Marvin Minsky dies at 88 - <AUTHOR> http://nytimes.com/2016/01/26/business/marvin-minsky-pioneer-in-artificial-intelligence-dies-at-88.html <comment><USER2> I met Minsky once in February 1987, at a rally in Las Vegas to protest the Nevada Test Site.. A lot of famous people (Carl Sagan, Barbara Boxer, Tom Downey, Ramsey Clark, Martin Sheen, Kris Kristofferson) were there, but I'd gone to meet Minsky.

I had taken along a (quite early) copy of the GNU Emacs manual. The FSF was selling them, but I'd put this one together myself. Running TeX on the texinfo source, converting the output for the Imagen printer, and then taking it to Kinko's to be spiral bound, including my imitation of the yellow cover that the FSF version had.

I asked Minsky for his autograph. He looked at what I presented, understood what it was, an autographed inside the front cover, "Marvin Minsky, friend of Stallman".

In April of 2011 in an airport in Honolulu, I presented that same manual for an autograph to Richard Stallman. He looked my manual over for a long time. IIRC, it documents Emacs version 16 or 17. Then he signed it, below Minsky's autograph, "Richard M. Stallman - Friend of Minsky"

RIP, Marvin.

<comment><USER3> Amazing. If possible, can you please share a picture of the autographs?

<comment><USER4> Yes. Please please please do share the picture of autographs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.

"What are you doing?", asked Minsky.

"I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-tac-toe", Sussman replied.

"Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky.

"I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play", Sussman said.

Minsky then shut his eyes.

"Why do you close your eyes?" Sussman asked his teacher.

"So that the room will be empty."

At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

RIP.

<comment><USER6> It is now several decades later.

Do TensorFlow/CNN builders use random initial configurations, or custom designed stuctures?

<comment><USER7> NN weights need to start random because otherwise two weights with exactly the same value can get "stuck" and be unable to differentiate. Backpropagation relies on starting random patterns that kind of match so that it can fine tune them.

But the weights are often initialized to be really close to zero.

<comment><USER8> Given the era though, Sussman may have actually been working with a neural net that's not the typical hidden-layer variety. "Randomly wired" could be a statement about the topography of the network, not about the weights.

<comment><USER9> There is no evidence he was actually working with a neural net.

[https://web.archive.org/web/20120717041345/http://sch57.msk....](https://web.archive.org/web/20120717041345/http://sch57.msk.ru/~khim/hackers/part1/chapter6.html)

<comment><USER10> I had no idea this existed; it's brilliant!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I had the chance to walk with Marvin Minsky down a hallway once, and I asked him what he thought of Bayesian reasoning. He said that it seemed to him like it was still part of a general trend away from tackling the central problem in AI. I said I didn't think so, but he seemed tired so I didn't try to go into detail.

There's an urban legend that I once got into a fistfight with Marvin Minsky, which does about as well as anything to illustrate the crazy, crazy things that people have been known to believe about me.

We have temporarily misplaced a great mind. See you later, Professor Minsky.

<comment><USER12> I keep thinking about an article I read a couple of years ago about the two schools of thought in AI: the now popular Conventional AI and (I believe) Computational AI. The article was mainly about the lead proponent of computational AI and how, after he helped give birth to the AI field, he was in effect being ostracised because he didn't think conventional AI should be considered "intelligence" as we generally think of it. I'm paraphrasing of course but I'm wondering if Marvin Minsky was the subject of that article? It has been nagging me for a couple of months now and I just don't remember where did I read it or the name of the subject.

<comment><USER13> Was it this one about Hofstader?

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the- man-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-man-who- would-teach-machines-to-think/309529/)

<comment><USER12> That seems to be the one thanks! I think that the article had some "code samples" and this one doesn't... but I may be confusing it with another article about quantum computing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Interesting fact: Minsky is an Alcor member[1], so he's probably being cryopreserved right now. Though if he died from a cerebral hemorrhage, I'm not sure how well they'll be able to preserve his brain.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcor_Life_Extension_Foundatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcor_Life_Extension_Foundation#Membership)

<comment><USER15> One can hope that they'll make the attempt regardless. Alcor's position is to carry out their directive from a member regardless of third party opinions on viability where they can, as having the reputation for doing this minimizes the very real problem of interference from family members (for reasons economic, religious, etc). Also it is very hard to say at the time (as time is critical) how much damage is done via fatal brain injury of this nature, and of course at this point next to impossible to say what that will do the the odds and difficulty of future restoration.

Brain injury kept Roy Walford from being cryopreserved, though there it was clearly an extension of his own thoughts on the matter: [http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=24045](http://www.cryonet.org/cgi- bin/dsp.cgi?msg=24045) I see that as a terrible shame; it is guessing in advance as to the limits of what can be restored.

<comment><USER16> Agreed. Not trying guarantees failure; trying leaves some possibility of success.

<comment><USER17> Agreed...given the resources and money there's nothing wrong with hedging your bets...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I audited a class on policy at the Harvard Kennedy School in October of 2015, and instead of going to class one day, we listened to a speaker (Jaron Lanier). After the talk, I stuck around in the front row and eavesdropped on people asking him questions. Eventually, one person came up to his side and asked "are you going to Marvin's house tonight?" I thought this person may have been talking about Minsky! So after Jaron responded with a "maybe" I approached this man and asked him if he was. And he did mean Minsky!!

This man and I started talking about intelligence, ML vs. symbolic, and more... he truly knew many intricacies of AI! Eventually, for some amazing reason, out of nowhere he asked me if I wanted to come to Marvin's house that evening! Of course I said yes! At the time, the only paper I had on me was ironically Patrick Winston's thesis printed out in my backpack, so this man wrote the name "Henry Lieberman" (a colleague of Minsky's) on the cover and gave me Minsky's address!

I went to Marvin's house that evening, and it was simply wonderful! We talked about SoM, and I was included in these discussions and was treated like a colleague. Marvin answered all my initial questions, but only created more within me! He engaged me! I really felt included. It was one of luckiest days in my life.

I'm sharing because I'm reading other stories about people's encounters with Marvin, and while I was reading them I didn't feel as sad. Perhaps mine might do the same for someone somewhere.

</comment><comment><USER19> One amazon review for The Society of Mind says "The book has nothing to do with artificial intelligence. It has everything to do with speculation. And since no one has builty the society of mind from this blueprint in over 15 years, what does that tell us about the usefulness of the idea??" A"Marvin Minsky" replied: "It tells us that most AI researchers are still looking for oversimplistic solutions to problems. This reviewer does not understand that new ideas often take 2 decades to spread, because most practitioners in most fields don't oftenmake changes in their careers. The ideas in my 1961 "Steps toward Artificial Intelligence" became general practice aroun 1980, and those in "The Society of Mind," are only now (2007) becoming widely adopted."

<comment><USER20> He also wrote a few product reviews [http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3145L3LF7U7F5/ref=cm_c...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3145L3LF7U7F5/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdp?ie=UTF8) ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> While I was a student at MIT, I heard a rumor that Prof. Minsky in the 1960's thought computer vision was such an easy problem that he assigned it to a first year undergrad.

I asked him if it was true, and he said that it wasn't true that he thought the problem was easy, but it is true that he had a first year undergrad student that he decided to put in charge of his grad students working on the problem. The first year student was Gerald Sussman.

</comment><comment><USER22> Minsky helped design one of the coolest musical gadgets I've ever come across, the Triadex Muse. Being a sort of self-generative music box, Minsky imagined a future where families would gather around such musical machines instead of turning to boring old television for their entertainment and relaxation.

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

</comment><comment><USER23> RIP. I will always hold him as an inspiration.

Of interest: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neats_vs._scruffies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neats_vs._scruffies)

I find it interesting because Minsky did a lot of the foundational work in Neural Network research yet he philosophically identified as the opposite on the Neat/Scruffy spectrum of most NN researchers today. Much like Bayes, I think there is some immense wisdom from his research that will not even be acknowledged as wisdom for decades.

<comment><USER24> I think that's interesting as well. I would have guessed he was a Neat from his talks and his admiration of AGI because it implies he agrees there will have to be a succinct theory of general intelligence/consciousness.

<comment><USER25> It depends a lot on where you put the limit between neats and scruffies. I personally would have put him straight in the center, as more of a pragmatist. One of the big criticisms he had (from my memory of the Society of Mind lectures) is that some researchers spent too much time trying to find an overarching, simplistic theory of mind (some sort of physics-envy), which would put him in the scruffy camp. I do also remember him saying that trying to replicate the brain was pointless and that people should focus on trying to replicate its function rather than its architecture, which I am assuming is a criticism of the connectionist approaches, which would put him in the neat camp.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Besides his contributions to computer science, his invention of the confocal microscope profoundly affected biology research and is still in wide use.

<comment><USER27> Wow, I didn't know that he invented confocal!

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I got to spend some time talking with him once when we were both visiting the offices of OLPC in Cambridge, more or less across the street from MIT's building 32 where CSAIL is located. I told him a little about what I was working on (learning agents attached to dialogue systems) and he had some insights. I ran out to the coop to buy another copy of The Society of Mind and he signed it. We also talked a little bit about some of the ideas in his The Emotion Machine, which I hadn't read at that point.

On top of his work, Minsky taught me that you _should_ meet your idols. If they're worth it you walk away enriched and invigorated.

