.

<comment><USER7> Also:

\- those letters were in jan/2009

\- there is now a project called qTip

\- Nick is in the Netherlands, Craig is in the USA <\- hard to sue someone in another country

\- ProTip is still at version 2, apparently Nick never got around to doing v3

<comment><USER9> I was using qTip with jQuery on the desktop and in an iPhone-specific site. It was a pleasure to use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> See the (short) e-mail exchange for a sad little story; <http://craigsworks.com/projects/simpletip/sandbox/emails.txt>

<comment><USER10> This is totally absurd. jhickner is right. Nick doesn't know /anything/ about copyright or licensing. I wonder how obviously dumb something needs to be before you don't have to pay a lot for a lawyer.

I also wonder if the Something Awful style defense would have stopped this. Leonard J. Crabs can be pretty convincing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> <http://craigsworks.com/projects/simpletip/>

It seems he moved on and cut his losses.

<comment><USER12> I didn't realize qTip was the successor to simpleTip. I've been using it in all my projects, and find it much better than protoTip (especially since it runs in jquery, and is free)

<comment><USER13> And qtip2 is coming soon :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Having been involved in litigation over copyright where we were 100% in the right but the other side had fundamental misconceptions about how copyright actually works I can understand why you'd just give up when threatened with legal action.

It took us a long time (about six months) and a considerable chunk of money in lawyers fees just to get them to go away - even though their case was _totally_ groundless.

</comment><comment><USER15> Nice! I've been looking for a good tooltip library to use in my project. I wouldn't have known about this otherwise. Thanks Nick!

</comment><comment><USER16> Free the software!</comment>


Advice about hiring programmers - <AUTHOR>

Hello all,
In my job at the moment I'm going to be looking to hire a software developer to work on our project.  However, we currently don't have any programmers in the company so doing any testing of how candidates write code and the quality of said code is going to be nigh on impossible to judge.  The most I've worked with are scripting languages and this job will require C/C++.  Does anyone have any advice on how to go about testing in a situation like this?  Feedback from both hiring/applying sides of the process would be really appreciated.
Thank you! <comment><USER2> You might use Joel's test (<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000043.html>) in reverse, e.g. if setting up software configuration management _isn't_ one of their first priorities you probably don't want them as your first programmer. If they don't care about having a quiet place to work, they probably don't care very much about their productivity or the quality of their work. And so on.

Before the interview, ask them to bring in code and documentation (e.g. design) samples. This too might be inconclusive (I had to arrange with some companies that I worked for to allow this, in other cases the company had died and I got the rights from who they devolved to), but it's a good sign if they have a polished portfolio.

Ask them to attack a design problem in a domain you both have some experience with and look for good design and problem solving skills.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ask the candidate if he has contribute to an open source project. If the candidate has contributed (preferably non-trivially), it means that his code has been vetted by some very experienced software engineers and found acceptable. As well as the code vetting-by-proxy, you should be able to judge his "passion" (the current evaluation buzzword) by discussing what the projects were and what he did on them. You don't need to know what he is talking about in detail, although that would be good, in order to get a feel for his passion level for programming.

If the candidate has not contributed to an open source project, this test is inconclusive.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a really good suggestion, definitely one for the interview process. Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you are not much into programming, get help from any of your technically inclined friends who can identify good programmers. Let them interview the candidates for you. Also, ask them to refer good programmers they know.

<comment><USER2> Exactly; hire someone who has a clue to minimally test their knowledge, e.g. have them write code on a white board to reverse a linked list (you'd be surprised at how many people with apparently good resumes can't program their way out of a paper bag).

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the comments everyone, they've been really useful. I think it's going to be a combination of factors we can judge as non-programmers in the first round (problem solving, projects already worked on etc. and the reverse Joel!) with some expert guidance to judge technical ability in the second.

And if you've heard of us in the next year or so, we've got the right person and I'll buy you all a beer :-)</comment>


New iPhone Dev Agreement Bans the Use of Third-Party Analytics and Services - <AUTHOR> http://erickerr.com/iphone-agreement-thirdparty

<comment><USER2> This is just not fair to developers.

Apple is changing the rules half way through the game, to the benefit of nobody.

