Rolls-Royce is designing drone ships to challenge $375B freight industry - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-25/rolls-royce-drone-ships-challenge-375-billion-industry-freight.html <comment><USER7> This is interesting because cargo ships are more fuel-efficient at slow speeds [1][2]. But with a crewed ship, slow speed means higher labor costs. I wonder how much remote piloting or auto-piloting of ultra-slow ships can change this equation.

[1] [http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/fuel_co...](http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/fuel_consumption_containerships.html)

[2] [http://ultraslowships.com/](http://ultraslowships.com/)

<comment><USER8> I find it unlikely labour costs make much of a difference compared to cargo being delayed on slow ships.

I would be more along the lines of, labour free ships don't go on strike/have HR incidents and delay cargo.

<comment><USER9> Ships actually use very precise algorithms to calculate the relative cost of labor vs. inventory getting delayed, using factors like the depreciation of the cargo, the spot price of fuel, and even changing interest rates in the market.

Oil tankers in the middle of the ocean, for example, will speed up and slow down as spot prices of oil increase or short-term interest rates decrease, since the inventory cost of their cargo has gone up and then down.

<comment><USER10> That's absolutely fascinating. Do you have a source for further reading on those optimizations? I haven't been able to find anything with a bit of googling.

<comment><USER11> Unfortunately, most of the papers I found by googling are behind paywalls :(

<comment><USER12> I for one would still appreciate a link - I think those of us on academic networks should be able to see most papers behind paywalls

<comment><USER11> Google for "oil tanker algorithms"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I can only image the frustration of someone lost at sea watching one of these slowly drift right passed them and no way to get on board and no crew to signal for help.

<comment><USER14> I imagine that some sort of radio beacon receiver can be attached to these drone ships and with enough of them traveling the seas, it might actually increase the chances of finding survivors.

<comment><USER15> Or even just cover them with cameras on the outside. When something interesting happens, like a ship passing by or a human being waving their arms in the waves, it will alert somebody who can take a closer look and possibly alert the coast guard/navy.

<comment><USER16> They'll be covered with cameras on the outside, unmanned boats would be way too easy targets for piracy. You wouldn't even have to sneak aboard, just get aboard and find the expensive cargo. Set off a bomb in the engine room and then unload what you can in a reasonably safe time before someone can get close and track you. It could potentially make piracy more viable in currently safe areas.

You'd want cameras to track when anything even remotely in sight is moving unexpectedly. Anything coming close would be reported to the coast guard/navy.

There'll be heavy monitoring on these ships, even just for liability issue in case some dumb guy in a yacht sails right into them and tried to sue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> When the ship is not near shore, there's no doubt in my mind that it is safer in the hands of an automated pilot.

It's only when things get crowded and unpredictable -- that is, with lots of non-automated shipping about -- where you will need serious piloting software. I imagine that there will be a long crossover period where ships will set out from a port with a small human crew -- possibly just a pilot and lookouts -- then go autonomously across the ocean to be picked up by another small crew a few hours out from the destination port.

<comment><USER18> Many larger ports require larger ships to use a pilot who is familiar with the port near the coast. See for example [http://www.mpa.gov.sg/sites/port_and_shipping/port/pilotage_...](http://www.mpa.gov.sg/sites/port_and_shipping/port/pilotage_and_towage/exemption_from_pilotage/general_information.page), [http://www.pla.co.uk/Pilotage/About-the-PLA-s-Pilotage- Servi...](http://www.pla.co.uk/Pilotage/About-the-PLA-s-Pilotage-Service), or [http://www.loodswezen.nl/en/home/1593/](http://www.loodswezen.nl/en/home/1593/)

That system could stay as-is if the normal crew would be automated away.

<comment><USER19> You'd still need some sort of pilothouse in that situation, which would tend to negate some of the clear-deck design benefits.

There's also the question of who's going to deploy (and untangle) the boarding ladder that pilots use to get aboard vessels. As well as the prospects of hacking _that_ subsystem in order to divert the vessel.

[http://fixyt.com/watch?v=bcSCNFJDy6Y](http://fixyt.com/watch?v=bcSCNFJDy6Y)

[http://fixyt.com/watch?v=UT05TYaQV8w](http://fixyt.com/watch?v=UT05TYaQV8w)

<comment><USER20> Well that's easy you do some sort of authenticated deployment, with a system more secure than the one shown.

<comment><USER19> Watch those videos.

Now design me an automated deployment system which can handle the operating conditions and environment, and respond, effectively, as good or better than a human can.

Consider that your ladder can get snagged, caught, swing in the wind or seas, collect flotsam or jetsam, etc. Things can get very squirrely at sea.

Sometimes humans aren't _the best_ at a _specific_ function, but through processing and manipulation capabilities, including the ability to use and apply multiple other tools, they're the best means for responding to a general case of circumstances which cover a lot of ground.

<comment><USER20> I'd say _specifically_ this case doesn't seem very safe to me. For example you could have a rope attach to some rod on the boat, then you could use that rope to attach some climbing device. Of course, the rope has to be lowered slowly and the receptacle must be large so there isn't much to miss.

Not hard to imagine something better than jumping to a ladder on the side of the boat to be honest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm kind of surprised we haven't heard more about self-driving trucks. There is a lot more labor to be saved by removing one truck driver from each of the 20 ton trucks that deliver the cargo to the port than a dozen crew from a 10,000 ton container ship.

<comment><USER22> Trains do that.

It's ludicrous that there are so many long haul trucks on the interstates. The containers ought to be on trains, and trucks used for the 'last mile'. This would save on labor, fuel, maintenance, and roads. (Most road damage is from heavy trucks.)

The reason this doesn't happen is because of the tax and subsidy structure that heavily favors trucking over rail.

<comment><USER21> > The reason this doesn't happen is because of the tax and subsidy structure > that heavily favors trucking over rail.

The reason for the tax and subsidy structure is the Teamsters. So self-driving trucks are how you get back to using rail. First replace the truck drivers with computers, then when there is nobody left to lobby against it, replace the trucks with rail.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> There is a fascinating (if somewhat dry) book about the emergence of shipping containers and the freight industry called 'The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger' I enjoyed it. [http://www.amazon.com/The-Box-Shipping-Container- Smaller/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Box-Shipping-Container- Smaller/dp/0691136408)

</comment><comment><USER24> This sounds like something a company that had never been at sea in the open ocean would announce in order to capitalize on the faddishness of the word "drone".