</comment><comment><USER29> Oh man... This is really sad news. I mean, don't get me wrong, ANY death is sad news, especially for that person's friends and family. But while I never knew Marvin Minsky personally, I've felt his influence on my life for a long time. AI has always been one of my favorite subjects, and he's one of the forefathers of AI research and his presence looms large in the life of anyone connected to the field. So this feels like losing an old friend.

Not to mention that he was a brilliant mind, and his loss is a loss for humanity at large.

Anyway, RIP Mr. Minsky.

</comment><comment><USER30> I think Minsky was the last living giant of AI that attended the 1956 Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence, which many cite as being the beginning of NLP, computer vision, machine learning, etc.

Sad news...

<comment><USER31> More than an attendee, he was one of the proposers.

The proposal:

[http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmou...](http://www- formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Here's a nice tribute by Philip Greenspun: [http://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2016/01/25/marvin- minsky-1927...](http://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2016/01/25/marvin- minsky-1927-2016-the-death-of-a-skeptic/), via [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10971472](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10971472).

</comment><comment><USER33> Favorite paper of his:

Why Programming is a Good Medium for Expressing Poorly Understood and Sloppily-Formulated Ideas

[http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Why%20programming%20...](http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Why%20programming%20is--.html)

</comment><comment><USER34> What a sad day, he was truly one of the great minds of the twentieth century. Inspiration to generations.

P.S. Web of Stories has an extensive, autobiography style interview with Marvin Minsky [1].

[1] [http://www.webofstories.com/play/marvin.minsky/1](http://www.webofstories.com/play/marvin.minsky/1)

</comment><comment><USER35> Some great sentences from Minsky:

No computer has ever been designed that is ever aware of what it's doing; but most of the time, we aren't either.

In general we are least aware of what our minds do best.

</comment><comment><USER36> As a grad student, I remember shooting the bull with Minsky and Hillis (1983). The CIA had offices across the hall and we were discussing how we might grab one of their bags of shredded documents and use a computer to piece together all the fragments by hashing the pattern of edge fragments on each piece.

<comment><USER37> Which later became a real-life DARPA Challenge (solved).

[http://archive.darpa.mil/shredderchallenge/](http://archive.darpa.mil/shredderchallenge/)

And, come to think of it, a variation was in the novel Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge.

<comment><USER38> There's an excellent chapter about it in [http://www.glassner.com/portfolio/morphs-mallards-and- montag...](http://www.glassner.com/portfolio/morphs-mallards-and-montages/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> > Underlying our approach to this subject is our conviction that "computer > science" is not a science and that its significance has little to do with > computers. The computer revolution is a revolution in the way we think and > in the way we express what we think. The essence of this change is the > emergence of what might best be called procedural epistemology  the study > of the structure of knowledge from an imperative point of view, as opposed > to the more declarative point of view taken by classical mathematical > subjects. Mathematics provides a framework for dealing precisely with > notions of "what is." Computation provides a framework for dealing precisely > with notions of "how to."

[http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Why%20programming%20...](http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Why%20programming%20is--.html)

[https://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/front/node3.html](https://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/front/node3.html)

From SICP preface, which is the quote that actually matters, this is inspired by Minsky's quote. I hate that the quote that went public were all the other less inspired quotes from SICP.

</comment><comment><USER40> Glad I was able to get to meet Marvin back in 2014. On cognitive neuroscience he was pessimistic, he likened it to telling a chemist to try and discern what a computer was doing by looking at the machine without the monitor. Really enjoyed that analogy.

</comment><comment><USER41> He was truly a brilliant and humble man, who wrote so much influential and interesting stuff! Here's one of my favorite papers by Marvin Minsky:

Jokes and their Relation to the Cognitive Unconscious

Marvin Minsky, MIT

Abstract: Freud's theory of jokes explains how they overcome the mental "censors" that make it hard for us to think "forbidden" thoughts. But his theory did not work so well for humorous nonsense as for other comical subjects. In this essay I argue that the different forms of humor can be seen as much more similar, once we recognize the importance of knowledge about knowledge and, particularly, aspects of thinking concerned with recognizing and suppressing bugs -- ineffective or destructive thought processes. When seen in this light, much humor that at first seems pointless, or mysterious, becomes more understandable.

[http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/jokes.cognitive.txt](http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/jokes.cognitive.txt)

</comment><comment><USER42> Reading the comments here, I would have loved to meet the guy. I'm in my 30s and I've met and spoken to precious few of "the greats" of our generation. I feel like there are two phenomena going on:

1) We don't always know who is one of "the greats" of today's generation, until much later.

2) Today, content generation is so democratized (eg wikipedia, soundcloud) that there are less individual superstars like Pushkin, etc.

3) Even intellectuals who were once highly regarded would today have tons of comments on their blog nitpicking and debating every detail of what they said, with many of the comments being low quality. See eg Sam Harris vs Noam Chomsky debates.

It seems like a world in which it's harder to be great like Alan Turing or Claude Shannon or Richard Feynman or Marvin Minsky. At the same time, maybe there are more great people than ever, and we just don't always know who they are until much later.

</comment><comment><USER43> One of my earliest exposures to CS was his Computation: Finite and Infinite Machines.

"Communication with Alien Intelligence" is another favorite of mine. The idea of enumerating all possible Turing Machines and looking for ones that do something meaningful is brilliant.

<comment><USER44> Is the set of all turing machines finite?

<comment><USER45> No, but they can be put in a 1-1 mapping with the integers, making them countably infinite.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I would go to Marvin's lectures - they were in the evening, like 7PM or so. This was early 2000's, and I was a grad student at MIT.

I went to Patrick Winston, and asked him if it was worth going to Marvin's lectures given that I keep falling asleep. He said - of course, we all know you are overworked, but marvin may say something that will change your life.

</comment><comment><USER47> "You don't understand anything until you learn it more than one way." ... RIP ... The Society of Mind one of the best books.

<comment><USER48> After reading that book my imagination came up with a cartoon I doodled in my notebook. It was someone speaking at Minsky's funeral and saying "I know he thought my mind was just a bunch of simple machines like Builder, but he was still a pretty good guy."

Not that I knew anything about him... it was just an impression.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> "If you like somebody's work just go and see them. However, don't ask for their autograph. A lot of people came and asked me for my autograph and it's creepy." \-- Marvin Minsky ([https://youtu.be/qJZ_1a-t_sA?t=1543](https://youtu.be/qJZ_1a-t_sA?t=1543))

</comment><comment><USER50> Very sad and surreal, I happened to just be reading his Wikipedia page yesterday. I hope the cause of death does not prevent his cryopreservation. Say what you will about cryonics, but it definitely gives you a better chance of living again than internment or cremation. I hope the world will see his genius again.

</comment><comment><USER51> K-Lines (Knowledge-lines). I still meditate on this idea, and Minsky's paper "K-lines: A Theory of Memory".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-line_(artificial_intelligenc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-line_\(artificial_intelligence\))

</comment><comment><USER52> Minsky used to give talks at the annual Boskone Science Fiction Convention. I heard several and enjoyed them greatly, he was an entertaining speaker.

<comment><USER37> He also spoke at the World Science Fiction Convention in Boston in 1989. The only time I got to see him speak in person.

</comment></comment><comment> maze-le When I first came into contact with AI at the University, I really enjoyed reading his Essays. As A Undergraduate I wasn't really ready to read his papers, but publications like "Why People Think Computers Can't" and "Matter, Mind and Models" (wich where recommendations of my prof.) really got me interested in this field.

Rest in peace, Mr. Minsky.

</comment><comment><USER53> He had a wonderful way of expressing ideas. This always resonated with me: "Minds are what brains do"

</comment><comment><USER54> Danny Hillis introduced Marvin at the MIT Media Lab's 30th anniversary in October 2015, where they both participated in a remarkable panel discussion.

Though not as strong and fast-talking as he once was, Marvin's humor and wisdom shine through.

Here's a link to the video: [http://www.media.mit.edu/video/view/ml30-2015-10-30-01](http://www.media.mit.edu/video/view/ml30-2015-10-30-01)

Danny begins his introduction at about 41:29.

</comment><comment><USER55> RIP Marvin Minsky [http://thinkingonthinking.com/marvin-minsky-passed- away/](http://thinkingonthinking.com/marvin-minsky-passed-away/)

</comment><comment><USER41> Here's a video image from the POV of a robotic Dakin Bear of Marvin Minsky's son, Henry Minsky, who had a look of trepidation at the idea of sacrificing his Dakin Bear to one of his dad's robotics experiments.

[http://imgur.com/gcFVzpk](http://imgur.com/gcFVzpk)

</comment><comment><USER56> thankfully MIT open courseware recorded one of his classes [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pb3z2w9gDg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pb3z2w9gDg) the society of mind class 6.868

</comment><comment><USER57> @seldo (CTO of npmjs)

> True story: in my final essay of my AI module at uni, I disagreed with > everything Minsky believed, so my professor, a fan, flunked me.

</comment><comment><USER24> So sad. I wanted him to survive until a true AI breakthrough happens, which seems so close (granted for many decades now, but that's why).

<comment><USER58> If you look at what the cars are doing, I'm not an AI guy, but that deep learning that the cars are doing seems like something he might like. In my book that neural network stuff is AI.