I can't think of a developer OR end user who will be better off as a result of this decision. It's an innovation stifler and I can't understand why they are doing it.

This kills location aware 3rd party advertising.

As the article also says, looks like this will wipe out SimpleGeo. A sad day.

<comment><USER3> Yet this is completely fair to _consumers_ who buy the application. Some welcome protection for them against unscrupulous developers or ad agencies.

This change of the rules makes a ton of sense; with location-aware backgrounding (applications waking up and getting a notice when you change locations), it would be _very_ easy for an agency to track where you're going and in turn sell it to someone else to make a quick buck.

<comment><USER4> But, somehow, as a consumer, I don't get any protection against Apple.

Hmm.

<comment><USER3> With something like $30 billion in cash in the bank, Apple's one of the companies that I'm not worried about selling information in order to make a quick buck. After all, aren't people always saying that Microsoft should use the privacy angle against Google? Why not Apple as well?

<comment><USER5> Generally companies don't get $30 billion in cash by turning down opportunities to make money.

<comment><USER6> Umm, did you bother reading Apple's financials before tossing out that piece of FUD? The vast bulk of Apple's financials, and that $30 billion in cash, comes from hardware sales. Call me crazy, but i think it makes sense to protect a profit source from unsavory types building who-knows-what from data collected in the background.

<comment><USER7> Hardware with their software on top of it, and their experience all around. Remove the software on top of it, and you have hardware that is priced much higher than it should be.

<comment><USER8> Naturally. If you remove half of a product while keeping the same price, it's bound to be overpriced. Software isn't free (unless it is free...).

<comment><USER7> Keep in mind what I'm replying to. The argument is that 'bulk' of the money Apple makes is from hardware sales. Remove the hardware sales, and Apple doesn't make much money. My argument is that if you removed the software, they wouldn't be making the hardware sales. People aren't buying Apple for the hardware. They are buying it for the complete package.

Even you admit as much by suggesting they are removing half the product.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Good for the first one: I don't want joe's random app sending tracking data on me to ned's random service provider to sell to anyone with 50 cents.

The second one doesn't prevent analytics. _Device Data_ is a keyword in the contract…

 _"Device Data" means data or information regarding the characteristics or usage of a particular device, including but not limited to UDID, crash logs, OS version, carrier name, hardware model, installed applications and application usage data._

… so you can't provide a vector for a third party, not bound by your agreement to respect the user's privacy, to loot the device of useful information. Good! You are allowed to collect and use this data, you just have to respect applicable privacy laws and handle notice and consent according to the contract.

The key is, you can't bind some random analytics firm. If you include code that dumps that out to a third party firm they are free to do whatever they want.

So create a UUID the first time you run, send only that to the analytics firm. Leave the _Device Data_ alone. I suspect this would pass, though it is possible it would fail under the "application usage data" section.

One could imagine some extreme interpretation where Apple is trying to prevent any information about which apps are installed being divulged to anyone, but there are so many unaddressed vectors (e.g. loading an ad from an ad server) that it seems unlikely.

</comment><comment><USER10> I was (if not sympathetic, at least) understanding until this.

At what point do all these restrictions start becoming truly anti-competitive? Locking out 3rd party tools and services in favor of in-house products, and this one now including the actual revenue-generating ones.

If you start to view the App Store as a collection of _markets_ (e.g. for development tools, application niches, ancillary services like ads, analytics, web services, etc), rather than just a vendor-specific platform, where Apple's own products compete with other vendors', the analogies to Microsoft are becoming clearer:

\- _iPhone OS/App Store = > Windows_

Markets analogous to Internet Explorer vs. Opera/Firefox:

\- iAd vs AdMob

\- iBooks vs Kindle (an example where they're actually allowing competition!)

\- Phone.app vs Google Voice

\- MobileSafari vs Opera/FF

\- ObjC runtime vs Flash runtime (this one stretches it a bit, but not that far)

Whereas MS's anti-competitive actions involved threatening OEMs, Apple is exercising actual contractual control over what Apps/services can participate in the market, Period. That should certainly qualify as anti-competitive behavior.