The crew on freighters is already minimalist and isn't necessary to steer the ship in flat windless seas with no weather. They are there to clean it, keep the engine running, and deal with things that happen because of weather.

Saying you are going to get rid of the crew is like saying you are going to get rid of the guys who do robot maintenance and repair at a highly automated automobile plant.

<comment><USER19> From TFA: "While the idea of automated ships was first considered decades ago, Rolls-Royce started developing designs last year. Marine accounts for 16 percent of the company's revenue, data compiled by Bloomberg show."

RR have marine experience.

<comment><USER25> I believe they just make engines and other machinery. There's a difference between a company that makes a steering wheel and a company that employes a fleet of drivers to drive it's fleet of trucks.

<comment><USER26> Let me get this straight, you're saying that f'n _Rolls Royce_ doesn't have the engineering chops to assess the viability of future tech developments?

Additionally, you're saying that f'n ROLLS ROYCE builds the equivalent of 'steering wheels' in machinery?

<comment><USER19> Someone who hops onto a thread in which someone has been dressed down for an utter failure to verify facts from an article with further utter lack of research isn't worth the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The article covers many of the predictable objections or challenges: safety, union reception (both sailors and dockworkers, crew costs (up to 44% of containership operations), though harbor pilots would be another), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), regulations, computer hacking, piracy (and ransoming of both crew and cargo).

I see particular challenges being:

• Small craft safety. There are already considerable concerns among pleasure craft and other small-craft sailors for collisions with commercial shipping traffic.

• At-sea mishaps including load shifts and loss of cargo. Containers _do_ fall off ships regularly, as many as 10,000 per year. Hull-strikes with derelict containers are another small-craft concern: [http://www.worldshipping.org/industry- issues/safety/Containe...](http://www.worldshipping.org/industry- issues/safety/Containers_Overboard__Final.pdf)

• Harbor safety. As with autonomous cars, it's one thing to operate in the largely predictable waters of the high seas, another to navigate a complex and highly trafficked harbor or near-shore waters. If crew were required for such passages, the superstructure elimination benefits would be lost.

There's nothing about automation which doesn't preclude _augmentation_ of crewed vehicles for a best-of-both-worlds experience. Crew sizes could possibly be reduced, though not eliminated.

Large cargo vessels typically have a 20+ year life. Don't expect any rapid deployment of this technology, though as with other automation, fixed-course or closed-course applications (canals, closed harbors) might see some initial use.

</comment><comment><USER27> Did anyone else read this and think that it might be a good way to do away with piracy also? If there's no steering wheel to grab a hold of, there's no way to steal the ship, and with an absence of hostages, it would be a lot easier to deal with attempted theft, too.

<comment><USER28> And, with a ship unattended, there is nobody to impede your progress as you carve through the side of the ship and start offloading prize cargo.

<comment><USER29> Pirates usually do not have capacity to offload ship - they use small fishing boats and speedboats that won't hold even one container. Cargo in most containers is not very valuable (who need container of t-shirts 600 miles away from closest shore?). Finding container with valuables (IPhones/etc) is difficult as there is no accessible manifest on the ship and opening containers is time-consuming.

I also assume that boat will automatically inform authorities and navy/security will be able to reach ship in a matter of hours. With no hostages on container ship, security can just blow up fishing boat/speed boat pirates used and then wait until they run out of food/water on a container ship. Pirates won't be able to control engine/rudder so there is not much they can do other than to surrender.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Can anyone think of a peace-time disaster at sea that was not as a result of human error? Titanic? Exxon Valdez? Costa Concordia? The 'humans are critical for safety' argument is flawed when we don't know how well robot ships will do.

Sail augmented with solar needs to make a comeback before we run out of oil, it would be cool if ships just found there own way around the globe, safely crew-less.

<comment><USER31> I don't know anything about the maritime world, but playing Devil's Advocate you're suffering from selection bias: you're naming instances where humans _caused_ the errors but not factoring in the unreported instances of humans _saving_ the cargo, the ship, the personnel or all three.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> So in automated vehicles industry it looks like shipping jobs are the first ones to go. Ships definitely has less navigation complexity than terrain vehicles and longer response times than cars, so deployment and operations of the captain-less ships could be less riskier. If I were working as a crew member its time to jump the shipping!

EDIT: I take my words back. The jobs are not going anywhere because of this : "The International Transport Workers' Federation, the union representing about 600,000 of the world's more than 1 million seafarers, is opposed."

<comment><USER19> Controlling an automobile is largely a matter of _reaction_ and responding to circumstances.

Piloting a ship is a matter of _strategy_. You've got a vessel of hundreds of thousands of tonnes, a half kilometer or more long, with a stopping distance measured in kilometers, to which you can add or reduce energy (velocity) and/or change course only gradually, moving through a fluid which is itself in motion, often with rapidly changing currents changing direction and speed in only a few meters, through waves exceeding 30m in height, frequently operating in total darkness with few if any route markers, or in fog so thick there's no visibility past a few meters -- you cannot see the boundaries of your vessel let alone other ships or navigational hazards.

And that's _with_ modern navigational aids. Consider sailing vessels up through the 1800s which traveled without any artificial light stronger than an oil lantern.

As recently as 1923, _seven of a squadron of fourteen US Navy vessels sailed at flank speed into well-known and charted rocks at the north end of the Santa Barbara Channel_. In the Honda Point disaster, seven destroyers traveling at 20 knots (37 km/h) ran aground. Two other ships grounded but managed to work free. Twenty-three sailors were killed.

Radio navigation was available and installed but not trusted. Sailing by dead reckoning in a heavy fog, the squadron commander ordered a course change too early and lead his fleet into the rocks.

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

<comment><USER32> Some of the problems you are mentioning are already solved by airline industry. How can an airplane fly on autopilot mode in a heavy fog conditions ? Radars and satellite navigation.

And the disasters you've mentioned seems like most happened due to errors in human judgement. A machine can take lot of information at a very high rate and make decisions that are similar if not better than humans.

<comment><USER19> Aircraft operational environments tend to include far fewer navigational hazards (though drone proliferation could change this).

Aircraft final-approach zones are very tightly controlled. Any idiot, or even a dumb lump of wood, can float through the water.