<comment><USER18> Machine learning is not Artificial Intelligence.

Machine Learning is applied science. Artificial Intelligence is science.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> This is sad beyond words. He was an admirable genius and a very candid person. May he rest in peace.

</comment><comment><USER60> I'm trying to figure out who will play him in the Hollywood movie about him.

</comment><comment><USER61> Admin, can we get a black bar for this? Marvin Minsky is widely referred to as the "Founding Father of AI."

<comment><USER11> I can't imagine who deserves a black bar if Minsky doesn't, unless a grey bar would be more appropriate (Minsky was signed up for cryonics with Alcor, so he's not _dead_ dead.)

<comment><USER62> > I can't imagine who deserves a black bar if Minsky doesn't

Have you chance to elaborate why this guy deserved this? Did he build first neural network, lisp machine, ALICE chatbot, break image net. I always considered him as some kind of celebrity from science, while other guys, which names nobody remembers, actually pushed AI movement by doing real things, while working on Google Brain, Watson, cyc, trying to catch spam, terrorists and fraudsters.

<comment><USER63> Ignorance is not an excuse

<comment><USER62> Could you elaborate?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Isaac Asimov: "The only people I ever met whose intellects surpassed my own were Carl Sagan and Marvin Minsky."

<comment><USER65> Pretty egotistical to frame it that way of Asimov.

<comment><USER66> You are not Isaac Asimov. Therefore you cannot know his mind. So maybe he wasn't boasting at all.

<comment><USER67> Isaac Asimov wasn't any of the people he wasn't talking about either, so maybe he should've kept it shut about their minds, too.

But that wouldn't make good banter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> God, when I log on to HN in the morning and see that damned black bar I know it's going to hurt.

But Marvin Minsky? My Tuesday wasn't ready for this. He has had such an impact on the field of AI, and even on the social dialogues about it. Not everybody thinks that robots are going to go Skynet on us, and a lot of us that realize that were informed by his work. Whether directly or indirectly, so much of his work has become common knowledge amongst AI enthusiasts and scientists.

I'd be wasting my breath to say that he'll be missed, of course. I wish I could have met him.

</comment><comment><USER69> We just lost a giant.

Hard to imagine someone more black bar worthy for Hacker News, hope we have one up soon.

<comment><USER70> I hope not. The black bar has become a meaningless exercise in political posturing.

Edit: allow me to clarify - just having to choose whether or not someone is "black bar worthy" is distasteful. Ian Murdock didn't get a black bar that I can recall, and I don't remember seeing one since then, even though other people relevant to the community have died. Are we to expect someone to change the color of the bar every time a death in the tech community occurs, and how to we judge relevance in that regard?

No, it's an arbitrary gesture that doesn't really honor anything or anyone. It just gives people something to argue about. Why did someone get a black bar and someone else didn't? Why was this person deserving of it, and not that person? It's best to just remove it altogether.

<comment><USER71> I thought the black bar was done by the people who run the site, and "we" don't judge it at all.

In which case, it's a personal decision to honor someone they care about by placing a subtle notice on ther site, which happens to be popular. It's no different in spirit to the thousands of tribute blog posts being written as I type this.

I find it extremely distasteful to criticize how someone chooses to honor the dead. As long as they're not doing it by shooting guns into the air or hosting a destructive party next to your house or something like that, what do you care?

<comment><USER70> "We" certainly do judge, even if that judgement has no practical value. People do act as if it's up for debate. Whenever we decide one death is worthy of it and ignore others, or get into petty arguments if it doesn't appear fast enough, or for the right person. An expectation builds which, if not properly catered to, leads to insult and animosity. And given that it's Hacker News, sometimes suspicion and paranoia.

It certainly is within the site owners' right to do whatever they like, but for the community it's becoming a spectacle.

Although obviously, as the bar is up right now, my opinion on the matter isn't going to prevail.

<comment><USER71> I'd say the solution here is not to end the black bars, but to end the petty disputes by being more civilized in the discussions. Perhaps that's too much to ask, but we should give it a shot.

<comment><USER32> Thank you.

<comment><USER72> Why?

<comment><USER73> Because it very strongly reflects the guiding idea of what is best for HN given that 'petty disputes' are the opposite. They are destructive to a degree that is hard to imagine until you put a figure on it.

<comment><USER72> Unfortunately to my eyes the comment that dang thanked looked like it was a rather passive aggressive put down. Especially in the context that the OP was _not_ being petty but was raising an important point in a measured way.

EDIT Civility is important but it should not be confused for everyone having the same point of view on a topic. And censorship by "civility" causes people to not join discussions. When I come to HN I want a intelligent but lively discussion. However, some issues have reached such a consensus such that even well thought out opposing views put politely get heavily downvoted.

<comment><USER74> Think about it this way...

Imagine you were the caretaker of a public establishment like a school or business, and news broke of the passing of an eminent person who was deeply respected and admired by many of the people who frequent that establishment.

So you went and lowered the flag to half-mast, because that is the customary and respectful thing to do. And whilst most people appreciated the gesture and felt comforted by the shared sense of mourning and respect for the deceased person, a small minority erupted into a noisy debate about how appropriate it was to lower the flag, and whether someone else was more worthy of having the flag lowered in their honour, etc.

If you can imagine this scenario in real life, you can understand how dang feels when this kind of argument erupts on a bereavement thread on a site he runs and cares so deeply about cultivating as a pleasant site to visit.

He can't be the one to call people out for being insensitive, but he can at least say "Thank you" to someone who does, and who in doing so, gives him some much-needed reassurance about the level of emotional intelligence around this place.

Discussions about the merits of customs and policies on the site are fair enough, but if we're to be as humane and compassionate online as we would try to be offline, the time and place of the mourning and honouring of a just- deceased person is not the right time and place.

<comment><USER72> I can see this from both POV...

Just reverse that situation and imagine that you are a member of a public establishment and that when certain people you particularly respect pass that public establishment does not follow its usual customs.

<comment><USER74> If/when it happens, you'd politely discuss it with the caretaker and others in the establishment (just like what happens here when someone says "hey can we have the black bar?"), and you'd then respect the consensus outcome. And if the caretaker and the other members rebuked such a request that was important to you, it would be fair enough to express your feelings then and there, and discuss it to the point of resolution.

That isn't what's happened here.

Seriously, civil behaviour around a bereavement is just not that hard.

Respectfully, I won't be commenting further on this thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Can we get a black bar for this one?</comment>


The Five Percent Solution - Who Needs Another Chat Client? - <AUTHOR> http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080728_005308.html <comment><USER2> Wow! Congrats to Paul!

I met him at Startup School this year and it was, honestly, one of the highlights.</comment>


Thousands of minks die after being set free (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/technology/2017/07/thousands-of-minks-die-after-being-set-free.html <comment><USER2> not that they'd lived a long and happy life where they where. the arguments that would make sense are:

can it be just to do something against the law?

and did this action cause more harm to the minks? which spurrs more questions: did some survive? did the missing ones get replaced by more minks or did it bancrupt the company or both with the market filing the gap? did it raise awareness for animal suffering which could lead to new laws or a decline in demand?

there is no simple answers in a society as complex as ours. this makes activism especially hard and I generally don't even blame activists for that (at least they attempt to do good).</comment>


Waterfall or Agile? When is Waterfall better? - <AUTHOR>

I'm working on a system with a lot of integrations and a lot of manual QA and our company keep pushing agile. I'm starting to think because of all the task dependencies a full fledged project plan would work better for each release. Has any one else had similar experiences? What are your thoughts? <comment><USER2> There is a lot of material on why "waterfall is bad", but it is as important to know the specific reasons your management is "pushing agile".

What is their _definition_ of agile? Is it disciplined, or seen a a quick path to bypass all that tiring and troublesome planning?

<comment><AUTHOR> More like it's the latest buzzword.</comment></comment>


Go Language – Web Application Secure Coding Practices - <AUTHOR> https://checkmarx.gitbooks.io/go-scp/ <comment><USER2> When I see anything that touches web coding practices for Go I always look up an area that I know best: sanitization.

I wrote [https://github.com/microcosm- cc/bluemonday](https://github.com/microcosm-cc/bluemonday) which is a pure Go HTML sanitizer inspired by [https://github.com/owasp/java-html- sanitizer](https://github.com/owasp/java-html-sanitizer) .

The key things to understand about HTML sanitizers:

* They must be whitelist based

* They must be aware of context

* You must sanitize _ALL_ user input even if you don't think you're going to render it on a web page.

The book linked to in the article does not seem to understand any of the above.

The section on sanitization has the equivalent of "string replace" as the primary recommendation. Elsewhere in the XSS section a focus is on escaping content before it is rendered.

Sanitization needs to know not to run on
 blocks, and to escape HTML entities automatically, and to understand what links are safe and which are not.

XSS can be really interesting and quite targeted. It can be that a user-agent contains the XSS, because the target may not be the person reading the page but the admin looking at a web page of their web server logs through an analytics program on the same domain.

The bluemonday package I wrote can deal with all of these things but that isn't the point, the point is that this is an area I know and the book falls way short of a decent standard for creating a secure and safe web application. And if it falls short in this area (the first 2 chapters) then I would assume that it falls short in all areas.

<comment><USER3> > You must sanitize ALL user input even if you don't think you're going to > render it on a web page.

