Iceland tire of tourists trashing their nature - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48703462 <comment><USER2> I call this the 'Disney World' effect of nature tourism. Self-involved, entitled people who treat national parks and the wilderness like an amusement park that has been set aside for their entertainment. They expect the natural world to cater to their whims the same way a Disney world employee does, and they just do not understand that's not how the world works.

<comment><USER3> It's worse than this - their entire life needs to be Instagram worthy. Everything they do is in the name of getting the next perfect shot, so they can influence others in the name of social advertising to make a quick buck. They either become proficient photographers, videographers and writers or they team up with those who are, capitalizing on the latest trends in photography to consolidate their brand.

The problem is we as a culture are both enabling and encouraging this by following these influencers, in effect paying them to do this. And not just a couple of hundred bucks here and there, these social media influencers have gone from nobodies to multi-millionaires almost overnight.

So it's not all about self involved. This is one of the negative consequences of the age of social media.

My kids follow these social media influencers who may as well be today's answer to Gucci, Donna Karan, Versace, Armani. There's make up influencers for the big beauty conglomerates. There's clothing influencers for the the fashion industry. There's tourism influencers for the tourism industry, all making millions of dollars a year trying to win the hearts and minds, or rather money, of the social media generation.

<comment><USER4> Just wait until social influencers receive Libra's based on the amount of likes their pictures get.

<comment><USER5> It would make sense for them to get it based on the amount of profits their work generates.

<comment><USER6> Libras based on the value of ads FB sold while people were liking the post then.

<comment><USER5> Yes, I did get that chain (pun intended), but I thought GP meant it literally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Until recently, I worked at a company that sends these people to Iceland, among other places.

Influencers end up in that career for a reason. They are, in general, everything you'd expect them to be: flaky and privileged almost as a rule. They're not bad people per se (no tantrums that I've seen), and are often well-meaning, but most are desperate to be famous. These are the same people who competed to be on The Bachelor or Dancing with the Stars as a means to improve their marketability. They have no real marketable skills other than marketing themselves.

Thus it should surprise no one that they are terrible tourists. If I could speculate, it's a combination of cluelessness, lack of interest in researching anything about their destination (other than good photo spots), and a low-key sense of privilege that "it's not that big of a deal" if they do something that might be harmful. In other words, they are a lot like average tourists but with bigger egos.

<comment><USER8> Not just bigger egos: instagrammers naturally compete for attention, it's basically their job to one-up their peers. Regular tourists may occasionally want to do so as well, but it's entirely optional for them.

It's like professional vs recreational sports: some hobbyists might be misguided enough to take PEDs, but for a struggling professional they will appear like a possible livelihood-saver.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> After the volcano erupted in 2010, the government launched a PR campaign in winter 2011 to counter the projected tourism drop. It specifically targeted "inspired" and "enlightened" travelers to come see the "unique" landscape.

Also in 2011, WOWair debuted with it's $99 flights to Iceland.

Instagram launched in 2010.

Maybe it's less "people are garbage" and more "we should make it more expensive to come here."

<comment><USER10> It seems that social media is the scapegoat of the day for whatever social problem the media discusses.

<comment><USER11> When somebody calls you an asshole, there are two general reasons why that might be. Maybe there is something wrong with the person calling you an asshole; maybe they're having a bad day or have some sort of irrational grudge against you. The alternative reason is maybe you _are_ an asshole.

When you're called an asshole once, it's easy to assume the other person is having a bad day. But if numerous people are calling you an asshole every day of the week, chances are you _are_ an asshole.

<comment><USER12> Fair point. Society however is rewarding asshole behavior via social media

<comment><USER11> Quite right, and I think this is one of the reasons so many people are critical of social media.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's not just Iceland. My wife and I typically travel for the outdoors and we are extremely impact conscious. I've noticed a significant growth in outdoor activity in the last ten years or so. Along with the that growth I've noticed more trash, more people going off established trails when they shouldn't (I'm not 100% anti off-trail travel), more disrespect for others who are trying to escape into nature, more people who are unprepared for somewhat serious activities (particularly rock climbing in remote locations, I've had to do a few rescues at this point), more trail braiding and erosion, and to get away from the people getting away, one must go deeper and farther into the backcountry. Iceland was beautiful, but the best places on the island (imho) were often places we explored that were relatively unknown. It's a tough issue that many people in the outdoor community are scratching heads over how to deal with. I want to think that it's a solvable problem, but the cynic in me says it's a societal issue manifesting itself in this form and can't be easily fixed.