Not all that long ago: rowing through a local harbor (a transport mode in which one faces sternwards and periodically checks over the shoulder for hazards) I managed to spot a large timber likely broken from a pier. Perhaps 0.3-0.6 meters across and 7-8 meters long, with an iron spike or bolt some 30 cm long protruding from one end. I passed only 3-4 meters from it. A week or so later another boat in our fleet struck a piece of driftwood and suffered a hull puncture (fortunately just above waterline).

Timber, lumber, telephone poles, and other hazards are frequent in water. They can be significant hazards not only for small craft but for larger vessels with fiberglass, wood, or even steel hulls. It's rare for an aircraft to encounter a tree at 10,000m.

Yes, human error _is_ a significant factor in many disasters, but human response is also frequently a factor in _surviving_ disasters. This is particularly the case where automated or navigational inputs turn out to be erroneous.

The Air France 447 incident is an interesting case study in this: a design flaw (pitot tube) lead to an operational obstruction (pitot-tube icing) resulting in loss of navigational data (airspeed), causing automated navigational systems to disengage (autopilot disconnect) and fly-by-wire systems to reconfigure to alternate-law mode, crew failures in supplying inputs, following loss-of-airspeed-indication procedures, and responding to flight-path deviation, lack of proper crew response to stall, attempted dual control of aircraft by both co-pilot and captain (Marc Dubois). Compounding all of this was the question of what instrumentation and alerts to trust (airspeed, stall, altitude). _Something_ was lying, but _what_ wasn't clear.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447)

And all of that in skies with inclement weather but no specific fixed or floating navigational hazards to worry about.

<comment><USER19> One more point on the AF 447 incident: _sidestick control interface which failed to provide feedback for inputs supplied by the other pilot_. Dubois was attempting to correct the aircraft's attitude but was frustrated in this by the copilot's erroneous control inputs. The flight control systems averaged the inputs.

Fail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> So, they're saying it cannot possibly be cost effective, with a global fleet of around 5000 ships, and conservative savings of at least $3000 per day per ship? It cannot be cost effective to develop a product for which the savings would be at least $5 billion per year (of which most can be claimed back in more expensive ships)? Sounds like at least a few people are trying to maintain the status quo already.

<comment><USER19> $5 billion on $375 billion is a 1.3% savings, with considerable technological, social, political, and other risks.

Seems that there's an argument toward more automation, but a full adoption of the technology to the extent described in the article strikes me as unlikely, and could well have downside costs well in excess of the claimed benefits.

<comment><USER34> The potential savings are substantially larger. The article cites a 12%-15% reduced fuel use, as well as increased cargo capacity from losing the bridge.

<comment><USER19> I was simply contextualizing CHY872's claimed savings.

The stated crew savings should account for a sizable chunk at 44% of operating expenses, unless capital expenses are an even larger share. I don't know the numbers and the article doesn't supply them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Some thoughts:

Crew on ships seems to be of two classes (I know nothing about shipping be warned!)

1) Direct crew: captain, engineer, etc.

2) Support for the direct crew: Ship's doctor, cook etc.

To eliminate #2, you basically have to eliminate #1 (or get #1 so small and with so many free hours in the day that somebody can dual-hat and handle cooking for whoever's left or even for themselves. Getting rid of decent medical care might be tough though.

So let's look at the ship's engineer. Supposedly, there's a reason there's an engineer on board a ship, things break down and need maintenance on a voyage. So automated or no automation, it seems like he's still going to be needed. If he's not, why hasn't that role (and his team) already been eliminated as a labor cost? Not even Star Trek figured out a way to automate away the engineer on a large ship. Smaller vessels don't need an engineer aboard, but their voyage time at sea is shorter, so the "ship's engineer" role is relegated to a land-based job and split across several vessels - we call these guys mechanics when dealing with cars.

Here's a video of a container ship engine room [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41priD5GJyY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41priD5GJyY) It looks pretty automated today, yet there's still a ship's engineer aboard. I bet that the equation is _spend a few hundred dollars a day on a guy or risk losing hundreds of millions of dollars of cargo because the automated system had a fault on a fuel pump or something._

But I suppose you could start splitting duty across ships, have an engineer basically helicopter around to ships to do inspections and solve limited issues. But how many ships does an engineer have to fly around to to make up the cost difference of having him flown around vs just having guys on board?

What about the captain? Out at sea a ship can basically go on a kind of autopilot today. [https://www.yokogawa.com/ydk/mr/marine/pilot/products/ydkmr-...](https://www.yokogawa.com/ydk/mr/marine/pilot/products/ydkmr- ma-pt500-en.htm) Better integration with GPS, charts and real-time weather and piracy rerouting data I guess could make blue water sailing a reality. But coastal sailing, docking, berthing, towing, and other complex navigation functions are pretty complex operations. FTA it sounds like they intend a land-based captain to remote control the vessels, but I suppose a system where they navigate to an offshore location and are towed in or a docking captain in flown in to "park" the ship could work. I believe something like this happens with canal transit.

I'm assuming there's other direct crew on board, probably with similar issues. For the support crew, as soon as the numbers of the direct crew go to zero, they all disappear...fast. But suppose they don't then you'll need two 12 hour or three 8 hour shifts of people.

Let's minimize it and say there's a captain, first mate (backup guy), engineer. Then 3 shifts we'll have 9 people. We'll need a cook for each shift, so we're at 12 people. Add in a doctor and a laundry/room (steward) cleaning person and we're at 14 people. It turns out most container ships have between 15-24 crew, so it doesn't seem I'm too far off. [https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100924203011A...](https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100924203011AA4Pn7h)

The Xin Los Angeles has 19 crew and it's the most heavily automated, largest container ship at the time of launch in 2006. [http://www.gizmag.com/go/5853/](http://www.gizmag.com/go/5853/)

Not a container ship, but a bulk goods ship can have dozens of crew (I suppose the cargo handling is more complex) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_carrier#Crew](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_carrier#Crew)

       1 - <USER2>

       Deck Department:
       1 - Chief Officer
       1 - 2nd Officer
       1 - 3rd Officer
       1 - <USER3>
       2-6 - Able Seamen
       0-2 - Ordinary Seamen

       Engines:
       1 - Chief Engineer
       1 - 1st Asst Eng.
       1 - 2nd Asst Eng.
       1-2 - 3rd Asst Engr.
       0-2 - Jr. Eng.
       1-3 - <USER4>
       0-3 - <USER5>
       1-3 - Entry Level

       Steward:
       1 - Chief Steward
       1 - <USER6>
       1 - Asst.