</comment><comment><USER11> I understand the angst that this is causing, considering the news from yesterday, but really, who wants their location data sold to some 3rd party for the purpose of ad targeting? Not me! I think this is a good move for consumers, despite the negative impact it may have on some application developers (ad networks).

<comment><USER12> The location data is a little iffy, but defensible. The real problem is the third-party analytics clause.

Ad companies are, at their core, analytics companies. By understanding your audience, you serve higher-potency ads, which means you can charge more for their placement, and developers have a higher incentive to use them. Companies like Google and AdMob are analytics companies. By understanding an audience, they can serve relevant content (ads). If they can't understand the audience because collection of metrics is prohibited, then their ability to act as an effective ad provider is massively diminished. Ad revenues dive through the floor and advertisers stop using the platform.

Enter iAd. We can provide you with detailed user analytics and possibly even that coveted location data. Thanks to the new iPhone user agreement, we can even tell you what size underwear a user wears, and how many eggs they had for breakfast. We will give you returns on your ads that you have never before dreamed of. Stop using those wimpy ad companies that can't give you an ROI on their blind-targeted ads to save their life. Use iAd and make more money for us.

It's very difficult to interpret this as anything but a move aimed to invalidate other advertising platforms on the iPhone, in order to make room for iAd as the only viable choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> That's pretty unambiguous. The subtext there is "Thou shalt not use anything except iAd" (since companies like AdMob are as much analytics as they are ads). Gonna be really interesting to see how this shakes out.

</comment><comment><USER13> What's funny here is that in many respects, Apple is treating App Developers as if they are full on Apple employees, and yet without any of the actual benefits of employment.

<comment><USER14> Who writes the checks makes the rules, and ultimately, for apps, it's consumers that write the checks and consumers that benefit from this change.

Consumers don't write Facebook's checks, companies like Offerpal do: [http://www.businessinsider.com/offerpal-coincidentally- repla...](http://www.businessinsider.com/offerpal-coincidentally-replaces- ceo-2009-11)

So the differences between Apple's users' data policies and Facebook's become clearer.

Meanwhile, to receive the money, obey the rules. It's simple.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> _Good_. The alternative is a managerie of different ad networks all collecting sensitive data about me. I'm unambiguously in favor of Apple not allowing new location-aware ad tracking networks.

<comment><USER16> I agree. I find these clauses to be the exact opposite of 3.3.1, they are ethical and they show a laudable concern for a user's data and privacy. A welcome stance in this day and age.

<comment><USER17> That's not true, as a developer I'm well within my right to collect every piece of data I can get my hands on. That being said, I personally never would.

Apple is just banning the competition for analysis of said data so they can be the only game in town and "control the user experience" as they like to call it. I wouldn't be surprised if iAd included an analytics dashboard when it's released to the public.

<comment><USER6> As a developer, you are well within your right to understand the rules. I think Apple is doing a good job of protecting its users from money-hungry developers -- Facebook is a good example of what can go wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> So, does this mean that I can't use something like MixPanel to track activities users make in my apps? I'm not so fluent in legalese... What if I don't track any "user-specific" data... just tracking aggregate events like "how many people clicked this button in this part of the app today"?

</comment><comment><USER19> This just keeps getting better. Although it's worth noting that none of these policy changes actually make a practical difference; Apple has always reserved the right to reject your app for any or no reason. They're now just making it obvious that they intend to do so for blatantly anticompetitive purposes, as opposed to purposes that could plausibly be defended as benefitting users.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is Apple just trying to regain control over every possible facet of the app store? Banning all third-party analytics from apps sounds huge, so if I am missing something then please enlighten me. I thought the location-based data verbiage was just one example of something not allowed.

This would affect far more than just ad companies, right? I understand that's probably a motivating factor, but wouldn't this incorporate an even larger subset of third party analytics companies (like Flurry / Pinch Media for example)? The purpose of those companies is not the same purpose as the app itself which rules them out. It could depend on the definition of "User Data" and "Device Data" in the agreement, I suppose.

Third party gaming tools would seem to be safe at least.

<comment><USER21> "User Data" means personal information, user location data, user content (e.g., address book contacts, SMS messages, photos and calendar events) and/or Device Data obtained by You or Your Application from a user of Your Application or from such user's iPhone OS Product.