I'm not able to make sense of this. Sanitize it for what context? SQL? JSON? HTML? Inclusion as a command-line argument? All of these, and hope that sanitizing it for one context doesn't un-sanitize it for others?

<comment><USER4> Context here means the context of the output page.

Usually this means the HTML context. Different sanitization is needed depending on _where_ in the HTML document the input is used.

For instance, if the input is used in between HTML tags (let's say $foo is user input in this PHP example):

        ... <?php echo $foo ?>

Here, the input that you need to transition to JavaScript execution is a < character (among other things): .

Therefore, to correctly sanitize this, you would call the PHP `htmlentities` function:

        ... <?php echo htmlentities($foo) ?>

Now, this XSS vulnerability is fixed.

What if foo is used in a different context?

        ... <a href='<?php echo htmlentities($foo) ?>'>...

Here, what we need to transition the HTML parser to executing JavaScript is a ' character, and this can be exploited by the following input (in between the double quotes): "' onclick='alert(1)"

The key problem is that `htmlentities` is not valid sanitization in the context of an HTML attribute value. In this example, you need to use `urlencode`

        ... <a href='<?php echo urlencode($foo) ?>'>...

The general idea also applies to CSS, JSON, and JavaScript. SQL is a different vulnerability class (SQL injection).

I highly recommend the following research paper from 2011 that discusses the context-sensitivity of JavaScript in depth: [http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~prateeks/papers/scriptgard- ccs11...](http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~prateeks/papers/scriptgard-ccs11.pdf)

In my mind, the context-sensitivity of XSS is one of the key reasons why it is so prevalent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Last time this was discussed: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14192383](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14192383)

Still not convinced about the usefulness of the source, given the criticisms raised here and there.

<comment><USER6> This guide still has some issues. It's missing common classes of web app vulns I've seen in Go code (e.g. CSRF, SSRF) and has some weird advice here and there (scan uploaded files with AV? Really?)

<comment><USER7> Fail to scan with AV and you might be an unwitting malware distributor.

<comment><USER6> If you allow binary uploads, you're going to be a malware distributor whether you scan or not. AV just introduces complexity and attack surface and doesn't really belong in a guide about Golang secure coding practices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Under Validation and Storage > Storing password securely: the theory

That code -- using sha256 to hash a password+salt, and store it in a db -- should not be there. Someone WILL copy paste it.

Don't make it easy for people to do something stupid.

<comment><USER9> To be fair to the author, the paragraph immediately following that code snippet says:

"However, this approach has several flaws and should not be used. It is given here only to illustrate the theory with a practical example. The next section explains how to correctly salt passwords in real life."

and goes on to use bcrypt.

<comment><USER10> The fear is that people won't read that or just use the SHA256 example because it's before the bcrypt one, or maybe because they find it runs faster.

IMHO, I think examples of dangerous code should implement one of the following mindless-script-kiddie-consultant defenses (in order of most sane to least sane):

1\. use screenshots of the snippet

2\. use pseudo-code

3\. put in deliberate syntax mistakes

4\. have a javascript alert on right-click or ctrl/cmd+c with the warning about it being unsafe (a.k.a. going full 90s)

<comment><USER11> Yes the problem with "unsafe" examples is that people _will_ use them -- perhaps thinking, "this is a POC, we'll come back later and do this properly" \-- only it gets forgotten and ends up in production.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Go has also an amazing static-analysis tool, vet, that is not mentioned in the article: [https://golang.org/cmd/vet/](https://golang.org/cmd/vet/)

It can find printf-format errors, invalid shifts, unreachable code, etc.

Even though go vet is very helpful, it is sometimes scary that the compiler allows to build such incorrect code. For instance: [https://play.golang.org/p/2AVHUt5Wcf](https://play.golang.org/p/2AVHUt5Wcf)

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure how `fmt.Printf("%s\n", i) // invalid type` is really that "scary". Expecting the compiler to introspect that Printf's `...interface{}` argument's first value is incorrect, even though `i` does fulfill the stated parameter's type, is a FAR more scary thought.

<comment><USER14> The important thing here is, that fmt.Printf is just a function which takes a string and a variable amount of interface{} parameters. There is nothing in the language spec which creates a type correlation. the "%s" denotes a string parameter to print is solely some inner working of the Printf function. Yes, you can special case fmt.Printf, as some compilers do, but given the standard go vet tool, I rather think it belongs there than into the compiler, which, following the Go philosophy, exactly understands the Go language and precisely compiles that.

<comment><USER13> That's exactly my point. Special casing the compilation of 1 specific set of functions is a scary concept, esp. as the tool that can check the types is already in the go toolchain, AND there are plenty of edge cases that can't be caught anyways, so it can create a false sense of security.

<comment><USER14> Ah, had not quite caught your point as you had phrased it (and that by the time I answered your post was difficult to read for me, as for some downvotes it was printed in a very light font). Then we fully agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Overall I thought it was a good read. Does anyone know if using bindvars is foolproof against SQL injection? I'm currently using the sqlx library because some of the ORMs available for Go are rather clunky to deal with.

</comment><comment><USER16> I once made a tragic security error with

         http.Handle("/o/", http.StripPrefix("/o/", http.FileServer(http.Dir("/"))))

It's a bit too easy to expose to much of the FS aka "Directory traversal attack". My advice, always deploy into a container.

</comment><comment><USER17> Theres a whole section on stored procedures - it was my understanding that the database/sql package in the sodlib didn't support stored procedures (something to do with multiple rows or output var support)

<comment><USER18> The database/sql package is just bad anyway. The idea is sound but the execution is catastrophic and not many thought went into the design of this package. This is especially true with Postgresql where you are kind of forced to use db.Query instead of db.Exec on inserts or updates. Go std lib have a lot of issues like these. On the top of my head the log package and the flags package are pretty useless in real world apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> is there an equivalent of this book for python?

<comment><USER20> and Ruby as well

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> People who are not happy with the current content may contribute to make it better. This is an open source and collaborative work. There is obviously room for improvement. But instead of spitting in the soup, provide merge requests or issues. This book is shared for free. If everybody is giving a little of its time to make it better, then we may get a really usefull and informative book. It's a huge work to write a book.

See here how to contribute : [https://checkmarx.gitbooks.io/go- scp/content/howto-contribut...](https://checkmarx.gitbooks.io/go- scp/content/howto-contribute.html)

</comment><comment><USER22> Don't read it, _always_ start with using a good framework. It will do everything for you

<comment><USER23> Hi homakov, given your experience with security, could you please expand on _why_ we should not this particular guide? I do understand why we should start with using a good framework, and I have so far felt that reading guides also help us understand things to be aware of.

<comment><USER22> Because just reading a book or tutorial won't give you enough info to be comfortable with all terms there. For hobby or if you have spare time - yes go ahead, for practical business needs - waste of time. Good framework handles most of them better, and if it doesn't, it's not good one. So step 1 is always framework. Optional 2 is tutorials.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Ways To Get Feedback For Your Site - <AUTHOR>

How does everyone get people/users to test their site and provide feedback.<p>What ways do you generate traffic to test conversions (visitor to user) on your startup before you really start your marketing campaign. <comment><USER2> Mention it on twitter, your blog, and Facebook. If you don't already have a following at all, you need to get one. Write things that people find interesting and want to read, and then invite them to come and comment.

And actually mention it here.</comment>


Ask HN: Tradeoffs of using a nosql database? - <AUTHOR>

I've been hearing a ton of advantages over using the various nosql solutions (primarily couchdb and mongo).  What are the <i>disadvantages</i> to these DBs?  Data duplication? <comment><USER2> One is that they don't support transactions in the conventional sense. They do support some simpler atomic-operation primitives, but generally not for multiple objects updated in the same atomic operation, and not including other fancy things like rolling back transactions.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well, with CouchDB, you have to pre-define all of your queries with "views". And the first time you call a view, it has to run your mapping function against -every- document in the database, which takes a ton of time.</comment>


Ask HN: Which web/mobile app would you like to see that doesn't exist yet? - <AUTHOR>

Which web/mobile application would you like to see or develop that doesn't exist yet(or needs improvement)? I'm looking for some ideas for my next weekend project. The idea needn't be big. It can be even a small idea like some jQuery plugin. Anything that can be useful and fun. <comment><USER2> <http://theinternetwishlist.com/></comment>


Rate my job board - <AUTHOR>

It's a niche job board for SAP Consultants. I know the design isn't quite up-to-par and there can be additional features, but is it a viable MVP?
http://qchirp.com/
Any feedback is appreciated. <comment><USER2> Interesting. How many people have advertised jobs on the site? How many job seekers have used the site?</comment>


Tim O'Reilly on how his Classics degree shaped his business - <AUTHOR> http://artsandhumanities.fas.harvard.edu/people/tim-oreilly-75

<comment><USER2> I think Diogenes got the better of him, although it is a clever temptation. Curious how HN lines up on this.</comment>


Ask HN: Why visual studio code is free? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Because it's very hard to earn anything on general purpose IDE nowadays. Twenty years ago it was a quite profitable market, but not anymore.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it better to use Facebook login than a textbox to collect emails? - <AUTHOR>

I'm creating a product to help facebook page owners manage growing their fan base. I create a landing page before I launch and wanted to get some feedback between using facebook login button vs a textbox to collect emails.
Which do you think works better? and why?
http://www.statusscheduler.com <comment><AUTHOR> Here is a link: <http://www.statusscheduler.com></comment>


ReUUID – A UUID Recycling Service - <AUTHOR> http://reuuid.org/ <comment><USER2> Both the API and the site itself does not give you UUID version 4 UUID's, or by the looks of it, any kind of standard version, since no version markers are visible

</comment><comment><USER3> Some who can should flag this.