With crew costs being such a significant portion of ship cost, I'd guess that automating away these folks as quickly as possible would be in order. Shipping companies aren't stupid and they replace and buy new ships all the time. It seems to me that we're still quite a ways away from eliminating altogether.

<comment><USER36> "What about the captain? Out at sea a ship can basically go on a kind of autopilot today."

There is for sure a certain feel to boating. Although I have never obviously operated a boat of this size I have owned smaller boats and depending on sea conditions there is judgement in play that can't be offset by technology and especially an actual human with seat of the pants feel and judgement. That said it might be possible if the operator was literally in some kind of simulator and able to sense things in a similar way (although you wouldn't have smell or the feel of the air).

This idea though might cut it's teeth in a smaller area perhaps some kind of shuttle between two close ports as opposed to the open ocean or something like a water conveyor by ship.

<comment><USER37> > there is judgement in play that can't be offset by technology and especially > an actual human with seat of the pants feel and judgement.

I thought the same thing at first, but I then I thought that a) These ships are too big and slow to be agile enough to respond to the kind of seat-of-the- pants type navigation I'm familiar with and, and b) I'm sure people said the same things about driverless cars.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The maintenance crew is still needed to keep the engines running. It's just that it can be piloted remotely. This, however, is nothing new technologically speaking. We could very well take away pilots from commercial airliners but it will never happen, or not soon enough. Because a human in control gives a nice illusion of safety.

When it comes to freighters, the cost of a captain or even a crew is negligible. It pales in comparison to the cost of the ship and the goods it carries. Also, insurance companies would not go down well with this.

<comment><USER34> It's just a question of time before a ship with a human captain will become uninsurable because the automated alternative is deemed safer.

It only seems prudent for a company like Rolls Royce whose marine division includes a substantial amount of ship automation and ship design to invest R&D resources into ensuring they're on the forefront of that development.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Most of the comments here presume that it's unacceptable for a drone ship to break down in the middle of the ocean and be without crew to repair it. What if these ships were designed so that nothing too awful would happen if they floated around in the middle of the ocean for awhile awaiting another ship with a human crew to perform repairs. Or, maybe another drone ship or two to tow a broken one back to land?

My understanding of container shipping is that customers make SLA choices much akin to us Americans choosing between UPS Ground/2nd Day Air/Next Day, etc. UPS uses these varied SLAs to smooth out its use of fleet capacity and for price discrimination. Shippers operate transshipment ports as part of distribution networks much like the hub & spoke designs of the major airlines. These ports have a bunch of shipping containers sitting around awaiting capacity.

Consider the needs of companies that must transport low-value, high weight/bulk cargo. These companies likely already choose the "UPS Ground" equivalent for container shipping. Due to low product value, inventory costs are low (in transit goods are inventory), so it's probably less expensive to have buffers of goods in the supply chain than it is to pay for tight shipping SLAs. Why should these companies care if the variance they experience in shipping duration is due to capacity constraints of manned-ships or that it took an extra two weeks to fix the ship upon which their cargo was in transit?

<comment><USER40> It very far from certain that a ship without propulsion will just stay afloat for a while. Even big ships can disappear in a hurry if the weather's bad enough.

See for example the sinking of the Derbyshire. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tN4xROtMjI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tN4xROtMjI)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Url changed from [http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/pirates-eat-heart-rolls- ro...](http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/pirates-eat-heart-rolls-royce- envisions-crewless-drone-freight-ships/), which points to this. Title edited to make clear that these are designs.

<comment><AUTHOR> It was a good change. I knew there'd be a better less blog-spammy version but my google-fu failed me tonight. This is one case where the mods are right on the mark and I thank them.

<comment><USER42> You might have tried the search box at the bottom of this page, it would have found [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7297750](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7297750) and some others that didn't attract many comments.

<comment><USER41> When a story is good and hasn't had significant attention yet, a small number of reposts is ok. We want good stories to have multiple cracks at the bat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Make a ship that is automated, give it a crew and wait. Keep fixing things that the computer can't. When you stop doing that, wait. After a decade without incident, remove the crew.

Don't put oil on it until the data proves it's safer.

</comment><comment><USER15> Aside from maybe lost comms, I don't see much of a difference between captaining a ship locally versus remotely.

<comment><USER44> With remotely controlled ships, the freight company could use a set of shift workers to control multiple ships at a given time rather than need a team on every ship. I imagine that a fair bit of captaining a ship would be sitting around too, so allocating multiple craft to one captain could work.

Support staff (cook, doctor, etc) wouldn't be required either.

Space devoted to all that could instead go towards cargo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> It's like a parallel universe, captains can go and sail the world during the day and still go to parties in the evening

</comment><comment><USER46> How would drone ships pollute less than current solutions?

</comment><comment><USER47> I would be interested to see how they'll deal with pirates.

</comment><comment><USER48> why design a new ship, just mod an existing ship and done. the floating/propulsion part needs no modifications

</comment><comment><USER49> pirates are gonna love this.

<comment><USER50> Only if they want to go where the ship is programmed to go.

<comment><USER51> Or offload the cargo and be on their way...

<comment><USER52> Onto what? The inflatable they came in?

<comment><USER51> Maybe, or maybe the pirates will evolve to use larger ships capable of offloading cargo once these robo-ships become standard.

The thought of a few guys on a small skiff taking over a massive container ship was pretty absurd not too long ago but yet we see it happening more and more due to the financial incentive.

If the cargo stolen is worth it, they'll find a way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Now THIS is a good idea!

</comment><comment><USER54> Wait, are you saying that cargo ships aren't unmanned already?

</comment><comment><USER55> new kind of piracy - cyber-piracy. Hijacking ship without getting up from couch. The Somali pirates will also need to adapt as after getting the ship boarded they would need to find control room and the actual connector to connect to to change the ship's direction, speed ...</comment>


Subtle Patterns - <AUTHOR> http://subtlepatterns.com/

<comment><USER2> Subtle Patterns has been around for a pretty long while now. It's a great site. My designer colleagues use it quite a bit.

The only thing I wish it did was show the pattern size by default in the description. Some of them show it, but not all. And in my experience they vary a good bit.