"Device Data" means data or information regarding the characteristics or usage of a particular device, including but not limited to UDID, crash logs, OS version, carrier name, hardware model, installed applications and application usage data.

\---

Many third-party gaming tools do collect UDID (or a hash derived from the UDID) since this is the only common identifier available across applications, due to sandboxing.

Interpreted liberally, this affects anything that makes an HTTP request to a third-party, since the application name ('application usage data') and the IP address ('user location data') is in the headers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> _the use of third party software in Your Application to collect and send Device Data to a third party for processing or analysis is expressly prohibited_

I guess this is the Admob killer clause? Goes along nicely with the Adobe Flash killer clause...

</comment><comment><USER23> "You think you're going to buy AdMob, eh? Well, I've got good news and bad news."

</comment><comment><USER24> It sounds like someone should create a self-hosted iPhone analytics software package. Perhaps one of the existing companies will release their software as open source.

</comment><comment><USER25> I think Jobs is one paranoid mofo. If analytics is stored on 3rd party servers then Google might decide to buy that company and their data and gain some insight into the Apple app ecosystem. Launching Apple's own ad network and I hope their own analytics system keeps all the data in their walled gardens. I don't really care as long as I have some kind of app analytics.

</comment><comment><USER26> Wouldn't this also ban OpenFeint as the leading competitor to apple's new Game Center?

</comment><comment><USER27> Oh, Apple, your transformation is complete.

How long until Apple disbands the senate and declares martial law?

<comment><USER28> Watch out for Supreme Chancellor Palpatine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> hm, so this might be why apple hasn't approved my flurry analytics app yet...</comment>


Using FFmpeg to Generate FFmpeg Video - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/leandromoreira_ffmpeg-fun-video-activity-6685876404048973824-x2FD <comment><USER2> Fun little trick. Here's the actual article, the "bonus round" of a list of live streaming test examples:

[https://github.com/leandromoreira/live-stream-from- desktop#b...](https://github.com/leandromoreira/live-stream-from- desktop#bonus-round)</comment>


2012 Voting Machines Altering Votes - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpGd74DrBM&feature=youtu.be

<comment><USER2> The discussion has ended up here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4749574>

</comment><comment><USER2> Same video, very few comments or upvotes yet:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4748783>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4748903>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4748783></comment>


Need a USB Cable? Build One - <AUTHOR> https://josef-adamcik.cz/electronics/need-a-usb-cable-build-on.html <comment><USER4> > GX12 or GX16 4-pin aviation connector (Aliexpress) for decoration.

Aesthetics is subjective of course, but I've never really liked things that are added for decoration but have no functional purpose. It's like fake drawers on cabinets or fake pockets on shirts or blazers. In this case, I imagine that connector even adds weight to the cable for no reason at all. It's got to make it a bit uncomfortable when using the keyboard off the desk which I imagine is the purpose of the coiling.

My kind of beauty is the adminbook[1]. Everything has a functional purpose in that. Nothing is added simply because it looks pretty.

Is there a name for this kind of aesthetics?

[1] [https://habr.com/en/post/437912/](https://habr.com/en/post/437912/)

<comment><USER5> Brutalism?

<comment><USER6> No, that's specifically a style of architecture featuring (inter alia) raw concrete external finishes, and not a catchall for things you find ugly.

<comment><USER7> You're being harsh. There's more to brutalism than the material: for instance, the style tends to visibly expose functional elements like elevator and ventilation shafts to the building's exterior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wonder if it works at the higher USB speeds. It would be interesting to use a time domain reflectometer on that to see if the big 4-pin connector causes an impedance mismatch.

Here's a TI document on USB signal PC board layout.[1] Look at all those touchy requirements. Differential lines must be the same length, down to a millimeter or so. Stubs off to the side are bad, even stubs the thickness of a PC board. They cause reflections.

USB, despite how common it is, has tough electrical specs. USB-C (which is only vaguely related to USB A and B) is even worse.

[1] [http://www.ti.com/lit/an/spraar7h/spraar7h.pdf](http://www.ti.com/lit/an/spraar7h/spraar7h.pdf)

<comment><USER9> It's not the electrical performance that bones you - it's the emissions performance. USB stands out like a Dutch brothel in the emissions chamber if you mess up the routing or return path.