</comment><comment><USER4> this appears to be a cover for attracting donations via crypto-currencies

</comment><comment><USER5> lolwut.</comment>


Brooklyn people are vaccinating pets because of autism - <AUTHOR> https://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/339917/brooklyn-anti-vaxx-autism-veterinarian/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1501634814 <comment><USER2> The article says "aren't" rather than "are".

Also, !!!!

The original source appears to be

[http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/40/31/all-pet-anti- vacc...](http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/40/31/all-pet-anti-vaccination- movement-2017-08-04-bk.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> I know lots of anti-vaxers when it comes to their children but none who are withholding vaccinations from their pets. Odd that they are trying to prevent something that has never been diagnosed in an animal.</comment>


Crowdfunding bill would expose investors to swindles - <AUTHOR> http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/money/bs-bz-hancock-crowdfunding-danger-20111112,0,1311905.column <comment><USER2> I wanted to scream out loud while reading this. This. This is why we can't have nice things. BECAUSE NOBODY CAN TOLERATE RISK ANYMORE.

YES, if you make investing possible, some investors may get exposed to swindles! Deal with it! It's worth it for investing to be possible!

<comment><USER3> It doesn't even address the main risk of the bill, which is that grandma isn't going to get swindled, she's just going to get sold an investment product with hugely negative capital returns about 90% of the time _when executed correctly by talented, honest individuals._

I mean, that has to be the debate, right? Do we allow small, private investors access to investments with a bimodal distribution of outcomes, and if so what amount of regulatory overhead do we impose? With the understanding that every additional quanta of regulatory overhead a) kills some would-be companies at the margin and b) makes some deals inaccessible to small private investors at the margin.

<comment><USER4> Think about the phrase "do we allow". I ask, what right do "you" have to stop me from investing my money wherever I like?

I could go to a casino and blow $20,000 in a weekend. You're telling me that I can't put it into a startup that takes 2 years to fail? Hell, even if I _know_ its going to fail, getting a board seat there and doing my darndest to help it not fail might be worth $20k for me. Or, say its my best friend from high school, whose always had this crazy idea, he's been plugging away for a decade at it, and he wants to make it happen... I believe in him and want to put up my $50k, $500k, $1M, $5M, whatever. We both know that its a longshot, but if it works, its worth $5B. Who are "you" to say that I can't spend _my_ money that way?

The fundamental problem is not risk. Its this idea that government gets to decide who gets to invest.

They don't do this to protect people from risk, but to keep small investors out of these types of investment. All of this kind of regulation is not to protect people-- that's just the pitch. "won't anyone think about the children?"

Like all regulation the real purpose of this is to protect the larger entities-- the Venture Capital firms and the angels, from competition. And of course, politicians get money by threatening to change the regulations-- I'm sure this crowd funding bill has already raised a great deal of funds for the politicians who are using its passage as a threat against those who would lose the protection from competition.

Imagine if I could be an angel!

I have enough from a previous exit to have put small amounts-- YC level seed funding-- into 10-20 startups. Assuming one of them was successful, I'd have a sustainable seed fund there.

But I'm not able to be accredited given the way the law is written, and I know there are a lot of other people in my position.

Also, for what its worth, I am able to deal with extremely risky investments-- Well out of the money stock option spreads where the upside is %500 and the downside is a %100 loss. I've done this for years, and have consistently made money at it. I'm pretty sure picking startups would be easier, but even if I'm wrong....

Isn't it MY money to risk?

(not attacking you, just using your choice of phrase as a springboard-- people think this is something legitimate to regulate, but it is not. There are casinos across the country. This regulation is nonsense, and its immoral. Who is the government to tell me how I can spend my money? By what right?)

<comment><USER5> The Las Vegas example is the one I use also. I could get on a plane, go to Vegas, spend every last penny I have, borrow all I could and spend it, and what happens? Nothing. People might tell me how stupid I was. Yet if I do the same thing with startups, somehow I've been swindled and the public has an interest in protecting me.

Huh? So how about if I created a roulette game where you spin a wheel and one time out of 50 you get in on a hot startup. The other times you lose your money. Would that be acceptable?

I read the article, desperately trying to find something redemptive. I think the key statement is here:

 _..."The idea that a company could do this with no oversight is frightening because there are plenty of people out there who are willing to separate investors from their money," says Melanie Senter Lubin, Maryland's securities commissioner. "We are concerned about anything where investors have the potential of losing money or where they're making an investment without the information they need to make an informed investment decision."..._

So you put a up big huge disclaimer that says you have an extremely small chance of ever seeing your money again.

I think that pretty much covers it, doesn't it? How much more informed do we have to be to spend our own money?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Everyone here seems to reject the argument outright. I agree we need crowdsourcing, but it needs to be done right. Crowdfunding was once legal, this led to all sorts of scams and lots of elderly losing their retirements. This is what led to the current SEC requirements of 1+M net worth accreditation and the 499 max investors cap.

It's definitely possible to do, _BUT IT IS HARD_. Here are some ways _YOU_ as the entrepreneur could be in trouble:

* Think of the nightmare of having 1000+ investors in your startup.

* Every unhappy investor is a potential liability. Now think of one of those investors loving your idea, pouring his life savings (Say 200K) then filing a suit in case the startup fails.

* Investing is not a simple "here's $20,000K give me whatever that's worth in stock". The shares can be voting/nonvoting, privileged non/privileged etc. Will there be protection attached?

* Your horrible idea could be funded. Think of startup ideas your uncle Vinny gives you, now imagine him investing in them. Smart investors shred bad ideas in minutes.

* You miss out, on a lot. A startup doesn't just need money, it needs well connected investors. For example, see why Asana still needs investors even though Dustin is a billionaire: [http://www.quora.com/Asana/Why-would-Dustin-Moskovitz-need-i...](http://www.quora.com/Asana/Why-would-Dustin-Moskovitz-need-investors-if-hes-worth-over-1-billion-from-Facebook-stock)

There'a a reason the SEC was created. And the other side of the argument needs to be heard and addressed, not dismissed outright.

</comment><comment><USER7> _says Melanie Senter Lubin, Maryland's securities commissioner. "We are concerned about anything where investors have the potential of losing money or where they're making an investment without the information they need to make an informed investment decision."_

One of us hasn't understood what an investment is, and I think it's her not me.

<comment><USER8> You're deliberately and hyperbolically misreading her statement. She isn't "concerned" about the concept of risk; she is saying, "we are paying extra attention to vehicles where there is significant risk of normal people losing significant money".

<comment><USER7> Yeah sorry, I'm a huge fan of hyperbole. And while I was using that, my point wasn't really to suggest that she doesn't understand what an investment is, more that her statement made no sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Well yes, if you don't use your head.

Falling for these kind of swindles have always been possible and as an investor you can, and should, ask for whatever information you feel you need. The fact that there is no longer an official requirement for what to show doesn't mean that it isn't still fraud to show something that is false (so even if the books haven't been audited if they contain false information, they still go to jail). It can still happen to you today, the guys just have to fake the audit as well.

On the other hand, how much information do you really require to invest in bingocardcreator.com or bobs burgers?

<comment><USER10> Indeed, there are no shortage of swindles out there, according to the most recent review of my Spam folder. There is already an appreciable amount of awareness out there of what are probably scams. Besides, there are already de- facto, and generally arbitrary, limitations imposed presently by popular crowd-funding services, e.g. Kickstarter. Kickstarter in particular seems to turn down applications it considers too entrepreneurial, and they do so inconsistently.

Perhaps this bill, albeit adjusted with some sensible yet minimal regulatory scheme, would permit crowd-funding schemes otherwise impossible. It could at least help encourage consistency in how crowd-funding could be (or not be) regulated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> As opposed to Goldman Sachs, which would never expose investors to swindles? Give me a break. The powers that be oppose crowdfunding because the financial industry jealously defends their legal barriers to competition, not because they're looking out for the common man.

</comment><comment><USER12> The solution to solving the "swindles" problem will be reputation. With the internet it's possible to record an incredible level of detail regarding the reputation of people seeking investments and the business they are building (if it already exists).

If swindling becomes a problem, you can be sure that the market will work to provide a solution to that problem.

<comment><USER13> I'd like to think so, and it certainly would be nice if it turned out that way, but it's not entirely clear to me that that's inevitable.

A difference between investments of this kind and ordinary purchase transactions is that in the latter situation, the business selling the product expects to have repeat business. That is, there's a cycle wherein the business can sell a product, and the purchaser's reaction to the product can propagate through the market to influence subsequent transactions.

In the case of an investment like this, however, the good being purchased, which is a future return, may not even be expected to be produced for years after the transaction occurs. There's no chance for the information cycle to work; all the investment occurs up front. A swindler may not even need to establish a positive reputation to attract investment; a good story would likely suffice. Indeed, that's the whole point, isn't it?