<comment><USER14> The key is accessibility. If you have a good road then you get people who treat nature as bad as themselves.

The higher up without accessible road or further in towards tougher trails and you start to have people there who have the will and stamina to be there and take the necessary precautions.

<comment><USER13> I agree. The higher the non-money relate commitment of getting to a location the fewer people I see. The ones I do see are generally people who have greater respect for where they are. Unfortunately I think that many wonderful places have fallen victim to the "easy to get to" issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This quote from the article baffles me:

> The good instagrammers try to show different ways of enjoying nature. We > don't tag places that are off the beaten path that we want to protect as > long as possible. Some places have become "insta-famous" without ever > mentioning where they are but eventually they become known to everyone.

Wait, what? So you take a picture. Put it on instagram (because you are an 'instagrammer'), but you don't mention the place. But since you are an instagrammer, people want to figure it out and now flood the country in search for that place. Trampling all the nature on their way...

I get the idea of taking a photo once in a while. Mind you, I really enjoy photography. But I found that a photo never does justice to the moment. So I choose to savour the moment before anything else.

Let's hope the future learns people that most of these instagram shots are basically digital waste.

<comment><USER16> > Let's hope the future learns people that most of these instagram shots are > basically digital waste.

That's very condescending of you. Lots of people like having real visual memories of places they've been.

<comment><USER15> I like having visual memories too. But are my memories triggered by a self- made almost identical photo of a specific glacier or tree at a touristic attraction?

In the last couple of years I've not taken photographs of things from which I was sure already tens of thousands of photos exist.

In my opinion people forget the importance of the experience itself. It seems as if there must always be some form of evidence to show others that you've been to some place. Preferably while you are still there.

<comment><USER17> In my experience, my own picture does trigger a different response than a basically identical photo from somebody else. I have a wall dedicated to pictures of my various hiking trips, and replacing them with professional photos doesn't have the same effect. I've tried.

I also don't think taking a picture and being present in the moment are mutually exclusive at all. It takes five seconds for me to snap a quick photo. It's really not that big of a deal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _"The relatively new trouble with mass society is perhaps even more serious, but not because of the masses themselves, but because this society is essentially a consumers' society where leisure time is used no longer for self-perfection or acquisition of more social status, but for more and more consumption and more and more entertainment… To believe that such a society will become more "cultured" as time goes on and education has done its work, is, I think, a fatal mistake. The point is that a consumers' society cannot possibly know how to take care of a world and the things which belong exclusively to the space of worldly appearances, because its central attitude toward all objects, the attitude of consumption, spells ruin to everything it touches."_

Hannah Arendt

<comment><USER19> I find that the root issue is individualism. There are immaculately clean cities in east asia whos parent societies would definitely qualify as highly "consumerist." It's not consumption that's the problem but the parameters within which that consumption is allowed to proceed. As well, in individualist societies we seem far more comfortable to discard our trash wherever and just forget about it. A more collectivist attitude appears, from my experience, to get people to be more thoughtful.

<comment><USER20> > There are immaculately clean cities in east asia

Isn't it because they have armies of cleaning people in the streets ? A friend of mine told me about it, I think he was in South Korea, Seoul perhaps, at the time. He told me people mostly act the same but their cities are more efficient at cleaning the mess before it piles up. I don't know if there are other laws similar to that [0] but it probably explain some behaviours too.

I agree with the underlying point though, some people just don't give a shit. I visited a small greek island last year and was appalled to see that locals were throwing their trash, old furnitures, construction materials, &c. over a cliff, straight to the ocean.