In signal integrity terms, I've found it quite robust.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is cool, and for an art project, sensible, but USB is far to much of a pain in the rear for regular cable-making if you, "need" a USB cable. I prefer to cut my own CAT 5/6 over buying premade in a lot of situations, but that doesn't require I heat up the soldering iron.

<comment><USER11> On that tangent... I've made some CAT 5 cables using a crimping tool, but aligning all 8 wires in the correct order for simultaneous insertion into the plug is quite a bit of work. Is there a trick or tool for doing it quickly?

<comment><USER10> Probably the biggest "pro-tip" I've seen from ISP cable techs is that they tend to strip way more cable than they need to go in the connector, like two or three inches worth, align the wires, kinda bend them back and forth to get everything smoothly bending the same way (straight, ideally), and then cutting off the excess.

The easy though I've seen is some folks use RJ-45 jacks with holes in the end of the connector, so you can run this excess length right through the connector, and then the crimper cuts off the excess as well.

<comment><USER12> _…seen is some folks use RJ-45 jacks with holes in the end of the connector…_

What‽ Well that's going to make my once-in-a-while cable terminating experience better. I like the idea of knowing each wire made it to the contact, and being able to audit them on the outgoing side before trimming.

A quick googling says the wording to search for is "RJ45 Passthrough Connectors", then be careful because the #1 Amazon hits are not actually CAT6 connectors despite their titles, and some of the other top ones are of, let's say _variable_ quality.

<comment><USER13> > What‽ Well that's going to make my once-in-a-while cable terminating > experience better.

Believe me - you'll love it.

I bought my house in 2002 and ran Cat5e to a few places in the home (not everywhere), running 100 Mbit. Last year I decided I wanted to upgrade things to gigabit speeds, so I bought a new router, modem, and switches. I did some online checking and everything seemed to indicate that for short runs (sub-100 meter IIRC), Cat5e would work for gigabit. I didn't want to crawl back into my attic for new runs, so I tried it out.

Everything worked fine except for one run - the longest run - which spanned the width of my house (about 50-60 feet). It would only detect and run 100 Mbit - not gig. Some further testing and checking revealed that I only had 4 of the 8 wires working properly (2 pair) - and those just happened to be the ones needed for 100 Mbit! Somehow I got lucky and only lost connectivity on the other pairs. My other shorter runs all worked fine. Had that cable not failed, I would have been golden...but nope.

So I had to run a new line. I decided after some research that I would run Cat6 (couldn't afford the tools or whatnot to do Cat7 or I would have) - and I found those pass-thru connectors and crimpers. Cheap enough - bought a box of Cat6, the connectors and the crimper (plus rubber boots for the ends) and then crawled into the attic early one morning (about 4am - I live in Phoenix, and this was right at the end of "spring" going into our hot season - so it was coolest in the attic at that time) and got to work.

I spent all morning and into the afternoon up there (surprisingly, even as the day wore on and got into the 80s, it stayed relatively decent in my attic - <USER3> made sure to bring plenty of ice water along, though) - most of the time in the attic, stringing the lines, sometimes having to come down and go back up to pull lines and whatnot (using the old cable as pulling line).

The pass-thru connectors and everything made it all go much, much smoother than it would have otherwise, especially when I was terminating things after pulling the lines.

I used this cable:

[https://www.amazon.com/Monoprice-Cat6-Ethernet-Bulk- Cable/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Monoprice-Cat6-Ethernet-Bulk- Cable/dp/B015QJ40AU/)

Though I ended up getting the orange cable (I attached it to my roof trusses using cable clips and I wanted it to "stand out" so that anybody working up there could see it clearly - my original cable had been laying on the trusses, and it had been covered by a layer of insulation we had blown it - it's quite possible that the cable was broke at that point).

I ended up getting stranded because I wanted something more flexible while I ran it - though technically you're not supposed to use stranded cable for this kind of "run" \- but for short runs (in a home, all runs are typically short) it's ok - different thing I guess if it were an office or datacenter. I also like the monoprice cable because of that plastic "cross" that separates the pairs, and works as a nice core for pulling the cable without distorting the pairs. It really was nice cable.