Also, on the Github page, there is a .pat zip of all the patterns which makes it even better <https://github.com/subtlepatterns/SubtlePatterns>

<comment><USER3> The reason why this is hitting HN again is because his domain was stolen and he has been able to recover it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually I just submitted it because it's very cool. Share this mysterious story with everyone?

<comment><USER4> Here you can see the details about that incidence.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4531819>

<comment><USER5> Does anyone have any concrete information on what happened and how it was resolved? At that link, I only see HNers saying that it definitely wasn't domain expiration that was the problem, but no more information beyond that.

<comment><USER6> On his twitter[1] he says the domain was hijacked. Couldn't find anything else on the topic.

[1] <https://twitter.com/subtlepattern>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What license are the images? There is a license mention on the bottom of the website but to me that seems to cover the website only, not the downloaded images. It would be great if each zip would include a proper license.

<comment><USER8> The github repo[1] says they are under the Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

[1]: <https://github.com/subtlepatterns/SubtlePatterns>

<comment><USER9> ShareAlike means they're unusable for commercial applications. I suppose you can still use them on a website, but I'm not sure how much of the website you'd also have to make CC-BY-SA.

Their FAQ implies a more liberal license, though:

<http://subtlepatterns.com/about/>

<comment><USER10> No, ShareAlike means you have to distribute them under the same licence. Unless there is a NoCommercial, that doesn't mean you can't sell them, you just aren't allowed to change to a more restrictive licence. IANAL.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For something less subtle see <http://www.patterncooler.com/>

Don't miss their ultraswanky svg editor thingy! <http://www.patterncooler.com/editor/>

<comment><USER12> Also this: [http://www.colourlovers.com/patterns/most-loved/all- time/met...](http://www.colourlovers.com/patterns/most-loved/all- time/meta?page=1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I had thought he'd given up on the site the other day, and just started using the git repo instead. Glad it was just a blip instead.

Hopefully he'll blog about what happened.

<comment><USER14> Hey, Atle Mo here – founder of subtlepatterns.com.

What happened was that some guy some how managed to hijack the domain (ICANN is still working on a report to see what happened). He said he got it legally, but "would be willing to sell it back for €2.000. Right. So I sent in all the documentation I had to the legal department of Instra, where he moved the domain. They gave the domain back to me right away, and like I mentioned, ICANN is still working out a few things, but it will be back to my full ownership hopefully within a few weeks. I can still access the admin site, so it's business as usual. I'm thankful for all the support I got from Twitter users, email etc. Cheers!

<comment><USER15> Congratulations for getting the site back. And if I may use the opportunity, a heartfelt "thank you" for providing this resource. It has been ultra-helpful in the past for quick prototyping of good looking web pages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Nice to see they got their domain back.

<comment><USER17> That's the actual reason someone posted it here, right?

<comment><USER18> I believe so. Iirc, someone had somehow hijacked a transfer of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's a real gem, especially for someone who isn't as aesthetically astute, like me. I used it on a couple of websites I've been working on recently. [1][2]

[1] <http://tweetfad.com/>

[2] <http://db.uwaterloo.ca/dmc2013/>

</comment><comment><USER20> Is this your site?

The first texture looks like it's broken because there is no border. I thought it wasn't loading at all, but it was just the exact same as the background on the site.

Edit: nevermind.. I must have clicked directly on the preview button when i changed focus or something.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sadly no, a friend of mine gave me the link to look at because I was testing a new layout on my api docs page that had a lot of white background.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Sorry to go a little off topic, but I'm wondering if someone remember a background pattern/texture generator posted here on HN a few months a go. I lost the bookmark. I only remember it has a dark background. Thanks.

</comment><comment><USER22> Wow... they're so subtle I completely missed them.

I thought the page was broken for mobile. And then it took me a second pass to realize it was in fact not broken on desktop too!

</comment><comment><USER23> Previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3091846>

</comment><comment><USER24> Some of these are quite strong and contrasty and very repetitive in a small scale and thus slightly migraine inducing.

With the horizontal repetition they also mess with the angle of your eyes / distance perception (as there are multiple transpositions where they correlate perfectly).

I like subtle, very random and smooth patterns a lot.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is the kind of website that makes me want to go redesign a website for no reason than to fiddle with these patterns.

</comment><comment><USER26> I found a chrome plugin that tries the patterns on any website quickly. Pretty handy while choosing something I guess.

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cnhhinfdmnakglphga...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cnhhinfdmnakglphgajbakokcdhmdinf)

</comment><comment><USER27> Great, now I have to clean my monitor.

</comment><comment><USER28> Related, if you wanted to make your own patterns (and then perhaps upload to subtlepatterns.com :-)) check out this iphone app: <http://patternshooter.com/>

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm strongly reminded of the old Windows 3.1 tiled patterns.

</comment><comment><USER30> "Back Pattern" flickers horribly when I scroll. Which makes me wonder whether the other patterns will have a similar flicker on other displays.

</comment><comment><USER31> It's really awesome that they thought to include retina versions. I really hope this becomes the norm, esp. with bootstrap etc.

</comment><comment><USER32> I've been using a it for a while. Downloading their PSD patterns make your design life a lot easier.

</comment><comment><USER33> Thanks for posting this excellent free resource - bookmarked for definite future use :)

</comment><comment><USER34> I think I need a monitor with better color fidelity. Half of these look like whiteness.

</comment><comment><USER35> It'd be cool to read about what did they have to do after it was hijacked.

</comment><comment><USER36> i don't know if it's my monitor or colour settings or what, but some of them don't seem to do anything when i click the preview button (e.g. "straws" and "swirl" from the current front page)

</comment><comment><USER37> They also include a "@2x" version for retina displays. Pretty nifty.

</comment><comment><USER38> I really like all of these. They just feel good.

</comment><comment><USER39> Awesome to see it back again!

</comment><comment><USER40> dot_clean would come in handy before uploading files from a mac.

</comment><comment><USER41> Beautiful, thanks.

</comment><comment><USER42> These all make me think my monitor is dirty. Why is this a feature?

Also, why are they called "patterns" and not "textures"?

</comment><comment><USER43> This is fantastic, thanks!