I like the idea, but I think the per-person limits should be reduced by a factor of 10, maybe even 100. That won't lock swindlers out, but it will force them to work quite a bit harder.

<comment><USER14> OTOH, a person who gets relieved of $100 is not going to ask too many questions about how it happened, encouraging the "entrepreneur" to try again. Someone who lost $10,000 might lawyer up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Yeah because Enron and Worldcom were small ripples in an ocean.

Edit: Also financial crisis.

</comment><comment><USER16> and coming from startup mecca of baltimore.. oh wait.</comment>


Ten Problems for Education in the 2020s - <AUTHOR> https://www.tenproblems.com/2020/01/29/ten-problems-for-education-in-the-2020s/ <comment><USER2> Sigh. Technology is #3 on the list.

If you're reading this, and you're nodding in agreement, please, please read this first: [http://hackeducation.com/2019/12/31/what-a- shitshow](http://hackeducation.com/2019/12/31/what-a-shitshow)

Technology _really_ is not a top 3 problem in the US (and I'd wager, not in any country). Vendors, politicians, and institutions have been using it as a silver bullet to address the more profound problems though.

Maybe that's what they meant? It seems you actually have to spend $10 to learn any more, and I'm not inclined...

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. It is not an order, though, and it is not for the US only. The booklet just tries and summarizes some of the most recent ongoing academic debates for people that have no time to follow literature. It is meant to be informative instead of authoritative. In two hours time, readers get a good snapshot and that's it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nope, none of that is important.

That list should have one item: relevance.

Most teachers are busyworkers. They teach X or Y for arbitrary reasons, under the false ideology of "all education is good". They stunt the lives of their students, rather than developing them.

Unless what your teaching is narrowly aligned with the life success of your particular students, you're serving only your ego, and you're no assistant of theirs.

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe yes, maybe not but, again, this booklet (and the entire series) is explicitly agnostic. For a tenner and two hours skimming in the evening or while commuting, readers get what gatekeepers and professionals from the given field are debating right now for the new decade, which would take them a few weeks to collect, assemble and present in a coherent manner. It is just a structured summary, not an original essay.</comment></comment>


What it takes to launch an app - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@hailpixel/what-it-takes-to-launch-an-app-be0f681b2e2d#.7szpiizeh <comment><USER2> Hi! I'm the author of this article. Despite having been in the software game for a while I still completely underestimated the work. Hopefully this is a useful record for other people launching their weekend project.

<comment><USER3> Curious as to your gut take on the net commercial value of producing an iOS app, i.e. the timeline and effort versus business growth in the context of a small team [as opposed to VC backed startup or enterprise].

Also wondering how a scenario where an iOS app is an extension of an existing project might differ from one where the app is a "greenfield" project.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> > Turns out it takes about an hour for an app to propagate to all the app > stores.

I'm relatively sure most iOS developers have panicked over that at some stage.

<comment><USER4> Yeah because you let everyone know it's up and they can't download it...</comment></comment>


Fighting Absurdity with Absurdity - <AUTHOR> https://www.ksl.com/article/50016711/utah-teachers-out-of-this-world-answer-to-covid-19 <comment><USER2> Just put the pack on the front, and put speakers into it, attached to the microphone he's wearing on his head. You're 90% of the way there.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Now for the Darth Vader or Stormtrooper editions.</comment>


Native American tribe insulates itself from CA blackouts with microgrid utility - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2020/01/01/amid-shut-off-woes-beacon-energy/ <comment><USER2> When they built it the cost of the battery was the most expensive, followed by the labor, followed by the panels (unless they got ripped off, which happens).

Even with the higher import taxes, the panels themselves are much cheaper than they were 4 years ago. With Lithium battery systems pricing dropping as fast as it is, we can probably expect Li batteries to hit $160 per KWh soon.

All this and a hot market for microgrids could also affect the labor market - or indeed companies that want to offer this to neighborhoods for sub $1MM with 100K residents may soon take off.

We can imagine a future without large companies that operate high voltage transmission lines.

<comment><USER3> Economies of scale is still a thing. I'd rather a large solar farm handle it's ecological consequences than spreading the (small but noticeable) damage around everywhere.

<comment><USER4> However transmission loses are also a thing, and transmission lines don't maintain themselves (as everybody in California is acutely aware now). There's a point where you are remote enough that a grid connection doesn't make sense, and cheap solar has made that category a lot bigger.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's so cool to see small to medium scale or "community" scale installations like this becoming a reality!

Interesting that more grocery stores or other "essential" sources of retail aren't starting to use solar / energy storage to stay online and be less grid reliant (especially stores or facilities that require services like refridgeration or climate control - alas pharmacies)?

<comment><USER6> I know of a couple of hotels that have added backup power. It's not cheap. We just got backup power (diesel) for our server room along with power conditioning because the power is not good. It was easier to go with diesel rather than wind/solar and battery both from an expertise and availability. Opportunity is not evenly distributed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> [https://outline.com/VhCJ57](https://outline.com/VhCJ57)

<comment><USER8> Sweet, thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Given how vulnerable existing power grids are as a "national security" asset I would have thought micro grids would have become a fair bit more widespread more quickly.

The potentially long bow I draw is that it demonstrates how opposed the status quo is to distributed small scale energy despite the benefits to national security and energy security (a buzzword Australian politicians have been happy to use the past few years), which are normally pretty high priorities (lip service at least) for the powers that be.

<comment><USER10> The problem is that there is no real advantage unless you have enough capacity that you can disconnect for a reasonable length of time (> 1 hour or so). There are very few places set up to be semi-independent like that.

Consequently, a micro-grid is a capital expenditure with no corresponding savings to pay it off so nobody will champion it.

<comment><USER11> I think you have it pretty much backward. Attaining a power-generation level necessary to be off the regular grid is not that hard. And becoming independent of PG&E would have serious benefits to a city of about any size at this point given the serious economic cost of unreliable power.

The problem is the cost, logistics and legalities of an alternative grid. Every place that is on PG&E power currently would have to gain control of the PG&E power poles and spend the money needed to modernize them. That is a huge cost.

<comment><USER12> Don't forget to add this - if you're operating as a utility you will be regulated as a utility.

<comment><USER13> I.e., PUCs and other regulators owned by the incumbent utilities will seek to end your existence.

<comment><USER12> That's the gist but the surprising thing is that the incumbents and the PUC's have created a sort of toxic scheme with rate base accounting that is now showing itself in the form of aging and poorly maintained infrastructure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wonder if there will soon be a market for battery backed refrigerators. Build a fridge with a 2 kwh battery system at $160 per kwh and it adds only about $400 to the cost. If it uses a DC motor for the compressor then you don't even need an inverter.

</comment><comment><USER15> IT is time incompetent PgnE monopoly is broken and we have more private players in the fray. At least all bay area cities should have a plan to protect themselves from pg&e's incompetence.

<comment><USER16> All that does is put the incompetence into smaller business units, spreads it out and magnifies the incompetence, and actually makes it harder to regulate. Happened in the UK.</comment></comment>


Minesweeper game which is always solvable without guessing. - <AUTHOR> http://hackage.haskell.org/package/minesweeper <comment><USER2> What exactly do I need to type into a console to run this?

I've taken step #0 and installed ghc, but I don't actually know Haskell -- so what else?</comment>


Discovering Cuba: Economics, Entrepreneurship, and the Future - <AUTHOR> http://brianmayer.com/2016/09/discovering-cuba-economics-entrepreneurship-and-the-future/ <comment><USER2> FTA

"When I told people I was going to Cuba, the reaction was predictable. I was told I was lucky to witness Cuba because it was '"untouched." I was told something along the lines of: "Oh, you get to see Cuba before Starbucks and McDonald's go down and ruin it all." I heard the same thing from some Americans I met at El Floridita. I confess part of me shared in this naive romanticism about Cuba, that somehow there is a 'purity' to Cuba that will soon be 'corrupted.' I was wrong about this. Not only because of my naiveté about the condition on the ground in Cuba, but because of the insidiousness such a belief implies about what the Cuban people want and deserve.

"Untouched" is a romantic way to look at the poverty that Cuba has become. There is nothing romantic about poverty. Poverty is sad. Poverty is sick children and malnourishment. Poverty is no books or school supplies. Poverty is no toilet paper, no soap, no toothpaste, no clean water, and unmet basic needs. Poverty is constant exposure to punishing heat and humidity. Poverty is torn up shoes and broken cars. Poverty is dangerous tools and equipment. Worst of all, poverty is wasted human capital: time spent waiting on lines for food instead of producing goods and services to better society. Poverty is unwritten literature, unsung music, unconducted experiments, undiscovered breakthroughs, and unfulfilled ambition."

<comment><USER3> Written by someone who sounds like he should go spend some time in inner city Detroit, Baltimore, etc. etc.

I've been to Cuba, off the beaten track, many times. Eaten home cooked meals in Cuban homes. Picked up hitchhikers and talked to the locals as best I could. etc. I've never seen anything there as sickeningly awful as the contrast between brutal Want and Decadence that characterizes the U.S.

Can't stand smug libertarians. Really can't.

<comment><USER4> There's no contrast because everyone is poor, quite lovely.

Unless you consider of course the political elite, those who fight for the people while wearing Rolex watches and have them live on food rations. Then you'll see a lot of contrast.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> oh man... what a vision of the world... I cannot stand these america-centric visions...