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

<comment><USER21> Not in Japan. No armies of cleaning people are required.

<comment><USER22> Kids clean their own schools in Japan.

[https://www.indiatoday.in/education- today/featurephilia/stor...](https://www.indiatoday.in/education- today/featurephilia/story/students-in-japan-clean-their-own-classrooms-and- school-toilets-and-the-reason-is-incredible-1227619-2018-05-06)

Whereas in the West, we just tell ourselves stories like all cultures are equal, and even though it's obviously not even remotely true, most people seem to believe it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I hate to sound cynical but the reason it seems like everyone knows someone who's gone to Iceland in the past 5 years is because the government has been heavily subsidizing flights and hotels to this exact end. There really was no other outcome :(

Also the government only needs to levy a 1000 USD fine on a few people in order to stop a lot of this because the American press will seize on it immediately.

<comment><USER23> This isn't exactly accurate.

WOW air, the budget airline that was offering cheap flights from the US is now bankrupt. They were able to offer the flights so cheap because they were operating at a loss trying to take market share away from Icelandair.

The biggest problem has been the government's inability to control the tourism industry, which more or less runs amok, taking all of the profit and contributing little back other than general tax revenue.

Members of parliment have proposed various solutions to deal with tourism, but most often there is no agreement, and no concrete actions put into place.

Basically there are laws that prevent the government from taxing people differently, so it's illegal to tax tourists different than locals, so it becomes difficult to take advantage of tourism money for government to create facilities, hire people, build infrastructure, etc.

It's happening, but it's not what it could be.

Various "nature pass" fees have been proposed, hotel taxes, flight taxes, etc.. but no matter what the idea is someone is always against it, which has made curbing the situation hard.

With WOW air just disappearing recently, the economy is still adjusting to that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Clickbaity title implies that all tourists that visit Iceland trash the place and this could not be further from the truth, I thought people were pretty well behaved. This article was about a few bad actors, literally. Iceland's economy is now heavily reliant on tourism but tourism always comes at a cost and this needs to be factored in when choosing this as your source of income as a country. You don't hear about the Ecuadorians complaining about tourists ruining the Galapagos Islands because they put a lot of effort into managing tourism there. Tourists are all the same, they just don't care about your country, deal with it, manage it. Restrict the numbers, increase the cost, use the money to make repairs and clean up the mess. If not then don't let them in (by making it prohibitively expensive to get there) and find another way to make money for your people.

<comment><USER25> I don't know what percentage of Iceland's tourists are behaving in the manner described by the article, but I disagree. There's nothing wrong with educating tourists about proper conduct in a guest country. Some will just ignore the admonitions but others may adjust their behavior. I do agree that a country should account for possible ecological/environmental costs and factor that into fees passed onto tourists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Same is happening in the Faroe Islands at the moment. We're at the early stages, though.

Last summer was absolutely terrible, with tourists not getting informed.

Don't get me wrong, I do not blame the tourists at all. The tourism board has put out a whole lotta campaigns, social media marketing and shit. But they didn't do anything to prepare and inform this huge influx of people.

"Unspoiled and authentic" is the message. People go trekking across the mountains, and into the private property of farmers. One farmer has threatened to shoot tourists, with messages of "Tourists fuck off to your own country".

At least one person has died. A drunk festival attendee, I believe. It can get foggy extremely quickly. They fell to their death off a mountain, because they couldn't see where they were walking.

This could have been prevented by guided tours, but that would ruin the "authentic, unspoiled, whoa nature" image that the tourism board is going for. Alternatively, educating tourists on do's and don't's. A pamphlet at the airport and the dock.

</comment><comment><USER27> Iceland should make up its mind. Flights to Iceland (from pretty much anywhere) are extremely cheap, presumably due to some sort of Icelandic tourism-board subsidy. This attracts people who choose vacation destination based on price... who might not be the most motivated to nurture (or even pay attention to) the local character of the place they visit.

<comment><USER28> That's a pretty classist thing to say. Rich people aren't more respectful of nature than people on a budget.