Then I got these pass-thru connectors:

[https://www.amazon.com/ITBEBE-Plated-Through-premium- Connect...](https://www.amazon.com/ITBEBE-Plated-Through-premium- Connectors/dp/B07451LPHR/)

Plus some generic boots and a generic pass-thru crimper. It made everything so much simpler. It was still a "pain" to organize the wires (color code order) and get them "just right" to go into the connector, but once in, and they passed thru - I could easily see and know they were in the right order, and that the crimp would work, unlike regular connectors. If it wasn't right, I could pull it out and try again. It was really a night and day difference from what I remember in the past. I only bought a small box of cable (250 feet - <USER3> think that's what I linked), but I still had a ton left over if I need patch cables or whatnot for later.

You won't regret it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I suppose this is more of an aesthetic thing than a tech thing considering that a cable like this probably doesn't match the USB spec very well ;-)

<comment><USER15> Actually I'm not sure, I don't know much about the spec, but I know that USB 3 has certain pairings similar to ethernet, but USB 2 doesn't have those.

If the cable he's using is shielded by ground then I think it might be up to USB 2 spec?

Edit: Interesting mini-comparison of USB 1 and USB 2 [http://ww3.microtek.com.tw/tw/uploads/faq/pdf/comparison- usb...](http://ww3.microtek.com.tw/tw/uploads/faq/pdf/comparison- usb2.0-cable3.pdf)

<comment><USER16> > _Actually I 'm not sure, I don't know much about the spec..._

See the USB 2.0 Cables and Connectors Class Document[1], in particular, 4.10.7 Test Group '6'.

Why speculate when the USB-IF has made their standards both free and readily accessible?

[1] [https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/CabConn20.pdf](https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/CabConn20.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've been trying to turn old broken micro/mini usb cables into new ones using these [https://www.aliexpress.com/item/10PCS-LOT-YT2153B-Micro- USB-...](https://www.aliexpress.com/item/10PCS-LOT-YT2153B-Micro-USB-4Pin- Male-connector-plug-Black-White-welding-Data-OTG-line- interface/32832871275.html)

But they're a tad too tiny/frail. Anyone knows some larger micro usb connector kits ?

</comment><comment><USER18> I'd like a USB cable with a flat right-angle low-profile soft connector. Like a USB mouse/keyboard wireless dongle, but instead of the hard plastic hardware, that's just the start of the cable. Starting with a slight angle, so it works with a row of inline USB ports. For always-in on-the-go USB cables, without the socket-destroying mechanical advantage lever of traditional connectors.

I use laptop USB ports for hand tracking cameras, an HMD, and related cruft. Frequent mobile use, and unfortunate ThinkPad port placement, has those port sockets mechanically distressed. I now have sticks which slide onto the laptop to brace the cables, but... a cleaner solution would be nice. A new laptop might have better placement, but would still need protective sticks.

</comment><comment><USER19> Reminded me of this project: Flash drive disguised as a sawed-off usb cable.

[https://www.evilmadscientist.com/2008/how-to-make-a-sawed- of...](https://www.evilmadscientist.com/2008/how-to-make-a-sawed-off-usb-key/)

</comment><comment><USER20> Nice cable! I'm yet to meet someone who actually uses the hiragana layout for writing japanese.

<comment><USER21> Indeed, I don't even know any Japanese people that use the kana keys. I don't know the recent data but in 2009 there was a study that found only 12% of Japanese people used kana input.

Something that is disappointing about these keycaps is that they mostly only make these for US keyboard layouts not actual Japanese keyboard layouts. I have a Japanese keyboard that the keys were getting worn on and something like this seems like it would be a good replacement but it isn't because several of the keys that aren't letters such as shift characters on numbers and other special characters are labeled wrong for a real Japanese keyboard.

There are some Japanese layout replacement keycaps but the selection is very limited compared to how many of these stylistic kana keycaps they make for US layouts. I cringe a little bit every time I see these keycaps. I mean I get it, but still.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Worth of note:

>USB connectors. In my case USB-Mini and USB-A but you can buy USB-Micro and USB-C too.

Sure I can buy the connectors, but soldering a USB-Micro is not exactly the same of a USB-A or a USB-Mini, let alone a USB-C.