</comment><comment><USER44> these are great. thanks

</comment><comment><USER44> these are a great set. thanks</comment>


U.S. Expat Taxes Drive Americans to Renounce Citizenship - <AUTHOR> http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1983238,00.html?xid=newsletter-weekly

<comment><USER2> I'm pretty sure they don't just let you renounce your citizenship. I've been reading "Emergency" by Neil Strauss, and he touches on that during his search for dual citizenship. Pretty much, once you're an American, you're out of luck -- and you're going to pay taxes 'til you die, or stay out of the country forever and hope you aren't extradited.

Personally, I hold dual citizenship by birth right, but it isn't recognized by the U.S.; the U.K. recognizes both though. Weird? Yep.

<comment><USER3> You can renounce your citizenship, as long as you have a citizenship somewhere else. Also, if you renounce your citizenship and have a high networth the US will tax that due as a sort of exit fee.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Don't forget to file your Fubar

[http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=148849,00....](http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=148849,00.html)

Err.. ummm... FBAR, something like that....

</comment><comment><USER5> Repeat: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1282814>

Flagged</comment>


Linear Algebra for Deep Learning: Matrix Algebra - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantstart.com/articles/matrix-algebra-linear-algebra-for-deep-learning-part-2 <comment><USER2> This is a nice intro to linear algebra but doesn't really get into how it's related to deep learning. A good read is Vector, Matrix, and Tensor Derivatives[0], which goes into the linear algebra needed in multi-layer neural networks, specifically during the backpropogation phase.

[0] [http://cs231n.stanford.edu/vecDerivs.pdf](http://cs231n.stanford.edu/vecDerivs.pdf)

<comment><AUTHOR> You're correct - it doesn't get into the deep learning aspect yet.

This article is in fact the second part of a larger planned series. The idea is to present more depth than a "quick refresher" that seems to be common to a lot of blog posts, but far less material than would be found in a 10-week (or single semester) undergraduate course.

Thanks for the Stanford link. I'll check it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Awesome! I have some Khan Academy courses queued up to learn linear algebra, but this is more targeted and useful.

<comment><USER4> The best intro to linear algebra, bar none, is the MIT OpenCourseware Intro to Linear Algebra, recordings of a course taught in 2005 by Prof. Gilbert Strang: [https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-06-linear- algebra...](https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-06-linear-algebra- spring-2010/index.htm)

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed - I recommended Strang's book in this article and the previous one.

<comment><USER5> The Strang book: "Introduction to Linear Algebra" does seem to have quite a few "high quality" 1-star reviews. They mostly seem to cluster around this book not being good for a linear algebra introduction, for someone new to the field. Typical comments:

"It seems the reviewers who think this book is wonderful for non-math majors are math majors!"

[https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Linear-Algebra- Gilbert-S...](https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Linear-Algebra-Gilbert- Strang/product- reviews/0980232775/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_paging_btm_next_2?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews&pageNumber=2#reviews- filter-bar)

...I of course expect that any popular book will have 1 star reviews, especially by people who had a hard time with the material. Anyone have thoughts whether the Strang book is better as a supplement to other texts in coming up to speed on Linear Algebra? Other book recommendations?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Facebook failing, Zuckerberg and Sandberg absent: commentary - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/18/facebook-failing-zuckerberg-and-sandberg-absent-commentary.html <comment><USER2> Facebook is facing hurdles in a lot of arenas but this article is a hit piece that is pretty fluff and misses the big picture.

I really dislike facebook for what its worth, but even with the current issues I dont expect it to be more than a speedbump. The author says that it was a misstep to help with the Trump advert campaign. That is just letting politics blind you, helping Trump and being "friendly" to that administration is likely good for business.

<comment><USER3> Building a reputation of helping both sides of major political campaigns and capturing a slice of their crazy spending seems completely sensible.

One thing that could become a mis-step though is if their staff supporting the Trump campaign knew enough from seeing their advertising submissions to realise the sort of data they must hold on their users.

We know from the Guardian report that Facebook have security protocols that trigger when you eg. download 50m user profiles as an app, and the response given was that it was academic. So Facebook should have been suspicious, if the campaign were running adverts in a way that showed a possession of that sort of data and nobody could explain where it came from. Of course, maybe Facebook's staff embedded in the campaign were kept in the dark and Cambridge Analytica managed those targeted ads themselves.

If they knew, and let it slide, and let senior Facebook leadership tell politicians that CA had no data though, that could be a huge mis-step.

According to the women who ran project Alamo, Cambridge Analytica were in house - and the Facebook etc. Representatives were too. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-40852227/the- digital-g...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-40852227/the-digital-guru- who-helped-donald-trump-to-the-presidency)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This: "There's no outside attacker bringing Facebook down. It's a circular firing squad that stems from the company's fundamental business model of collecting data from users, and using that data to sell targeted ads."

It always was the corporate equivalent of Harvey Weinstein, and now seeing its #metoo moment. The world will be a better place without Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER5> The amount of global bullshit they have enabled in so many spheres of social life is going to take generations to repair.

Can't wait for heads to roll at Facebook/Twitter/YouTube. And they will. It's high time.

<comment><USER6> It doesn't cease to amaze me how a few years ago social media was the beacon of democracy, back when they were part a wave of political revolution in the Arab world.

But now the US has another bad election (IMO not as bad as the one that landed Bush as far as elections go, though which president is worse is up for debate), and social media is trash that have just enabled "global bullshit".

USA, if your population is largely gullible consumers taught to rely on their "feelings" and be egotistic, proud patriots instead of critical thinkers, that's your own fault. Social media, if anything, has been a net positive as far as politics go in my country.

<comment><USER7> > It doesn't cease to amaze me how a few years ago social media was the beacon > of democracy, back when they were part a wave of political revolution in the > Arab world

Almost all of those revolutions failed or dissipated. Similar "social media driven" revolutions in the US, like Occupy Wall Street also died with a whimper. The enabling power of social media has always been greatly overrated. The effect of social media, and in particular Facebook, has largely been a net negative.

<comment><USER8> I find it surprising how much people underestimate the long-term impact of Occupy. Now when people say "the 1%", everyone knows what they are talking about. The most popular Democrats, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, would not be where they are if OWS had not lain some groundwork ahead of time by introducing wealth and income inequality as mainstream conversation topics. And maybe they will have a successful presidential run in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I used to share a lot on Facebook - with intricate control over privacy of my posts using Friend Lists. Over time my usage decreased until I finally cleared out my profile, likes, activity, apps, friends, and devices. Now I only use it in a separate desktop browser once every few weeks as a means to check the profiles of family and close friends.