<comment><USER27> There are two algorithms for choosing a vacation destination:

1\. _sort_ vacation destinations based on actually wanting to go there, and then _filter_ based on ability-to-go;

2\. _sort_ vacation destinations based on ability-to-go, and then pick the top one.

AFAIK, there's no correlation between wealth/class and which algorithm people use. Rich people are sometimes rich because they're thrifty, and so are no less likely to employ algorithm #2; poor people are sometimes poor because they tend to splurge on the things they want whenever they come into money, and so are no less likely to employ algorithm #1.

My point is rather that people who employ algorithm #2—regardless of who they are—tend to not actually care about the place they're going to (since they never had it in mind to go there at all, never did any research or looked forward to visiting, etc.); and that, by making tourism as cheap as possible, Iceland is encouraging people who employ algorithm #2 to visit, without really increasing the number of people who visit due to employing algorithm #1 (who, presumably, are the ones they'd actually like to have as tourists.)

<comment><USER28> Iceland is not going to be near the top of any affordability list, cheap flights or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> [Warning ascerbic and anecdotal story below]

Iceland was the goto choice for my colleagues at a startup in London. A few days before they typically went and forked out top dollar for premium outdoor gear (Rab / Fjallraven) and discussed their plans to mount Kirkjufell.

Iceland is the mecca for many hipsters at least for the UK.

I put it down to Sigur Ros, Game of Thrones and that its still not a very touristy place.

Like most hipsters, they know the price of everything but not the value. They check into their AirBnB place and use their phone as their main method of interacting in the area, rather than interact with the locals and build an appreciation of customs and the lay of the land.

Anyways back to the story, one of these well kitted out souls managed to sprain their ankles going for a leasurely walk in the boggy areas of Iceland, only 5 minutes after leaving their hotel.

I just worry now that the Scottish government are trying to market the highlands and outer islands as the "Iceland of the UK".

<comment> 52-6F-62 I can assure you that it's also a destination for hipsters in Canada, if not much of North America.

I've long wanted to go, myself—but it's a touch out of range. It's expensive enough to plan a trip to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, or the Yukon (from Toronto)!

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> You see the same thing in Yellowstone--inattentive Instagrammers with selfie sticks hoping to snap the perfect pic next to the wildlife and scenery. Nothing quite as real as being scalded by a hot spring when you're used to viewing the world through a screen.

<comment><USER31> Same everywhere. I still remember going to the NY ball drop new year's eve - all I could see was camera flashes, hundreds of them every second. It was disgusting. I was one of the very few people who wanted to see stuff with naked eye :(

Do these super talented artistic photographers see the photos they take, even once, after they have taken it?

<comment><USER32> > Do these super talented artistic photographers see the photos they take, > even once, after they have taken it?

Nope, similarly the affect of using cameras in museums has been studied before. In real life it's pretty blatantly obvious that 99% of people don't go to museums and galleries for their interest any more, it's all about being pretentious and shoving as many pictures on facebook as possible so their friends think they are cultured. every time I go there are people who never look away from their phone, just take a picture, next, take a picture, next... all the way.

I find it difficult not to be disgusted by it. If all they really wanted was a picture they could have bought a book far more easily, but they don't want a picture, and they aren't interested, they just want to put it on facebook.

I try to ignore them but they often try to make you get out of the way for their important pictures of EVERYTHING if you dare to appreciate something with your actual eyeballs for more than 20 seconds.

Ok enough this thread is not helping my attitude towards people.

<comment><USER33> I take tons of photos when I go on vacation in a foreign country, but I don't put them on Facebook. I do put them on Google Photos so interested people (who I specifically invite) can look at them if they choose. (GP also has some convenient features, like being able to add descriptions/commentary to each photo, and being able to see on a map where it was taken.)

Getting a photo book wouldn't help me though. I like to take photos of many things that tourist photos don't show: random city streets, bicycles, vending machines, cars, graffiti, other tourists, locals, shopping districts, residential districts, trains, signs, Apple stores, grocery stores, etc. I like to try to capture what life is really like in a place, good and bad, and a book of tourist photos isn't going to show you that.