One of the things that we talk among the people who keep going to Cuba or have relation with it is the fear of change to what the US capitalism will bring. Its sad to think about Havana with Mc Donals, Starbucks, H&M, Coca Cola ads everywhere and people just thinking about money and more money killing the amazing and unique culture they have.

Its sad that nowadays, no matter where you go, you find the same, same crapy food chains, same repetitive top40 music, same h&m aesthetics and the same boring hipster coffee culture... and not forget about hamburguers and bacon everywhere... the american dream!

<comment><USER6> Oh come on. 'America-centric visions'? What's on earth is that even?

Havana had all of those things you name. Havana was then a modern, stylish and clean city. A capital of the Americas. It was a city of culture and energy. It was a city of business, tourism, architecture, pleasure and work. Havana had more cars than any European city at the time. Havana had infrastructure, Havana was connected to the world. In 1849, newly developed communication devices were demonstrated in Havana. Today such actions are oppressed and could lead to imprisonment. In 1900 the first international phone call was made from Key West to Havana. Today Cuba ranks lowest in the Americas in telephone/internet penetration. Pre 59 Havana was a city rich in musical talent. Antonio Machin, Perez Prado, Beny More, Cuban contradanza, danzon, mambo, cha cha cha, were hugely popular and influential in the development of genres such as jazz and tango. Pre 59 Havana was a flow and ebb of musicians between Havana and New Orleans.

What you truly want is poverty and stagnation to prevail. Havana is not a zoo for you silly tourist to enjoy. Havana is a city inhabited by people VERY tired of bad roads, crumbling buildings, lack of essential products such as eggs, toilet paper, pencils, and what not.

Why do you hate hamburgers and bacon?

<comment><USER5> I dont consider Cuba as a Zoo, I want them to develop of course. The main problem is that "opening Cuba" without been carefull will create a really unstable society, few people getting rich really fast, some others becoming extremely poor. The goverment probably wont have regulations on that. You can see that right now in Cuba, people who work in tourism can have access to "international money" and therefore buy almost wathever they want which by the way you can find easily in Cuba, you just need to go to the appropiate place with the money, and legally. This is already creating a quite big divide in the cuban society.

Cubans lacks some products but they are not poor. Poor is the people who beg for money, cannot shower, dont have a shelter and cannot access any health system. When I moved to the US, I was freaking out of how much inequality and poverty I saw.

I dont hate hamburgers and bacon, but I find the world's cuisine so rich that its a pity that certain food take over local just because big chains push markets with $$$. Humburguers it is in fact the king of this, not just because of the big chains but as well because of meat industry which is quite agresive

<comment><USER6> > I want them to develop of course.

Here is the thing: Cuba used to be 'developed'. Pre 95 Cuban workers earned an average salary of $6, ranking number 8 in the world, just behind Norway ($6.10). Infant mortality was the lowest in the Americas. In fact, Cuba ranked third in the world. Public health was comparable to any considered developed country of the time (e.g one hospital bed per 190 inhabitants vs one per 200 inhabitants in the US).

Contrary to what many believe, Cuban industry was not controlled by US interests. Au contraire, only 14% of investments in Cuba came from the US. The vast majority of industry was owned by Cubans, that is the sugar, tobacco and rum industry.

These truths will become more evident with time as the romanticism surrounding Castro's revolution fades away and it's opponents get louder. When Fidel said 'History will absolve me', he was right. History will put him where he belongs: under the chapter 'Plague of Cuba'.

It is safe to believe that much of this can be attributed to what you refer to as 'US capitalism'. It was partly the idea of American-style economic development and democratic freedom that fueled Cuban independence from Spain. Spanish strict trade laws made life very difficult for Cubans, and this became specially evident under the short lived British rule of Havana, and later the evident advances in almost every aspect happening in North America.

> Cubans lacks some products but they are not poor

Yes, Cubans are poor. Why should they settle for merely enough to eat, when they should be eating hamburgers and bacon on a daily basis considering how fertile Cuban land is. Pre 59 Cuba had a meat consumption comparable to that of the US. Today cattle is so scarce it had to be imported to have any cattle population at all. In fact, you can get 10 years in prison for killing a caw in Cuba today.

> world's cuisine so rich that its a pity that certain food take over local

You can have any of the world's cuisine in the US. In fact, today, the best Cuban food is found in Florida. I was told by a NYC friend of mine that he had a Cuban-Chinese restaurant a few blocks away. In Cuba Cuban-Chinese food is nonexistent today. The scarcity created by socialism has changed Cuban cuisine significantly (in a bad direction). It is also safe to say that the best Italian and French food is made in the US (I can attest :-)).

This whole cuisine diversity argument is really insubstantial.

<comment><USER5> I understand and respect your points but I still think it is just a western/us-centric vision of the world. Things can be seen from many angles.

<comment><USER6> > western/us-centric vision of the world

Cuba is 'Western'. Unless you are thinking in terms of first/third/developing countries. In that case, as I've suggested, Cuba was richer than Spain and Italy pre 59. Today that's not the case. Nevertheless, it is a really vague classification. I can arguably say that the French see the world at least slightly different from Americans.

'Marxism' is Western. As the Cuban poet Jose Marti said (this is my own broken translation): 'The socialist solutions, born of European ills, have nothing to cure in the Amazon.' (That is, socialism has nothing to do in the Americas).

Cubans have no goals different to what you consider 'western/us': Eat well, proper housing, transport, culture, education, and so on. And in this the Fidel revolution has completely failed. There are many indicators that suggest Cuba would have fared better without the intervention of Fidel's revolution. That's the whole point. The ruling regime is responsible for the terrible state of Cuban society and after so many years certainly illegitimate to continue in power.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The US embargo is a _scapegoat_ for the condition of Cuba? What a load. A bunch of very pretty pictures and a lot of information on the condition of Cuba today, mixed with a bunch of libertarian nonsense every six or seven paragraphs. Highly recommended read.</comment>


Honest Diversity in Tech Report (Social Commentary) - <AUTHOR> http://thecooperreview.com/diversity-in-tech-report/ <comment><AUTHOR> Obviously this report is social commentary and does not represent all tech companies, but it does show some general trends (that are not new). Let it serve as a reminder of where we are and where we need to go.</comment>


Front End Developer Conference – detailed talks on the main 3 JavaScript frameworks - <AUTHOR> http://www.frontenddeveloperlove.com/ <comment><USER2> This is an awful, awful website

<comment><USER3> It's the kind of site that was probably really hard to build for no redeeming value. Exactly what I'd expect from a FE dev conference. So, I'll give it a pass.

<comment> FLUX-YOU Someone got way too excited with animations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is it a little disingenuous to say the Vue is one of the 3 "main" JS frameworks?

<comment><USER5> It's organized / part of vuejs amsterdam, so they do have a bit of an agenda. Of course, this conference in turn (after looking up some about stuff) is organized by [http://frontenddevelopermeetups.com/](http://frontenddevelopermeetups.com/), which looks like it's a professional conference organizer. They organize generic front-end, angular, and vuejs conferences. TBF I don't think they have a specific preference, they just throw around names to try and attract a specific subgroup to their conferences. Marketing company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> First one to view source and see content wins a free ticket!

<comment><AUTHOR> Ha ha ha! :)</comment></comment>


Neighborhoods with Limited Access to Streets - <AUTHOR> https://millionneighborhoods.org/#2/8.84/17.54 <comment><USER2> Providing some link to how this data was "collected" would be tremendously helpful.

Looking at [https://millionneighborhoods.org/#11.46/29.7099/-9.7936](https://millionneighborhoods.org/#11.46/29.7099/-9.7936) a private beach resort has "high access" while the few holiday mansion ghettos that dot the beaches just north of it have "low access". In reality all the same layout: big entrance, villas on a grid, road access to each house.

And again further north all has "high access" despite there being only one road, wide enough for just one car and potholes I now know by name. Even locals avoid that road if they like their car... and to reach the "high access" coast side, one even has to get off that road and onto gravel roads (4x4 advised).

</comment><comment><USER3> I checked the neighborhood I grew up in Ukraine, that had great road access. It was orange and red. I think the methodology is too aggressive.

<comment><USER4> In central Donetsk, which is what I'm familiar with, the "neighborhoods" they classified as having the worst access to streets are a steelworks, a chemical plant, and a coal mine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> A news article linked by U. Chicago gives some more context: [https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/mapping-tech-could- formaliz...](https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/mapping-tech-could-formalize- settlements-for-one-billion-people)

It looks like the creators are focused on detecting issues with property rights more than transportation.

</comment><comment><USER6> I checked for red spots in regions in Indian that I am aware of. The big ones mostly are cantonments / areas reserved by military and wild life reserves.

</comment><comment><USER7> Just wondering, why is there no data for the USA?

[edit: also, Russia, most of Europe, Australia, and many other regions. Maybe I'm missing something on mobile?]

<comment><USER8> You're not missing anything; those countries are completely white on the map. "Limited access to streets" is kind of a euphemism for what we used to call "third-world slums" which aren't really a problem in developed countries so those countries probably get a lot less study.

I saw an interesting paper a while back about computing the minimum number of shacks to tear down that would allow putting in new streets/utilities to provide access to every structure. It's a very different mindset from urban planning in the developed world.