And no, those pre-soldered to a breadboard don't count for a DIY cable.

</comment><comment><USER23> Better build two; a backup of a special cable is always nice to have and it's much more convenient to order the parts and build both at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER24> Sigh, whipping up a cable when needed has become something to post about? Does having stacks of pin-out diagrams and a hot soldering iron near my desk make me look old?

<comment><USER25> Using paracord for sleeving is a good idea. Could be useful in practical applications.

<comment><USER26> Is it tho?

I have paracord on my HyperX headset and it's HORRIBLE, tangles constantly. I'm considering cutting it off just to avoid the tangle.

On something that never moves, maybe, but I abhor it.

<comment><USER27> Maybe replace it? There's a huge difference in quality between what manufacturers use and the 550 paracord that was used in this project.

<comment><USER28> Paracord is usually a bit more rough than the smooth nylon that you find on lots of fancy cables.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bitbucket is down - <AUTHOR> https://status.bitbucket.org/incidents/z029156p1svh <comment><USER2> whats bitbucket

<comment><USER3> Bitbucket provides Git hosting similar to GitHub. They also support Mercurial.

<comment><USER2> ahh ok thank you!</comment></comment></comment>


Former Google employee says MeToo behavior 'institutionalized' at search giant - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/former-google-employee-says-metoo-behavior-institutionalized-at-search-giant/ <comment><USER2> What did she expect Google to do in her case? I understand she dated Drummond and had a consensual relationship with him, Google moved her to a different team (because there's a conflict of interest if somebody is the manager of their partner).

After their relationship ended, it got ugly, but what is Google's supposed role in their custody battle? And how is that related to sexual harassment?

<comment><USER3> Move the boss to another job, not the junior.

At my firm, the partner is forced out if they are caught banging juniors or staff.

In this case, moving the claimant to another position is text book retaliation because of the power mismatch.

<comment><USER2> > In this case, moving the claimant to another position is text book > retaliation because of the power mismatch.

But the move happened _before_ the break-up, so there really wasn't anything to retaliate for (other than "don't date within the company", which apparently isn't actually a problem at Google if what she writes is accurate).

It's a very different story if the company got involved in the custody battle and took the exec's side, but I understand that's not what happened - when she was moved they were still on good terms. She quit shortly thereafter (because of the move), while still being on good terms with him.

<comment><USER4> You misunderstood: the manager should be moved as punishment for them being stupid and screwing a subordinate. And yes, the move happens ASAP.

<comment><USER5> There is no legal reason that has to happen, in fact the subordinate can get moved to night shift for example and it's still not considered retaliation.

<comment><USER3> It opens you up for a trial.

claimant - I told Mr Big at home that he should divorce his wife so he can help me with this incoming baby...then BOOM I am on the night shift.... => probably gets over summary judgment motion.

<comment><USER5> You would think but that does not appear to be the standard. The company merely has make an attempt to separate the two parties and it doesn't have to be super equitable. Plenty of cases where the victim ends up being punished and the company does not have to pay

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A dysfunctional legal department at Google. Who would have guessed? The founder/CEO Gates marrying someone in Marketing. The CEO of a software company I worked for having an affair with his secretary. This is what one had to tolerate to work in the software industry, and now has to tolerate to work in "tech". A complete absence of ethics and common sense. Pathetic. Other industries employing intelligent people are not like that, not to the same extent anyway.

<comment><USER7> _Other industries employing intelligent people are not like that, not to the same extent anyway._

Name one.

The news here (if it's news to you) is that tech is not special like everyone once thought. Everyone thought tech was above that kind of thing. It turns out everyone in tech is just human, just like the rest of the world.

The story here could not possible be more incredibly mundane and familiar and boring.

<comment><USER6> "Everyone thought tech was above that kind of thing."

That is news to me. Based on experience with the software industry in the 1990's, there was no reason for me to think that companies like Google would be any different.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Where do people find the time to fit all this sexual harassment on their schedules?? I feel like I'm always sprinting towards completing 3 different projects at any given time.

<comment><USER9> You might notice these harrassment cases are almost always someone high up in the org chart.