I harbor no resentment towards Facebook because they've been largely transparent via their terms of service, privacy policy, and developer API. Nobody forced me to use it. In the end, I am responsible for sharing my own information, not Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER10> I can't help but notice that some entity with deep pockets is leading this entire media war against Facebook. Articles like this don't write themselves. These are classic zero information articles that keeps popping up systematically as if someone is running media puppet. There were couple of guys going out on limb in to conferences and media strongly making a case for "regulations". Guys like those don't do it for free to travel all over and keep making same points over and over while getting expensive media minutes.

Question is who is pulling all these strings and why?

<comment><USER11> I don't know if there's a larger conspiracy, but media companies are probably retaliating against news feed changes. After Facebook rolled out their news feed change, news media have gotten fewer clicks and less money.

[https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/28/how-publishers-will- surviv...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/28/how-publishers-will-survive- facebooks-newsfeed-change/)

[https://digiday.com/media/facebook-news-feed-changes-will- im...](https://digiday.com/media/facebook-news-feed-changes-will-impact- publishers-branded-content-revenue/)

[https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Letter-to-Mark- Zuck...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Letter-to-Mark-Zuckerberg- Facebook-News-Feed-12495018.php)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Facebook users are slowly learning that almost anybody can use Facebook to > collect detailed information about them, and that — at least some of the > time — Facebook cannot control where this information flows, or how it is > used. Using Facebook is like writing your life story down on a piece of > paper, then taping it to a lamppost.

> For the time being, advertisers are grumbling about Facebook and warning > their clients to stay away from certain ad products, but they're still > putting their money there — with an audience over 2 billion and some of the > most accurate ad targeting available, Facebook is still impossible to > ignore. But if usage continues to decline, advertisers will start eventually > follow.

Unless the definition of "failing" has changed drastically, this is clickbait.

There is no evidence of a lack of on-the-ground leadership; the argument seems primarily based on divestment by executives. And one of the two anecdotes used to justify the "trend" that Facebook's executives are selling stocks faster than normal for technology leaders was Dorsey's purchase of a mere $9.5 million of stock last year (a lot of money, but two orders of magnitude less than the ones in the article and hardly a comp).

There may be reasons to be worried about Facebook's long-term viability, but this article makes a poor case for someone to be worried.

<comment><USER13> I think it's more of the long term pattern of the leadership of facebook: anytime things get difficult they just sort of teflon their way through it and ignore everyone. Remember the Facebook Beacon fiasco? That was the first scandal in dozens, all following a pretty similar narrative.

In that sense, yes I would say leadership has been absent or maybe unaccountable is a better word.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> My general impressions are that Mark Zuckerberg has just gotten really bored of running the company.

Bit of a clickbait title, but considering how much bad press they've been getting since the last elections, I would expect the CEO to be front and center of it.

Facebook may not be failing but it's glory days are way past (and have not really expanded beyond the social networking sphere - with probably Oculus their only expansion beyond their core focus - unlike say Google/Alphabet).

But one thing that truly baffles me is Comrade Mark's incessant courting (bordering on being a puppy dog) of Emperor for Life, Xi. (HN user seanmcdirmid in a previous thread said that he could potentially be a bit of a closeted sinophile)

1\. He asks Xi to name his child

[https://mashable.com/2017/09/18/zuckerberg-chinese- president...](https://mashable.com/2017/09/18/zuckerberg-chinese-president- baby-names/)

2\. He then plugs Xi's book

[https://www.amazon.com/Xi-Jinping-Governance-English- Languag...](https://www.amazon.com/Xi-Jinping-Governance-English- Language/dp/1602204098/) Absolutely no idea how the media has not caught this, ever since Xi declared himself President for life.

<comment><USER15> After the whole FB Basics thing (free access to "Facebook-approved" internet) that India rightly told him to go shove, China is his shot at a consolation prize.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > Facebook has been deflecting stories about how its platform was used during > the 2016 presidential election.

Serious question: on what grounds can a Facebook page be banned? Just because it was "cute cats" page a while ago Andreas suddenly it became a pro-trump or pro-Hillary page?

</comment><comment><USER17> Such an obvious hatchet job. You can tell the news media companies are on their last legs when they can't even be bothered to hire quality people who can FUD the market with a modicum of nuance.

</comment><comment><USER18> > He addresses some of these issues on personal Facebook posts, but seldom > talks to the press about them. Last year, he spent most of the year doing > photo ops with people around America, but did not show up when Congress > asked questions about how the Russians used Facebook to influence the 2016 > election.

So he is not absent and communicating directly to users.

> This year, he announced his annual personal challenge would be fixing > Facebook — in other words, doing his job as the CEO of a publicly traded > company worth more than $500 billion. In past years, he's taught himself > Mandarin and hunted his own food.

The job of a CEO is to keep the shareholders happy (which has always been the case since IPO AFAIK), not to fix it. I stopped reading at this paragraph, Zuck is not perfect but his personal challenges are impressives and dismissing them like that is not what I consider journalism.

His statement earlier this year regarding what he'll do to fix FB in 2018 is gonna be interesting, his last posts have shown a work in progress and we can expect a post-mortem in December that wil be more important than this clickbait article.</comment>


Obama administration to tighten regulation on VCs? - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2009/03/26/obama-administration-to-tighten-regulation-on-vcs/

<comment><USER2> Why would they do this? What is the issue they are trying to solve?

Particularly at a time when the administration is trying to figure out how to enable growth investments this doesn't make any sense to me.</comment>


Ask HN: Can one trade stocks for a living - <AUTHOR> I want to test this idea using the 'HN Brain': Is is possible for an individual to make a living in Bay Area and attain financial freedom by trading stocks? (Not nessacarily day trading but value investing, short (months) to long term trading etc)
Main Motivators for considering this :
1) I want to attain financial freedom where I don't have to work for money anymore 2) I have a family (2 young children) being there for them is very important. A 9 to 5 at big co.+ commute dosnt really help with the cause.
3 I would like to be my own boss, control my destiny as much as I can rather than be a cog in a wheel where my progress - both financial and professional - is dependent on too many variables (boss,right project , "doing well" on said project etc)
4) I would like to work from anywhere. If I had to move to take care of ailing parents etc I can continue what I am doing and keep working towards my goals.
5) my (retirement) number is say 5 or 6 Million. My current household income is say ~$250k annualy
Does anybody here solely trade stocks for a living? <comment><USER2> Look at a book by Roger Montgomery called valuable. Phil town is another, a little closer to home (American), his PR is a little overdriven but his message seems legit.