<comment><USER9> I looked at the city where I used to live in Brazil and most of it is red. It doesn't make sense. It's a pretty normal city not unlike a first world one. I'm not sure what they're really measuring there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Most red zones in Chile are national parks/private ecological reserves

</comment><comment><USER11> Places without cars don't really need streets. If you replace all streets with footpaths, you can pack houses in much more densely, making walking a viable option, rather than needing lots of cars.

Streets are inefficient use of land, especially if most people can't or don't want to use them.

<comment><USER12> It's just not practical to live somewhere without a street. Even if you don't have a car yourself, it makes any kind of logistics much harder. What if you order a couch, and the truck can't reach your house? And why is the goal to pack more houses more densely as opposed to just finding ways to decrease population growth?

<comment><USER13> > What if you order a couch, and the truck can't reach your house?

Not everyone can afford or even prioritises getting junk like new couches delivered. Some people have little houses with furniture that's been there a hundred years and they're perfectly happy like that.

<comment><USER14> What if you need an ambulance or fire truck?

<comment><USER13> You get off-road ambulances and fire trucks in these areas.

Or you just don't prioritise (or can't afford!) those things either.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Shamir's Secret Sharing Scheme (2005) - <AUTHOR> http://point-at-infinity.org/ssss/index.html <comment><USER2> I've recently defined and implemented a new backup scheme for my personal stuff, and ssss plays a role in it:

Aside from my regular backups on Blu-ray (unencrypted), I've got two hard disks that hold the same data (and will be updated infrequently, once a year at most).

This is my disaster fallback: house burning down, me awakening from a coma without remembering any passwords or whatever.

Those hard disks are stored in the houses of two friends. And they are encrypted (BTW, that's not only for my peace of mind, but also for theirs: I wouldn't be comfortable holding personal information of my friends unencrypted).

The password to the encryption is split into n parts, such that very close family and friends get more parts and more remote friends get fewer parts. But noone can recover it without cooperation of at least one other.

Printed onto a sheet of paper, together with a clear description (including actual command line invocations) how those shares were generated and how they can be combined). Distributed to a lot of friends. That description is important and must be abundantly clear. Not necessarily to your grandma, but if she shows it to someone who knows at least a bit about computers, he must be able to make sense of it.

<comment><USER3> In your case, you don't want to protect your data from (illegal) seizure and searching (since you also keep unencrypted BR discs).

But seizing the key-holding devices from your inner circle can be used by law enforcement (or an unfavourable regime) to recover your data without your consent, and you have no way of stopping them.

I don't know a solution to the problem - in the case you lose knowledge of your pass-phrases, external memory is a requirement and such an attack would probably always be possible.

If someone knows a way to have both amnesia- and dictator-proof encrypted storage, I'd love to know about it!

<comment><USER2> At least they would need to seize from several people.

And apart from that they can just seize my unencrypted home backup.

Unencrypted, because I want to be able to restore the rest if a bit flips in some file. And my PAR3 tests were really unconvincing.

<comment><USER4> _Unencrypted, because I want to be able to restore the rest if a bit flips in some file._

Is this a realistic concern? Is a bluray disc at risk of flipping its bits?

<comment><USER2> No, I meant having unreadable parts.

Sorry, I'm thinking too much about flipping bits and soft errors at work...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is how the DNSSEC root key is divided.

[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/07/dnssec_root_k...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/07/dnssec_root_key.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> For a mathematical explanation, see [http://jeremykun.com/2014/06/23/the- mathematics-of-secret-sh...](http://jeremykun.com/2014/06/23/the-mathematics- of-secret-sharing/)

</comment><comment><USER7> This was used in the 3301 / Cicada 'games' last year [1]. The only way I know about it. Cicada 'dead-dropped' difference peices of the SSSS code all over the world. We had to recover. One of the guys ended up 'bruting' the final line.

[1] [http://uncovering- cicada.wikia.com/wiki/What_Happened_Part_1...](http://uncovering- cicada.wikia.com/wiki/What_Happened_Part_1_\(2013\)) (breif overview)

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha, yeah, that's how I found about the scheme. The wikia's a very interesting read btw. Taught me stuff I never knew existed before. A real TIL

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> One thing that popped into my head immediately was the usefulness of a system like this to implement various kinds of democratic "dead man switch" type constructs.

For example, let's say a dissident posts a dangerous leak to a bunch of sites in encrypted form. They then distribute the key to 60 of their friends with a threshold of, say, 25 (slightly more than 1/3) and say "combine your keys if anything happens to me."

<comment><AUTHOR> First thought that came to me as well. Also, a good way to get people together if you use the scheme for your will or something ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> From a functional perspective, if you were using this to protect data.. How is this different from splitting an AES key into multiple parts?

<comment><USER10> If you split into multiple parts, each part of the key is useful: it lets you reduce your search space by however many bits of the key you have. This is bad. Whereas with secret sharing, if you have less than the threshold needed, you have no cryptographic advantage to someone with no shares in terms of identifying the secret.

Slightly more concretely: I can split a secret value s into two parts by randomly choosing a line that has X intercept s, then giving the value of the line at 1 and at 2. Neither of these alone gets me any closer to finding s, but if I know them both, then I can trivially get s.

Also, splitting the parts up directly means you can't do "any t of n is good enough" where t != n and t != 1.

<comment><USER11> > If you split into multiple parts, each part of the key is useful: it lets > you reduce your search space by however many bits of the key you have.

That doesn't have to be true. Rather than splitting an AES key K into substrings, a better approach is to choose n parts such that:

        K_1 ^ K_2 ^ ... ^ K_n = K

None of the component K_i will reveal any information about K without knowledge of its peer components.

<comment><USER12> That's fine if you are willing to require all n parts to be available to reconstruct the key.

In many applications, though, you want to allow a subset of the parts to reconstruct the key. You might want, say, 8 people to have key shares, but want any 3 of them to be able to reconstruct the key. Shamir's makes this kind of setup easy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is one of the technological/mathematical developments, along with multi- sig, that has great promise for improving the security and flexibility of Bitcoin. One of the worries for people with large bitcoin holdings is the being-hit-by-a-bus problem. With normal property the legal system provides the flexibility and rules by which valuable goods can be passed on to heirs. With Bitcoin, the loss of keys can mean huge amounts of value are irrecoverably lost. I hope that Shamir Secret Sharing is used as the basis for a bitcoin startup that allows bitcoin users to easily specify a set of trusted people who can come together to reconstruct keys on the event that the original holder of the keys is incapacitated or deceased.

<comment><AUTHOR> The new century of inheriting goods is receiving pieces of paper, which put together, is worth a fortune

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've written a short, simple web implementation if you're interested in the math behind this:

[http://karlgluck.github.io/ThresholdJS/](http://karlgluck.github.io/ThresholdJS/)

</comment><comment> ryan-c Here's a program I wrote that wraps the shares with passwords (at the expense of semantic security, though it has key stretching via pbkdf2 to somewhat mitigate lousy passwords) and bundles everything into a single file.

[https://github.com/ryancdotorg/threshcrypt](https://github.com/ryancdotorg/threshcrypt)

</comment><comment><USER15> Why only 128 ASCII Characters? Just so the secrets are manageable? I think that restriction should be removed... It would keep it's primary use case and make possible others.

</comment><comment><USER16> A method to explode a bitcoin private key with SSS into multiple secret parts and use them to collaboratively sign transactions has unfortunately not yet been discovered.

What exists already, though, is something similar. Instead of fitting a polynomial through the points (=secret shares), where the intercept would be the full secret, there is a scheme where the full private key is just the simple multiplication of the secret shares.

From there, the co-signers use Pallier encryption to collaboratively compose the signature without revealing their secret parts to each other. It only works with two co-signers at the moment. Here is a demo:

[http://www.jpaulgossip.com/demo/split- key.html](http://www.jpaulgossip.com/demo/split-key.html)

<comment><USER17> SSSS is worse than using OP_CHECKMULTISIG because one has to put all the secrets at once on a single machine to produce the final private key. If the machine is compromised, such key can be stolen right away. Using multisig script allows you to have several (possibly compromised) machines sign a transaction independently without ever producing any "master secret".

Here's my suggestion on how to use multisig with blinding so you can lock your bitcoins with N friends and have your financial privacy at the same time: [http://oleganza.com/blind-ecdsa-draft-v2.pdf](http://oleganza.com/blind- ecdsa-draft-v2.pdf)

Prototype for iOS (using my CoreBitcoin objc library): [http://github.com/oleganza/blindsignaturedemo](http://github.com/oleganza/blindsignaturedemo)

<comment><USER16> Unfortunately, multisig forces you to use the blockchain. There are use cases where you don't want that. SSS, on the other hand, seems too complex to feed back through the ECDSA signing algorithm. In the link above they just use the factors of the private key to distribute as shared secrets. So, your private key cannot be a prime. But then again, ECDSA does not seem to require that from a private key. It's not that using a composite number would make it easier to work your way back to the discrete ECC logarithm ...

<comment><USER17> I was replying to your question on how to sign transactions. Multisig is the real and the best solution for this task. Maybe I don't understand the problem with "multisig forces you to use the blockchain". If you sign a bitcoin tx, then sure you need to get it on the blockchain. Or am I missing something?

<comment><USER16> Distributed signing is useful in other contexts too. It does not always have to be bitcoin-related ...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>