They, I suspect, do not real work and thus have the time to conduct these activities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow, if what she says in her original post is true, the guy is a regular sociopath. She claims he completely switched off his affection for the son and then used him as a tool against her. Then justified his philandering by giving Eric Schmidt as an example, and claiming it's his right as a powerful man.

No wonder the company's abusing the privacy of everyone and was keen to support a totalitarian regime with such "leaders".</comment>


It's time to get serious about recycling lithium-ion batteries - <AUTHOR> https://cen.acs.org/materials/energy-storage/time-serious-recycling-lithium/97/i28 <comment><USER2> It is very simple: the big corporation that made them, owns them. They have the scale and tech to do decent refurbishment and/or recycling. It is simply done and ~swapping batteries is much faster than charging them. Standards exist and are used for scooters.

~swap

[https://electrek.co/2019/06/10/yamaha-ec-05-electric- scooter...](https://electrek.co/2019/06/10/yamaha-ec-05-electric-scooter- gogoro-batteries)

</comment><comment><USER3> If you want what'll work, then it's time to get serious about biofuels and _their_ storage.

The best buffered conversion of starlight into mechanical drive, that I know of (and by a long shot), is through combustion of high quality biodiesel, (ie via hemp, soy, or jatropha seeds pressed for extraction (also as blends).

In the future, we can even switch to the prime movers of photosynthesis, algae and cyanobacteria for even more dense bioreactors than the beautiful, wide open fields of life-giving plants.

Oil, as a mechano-electric energy storage, is very cost-effective, and storing it works:

* [Guidelines For Long Term Fuel Storage of Diesel and Storage Tanks]([https://www.bellperformance.com/blog/bid/114020/guidelines-f...](https://www.bellperformance.com/blog/bid/114020/guidelines-for-long-term-fuel-storage-of-diesel-and-storage-tanks))

* [Diesel Storage & Fuel Treatments Effects|Gold Eagle Co]([https://www.goldeagle.com/tips-tools/how-long-does-diesel-fu...](https://www.goldeagle.com/tips-tools/how-long-does-diesel-fuel-last-storage/))

* [Long-term storage of diesel]([https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp-country/en_au/media/fuel-n...](https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp-country/en_au/media/fuel-news/long-term-storage-diesel.pdf))

* [Storing Biodiesel Fuel |]([http://www.springboardbiodiesel.com/storing-biodiesel-fuel](http://www.springboardbiodiesel.com/storing-biodiesel-fuel))

* [Is My Stored Diesel Fuel Ready for an Emergency?]([https://www.fueltechnologiesinternational.com/is-my-stored-d...](https://www.fueltechnologiesinternational.com/is-my-stored-diesel-fuel-ready-for-an-emergency.html))

* [Bio Kleen Diesel Fuel Biocide - Power Service]([https://powerservice.com/psp_product/bio-kleen-diesel-fuel-b...](https://powerservice.com/psp_product/bio-kleen-diesel-fuel-biocide/))

* [Amazon.com: Power Service 09016-09 Bio Kleen Diesel Fuel Biocide - 16 oz.: Automotive]([https://www.amazon.com/Power-Service-09016-09-Diesel-Biocide...](https://www.amazon.com/Power-Service-09016-09-Diesel-Biocide/dp/B005IUP9LC))

* [How to Maintain Stored Diesel Fuel - Fuel - Government Fleet]([https://www.government-fleet.com/157049/how-to-maintain-stor...](https://www.government-fleet.com/157049/how-to-maintain-stored-diesel-fuel))

* [How long can you store DIESEL fuel..?????]([http://www.wilderness-survival.net/forums/showthread.php?149...](http://www.wilderness-survival.net/forums/showthread.php?1492-How-long-can-you-store-DIESEL-fuel))

* [PRI-D (diesel) shelf life? - Survivalist Forum]([https://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=865841](https://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=865841))

<comment><USER4> E-diesel ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel)) would save us the hassle of using crops for fuel, assuming we can use a clean energy source to produce it.

But yes; batteries are nice and it's good that we spend resources developing new and better ones, and that we recycle the old ones for materials, but we have a large fossil-fuel-based infrastructure in place, and replacing/upgrading it will take at least half a century.

We need something clean to keep that going in the mean time.</comment></comment>