Dont trade. Invest.

<comment><AUTHOR> Totally agree on trade vs invest. I used the wrong word but the sentiment was that of investing.

Thank you for introducing the books. I will definitely give them a read.

Do you or anybody you know personally purely invest for a living? The reason I ask is one of the ways of testing my hypothesis of investing for a living, I want to see how common (or uncommon) this is. So far I have not come across anybody the handful of people I have asked. I was hoping this thread would gain traction on hn and I could caste a wide net.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Heartbeat from ECG? - <AUTHOR> I recently lost my mother to cancer. For some reason, this idea is stuck in my head that if I hear her heartbeat it will make me feel a lot better. Is it possible to generate the heartbeat sound using an ECG image using computer vision and ML? <comment><USER2> You don't need that fancy tools. An RGB camera with simple linear filters will give you an rPPG signal if you are stationary. And then you can trigger a sound from each detected top.

You can also buy cheap ppg readers that are very easy to use.

However: one defect by using PPG is that you will have a delay between heartbeat and signal due to the time for the blood to move.

Or you could work on the fear...</comment>


Pitting the Web's Users Against Its Gatekeepers - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/technology/internet/03neutral.html?ref=business <comment><USER2> _With the majority of Internet traffic expected to shift to congestion-prone mobile networks_

Doubtful to say the least.

<comment><USER3> Will soon happen given mobile penetration. If we're talking per user.</comment></comment>


Speculate HN: What is Facebook launching next week? - <AUTHOR>

I think it's the iPad app that has been discussed recently. <comment> mike-cardwell Why would an iPad app even be newsworthy, let alone "awesome" ? I just assumed there already was an iPad app... Does the iPhone app not work on it anyway?

</comment><comment><USER2> Techcrunch have said its not Project Spartan - <http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/30/facebook-ipad-spartan/>

Additionally the article has been updated with:

One source says its "highly unlikely" that Facebook's announcement next week is the iPad app.</comment>


Ask HN: Alternatives to Android Firefox Browser? - <AUTHOR> With the debacle of Mozilla's signed certificates expiring my favorite addons for Firefox for Android have all become broken.  This is highly annoying as since my adblocker no longer functions I have discovered just how unreadable the web has become. Are there similar browser out there that posses the same capabilities?  And maybe respect a users privacy? <comment><USER2> IceCatMobile on F-Droid and many others. It's is very decent and not chromium based.

</comment><comment><USER3> WT...? Addons are already functional again!!! Just update Firefox ;)

[https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/05/09/what-we-do-when- thi...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/05/09/what-we-do-when-things-go- wrong/)

About alternatives: as Ultramanoid said, there is no other decent browser. If you want privacy and respect your only choice is Firefox. Everything else is Chromium based (or as i would put it: "spyware based").

(Edit: You naturally have a few browsers based on firefox as well, such as Tor Browser, Waterfox and so on... but Firefox is the real deal ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> I've updated my mobile Firefox and they still don't work. It kills me this has not been a priority for Mozilla, it shouldn't be this hard to browse the web.

<comment><USER4> If updating didn't work I would file a bug report with Mozilla. This is the first incident I've heard of around the cert debacle where updating didn't correct the issue so what you're experiencing could be a bug.

I use Firefox Focus most of the time instead of the full blown Firefox, and its so stripped down that it doesn't support addons (and so wasn't affected by the cert issue). In fact it doesn't even really support tabs. It does help me not have a trillion tabs open and focus on one thing at a time. Depending on your browser needs it's a good, albeit totally different, experience.

<comment><USER3> ups... i missed we were talking about Firefox for android!

Still, latest version is fixed.

If you want you may try the VERY experimental version of Firefox Preview ( [https://www.apkmirror.com/apk/mozilla/firefox- fenix](https://www.apkmirror.com/apk/mozilla/firefox-fenix) )

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Short answer; no. Everything else is based on Chromium, which is basically Google-sponsored spyware.

That said, try Bromite : [https://bromite.org](https://bromite.org)

Edit : Unclear from your question if you're aware that the problem was fixed -- just update to the latest version.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you all for the recommendations, definitely leaning towards IceCat mobile. I'll be playing around with it tonight.</comment>


Ask HN: Where do you go to follow blockchain and cryptocurrency news? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I wrote my own application: [https://projectpiglet.com/](https://projectpiglet.com/)

Essentially, I get real-time updates of news when it's relevant and none when it's not.

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/](http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/) is a old favorite of mine.

</comment><comment><USER4> [https://www.alltop.com/cryptocurrency](https://www.alltop.com/cryptocurrency)

</comment><comment><USER5> [https://cryptopanic.com/](https://cryptopanic.com/)

Love that site!

</comment><comment><USER6> r/cryptocurrency is an okay source.

</comment><comment><USER7> cryptopanic.com

</comment><comment><USER8> themerkle</comment>


Google Announces First Quarter 2011 Results - <AUTHOR> http://investor.google.com/earnings/2011/Q1_google_earnings.html <comment><USER2> Perhaps this is just the clarity of hindsight, but it wasn't surprising that operating expenses have shot up due to the competition in hiring and its recent across-the-board raises. I'm actually surprised the impact wasn't greater.

</comment><comment><USER3> ...Short of estimates, and GOOG is down almost 5% in after-hours trading.

(Of course that doesn't mean much, it could be completely different by the time we wake up tomorrow.)

<comment><USER4> Reading some of the financial reports being thrown out is is lovely, stuff like this:

"But Larry Page has signaled pretty clearly that he is going to be driving up expenses. If the expenses are targeted and result in future revenue streams, then good for Larry. If not, that results in an undisciplined spending approach."

Don't get me wrong, revenue is cool, but these reports are reading like Page is being chastised already for hiring people and investing in the company. What was it that Google told investors when they IPO'd forever ago?

<comment><USER5> > is being chastised already for hiring people and investing in the company

What else do you expect of front-running, HFT, bailout-soaking wall street?

They no longer respect sustainable growth and want overnight riches.</comment></comment></comment>