<comment><USER32> > I like to take photos of many things that tourist photos don't show: random > city streets, bicycles, vending machines, cars, graffiti, other tourists, > locals, shopping districts, residential districts, trains, signs, Apple > stores, grocery stores, etc. I like to try to capture what life is really > like in a place, good and bad, and a book of tourist photos isn't going to > show you that.

That's great, it's good to take photos like that as a tourist and I wouldn't judge anyone taking photos of any kind in that whole category. But to be clear, i'm talking about something quite different, they are not photos, they are just an extension of social network selfies, "proof I was here", it's about excessive concern with self-image and nothing else - when taken to the extreme in the ways I so commonly see now, it has absolutely no relation to how one takes a genuine photo to capture happy moments, personally unique interests etc when visiting or exploring. These other people have become the extremities of a robot feeding an algorithm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I m really looking forward to the day when we ll be looking back at this era of compulsive selfpromotion with disbelief at the level of kitsch we managed to achieve.

</comment><comment><USER35> We need to become more vocal about tourist etiquette so that it becomes part of the social consciousness I think. Back then, we were making fun of people we considered unwashed for not having passports and being untravelled, and now we are surprised that unwashed people are ruining nature in other countries.

</comment><comment><USER36> I was just there a couple weeks ago. The only incident I saw of this was a recently married couple taking photo's on a cliff, they went out over the ropes, a misstep probably would have killed them.

Also when you rent a car there, they inform you that going off road is prohibited. I guess some people choose not to listen.

<comment><USER37> Yeah, people die taking selfies pretty much every year on one of our local hikes here in Washington. It's the easiest trail with a spectacular view(~1200ft of gain) in the entire metro area, so people flock to it in droves. It's a hike out to a cliff that looks down on a valley floor.

Every single "outdoorsy" girl on Tinder has a picture of themselves there, standing in front of the precipice.

There's also the easiest snowy mountain in the state, which everyone hikes up every year in tennis shoes as soon as the trailhead opens. One year Search & Rescue was called 4 times in one week because some hikers got stranded in the snow because they chose not to do any basic research about the conditions and assumed that since they wear tennis shoes during the winter, hiking through foot-deep snow in them is definitely okay. That week the county sheriff went on the news and asked people to please stop hiking that mountain for a couple of months.

<comment><USER33> What they need is a "stupid hiker fee". Some states require hikers to buy a hiking pass, and the fees for this fund rescues, but if someone doesn't get the pass and needs to be rescued, they can be charged the entire cost of the rescue.

<comment><USER36> <squinty face>This sound an awful lot like insurance.</squinty face>

<comment><USER33> Basically, that's what it is. The park or local government is selling these "passes" which really amount to insurance, so that that government has the money to pay for rescues if they need to (or if rescuees don't/can't pay), and maybe also for other expenses involved in park upkeep. "Use fees" for public parks are not uncommon. Virginia State parks generally charge such fees for parking, for instance, as does Grand Canyon NP.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Its largely a scale thing too. When I was growing up I used to go on weekends away and camp overnight in rest areas, side of the road or private places. It worked great. A few decades later those areas are really popular with tourists but there is no room for hundreds of people to do the same. Meanwhile the new generation of locals can't do it any more and have to stay in hotels now - which they can't afford. Just another reason to leave the region and move to a big city.

</comment><comment><USER39> I went in the winter of 2014 and saw cute fuzzy horses on the side of the road, so pulled over to look at them. When I got back to my car I realized it got stuck and had to embarrassingly ask locals to help. At least I didn't drive off road. Some farmer pulled me out of the ditch with his truck as some other locals helped shovel the snow around my tires.

</comment><comment><USER40> In the meantime, Icelandickers themselves trashing their ecosystem:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAubG28uODM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAubG28uODM)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uba84Q6qwKM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uba84Q6qwKM)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmLbLCMb4QQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmLbLCMb4QQ)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xvc0ypXkjcQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xvc0ypXkjcQ)

</comment><comment><USER41> Solution: put a Pokemon Go character inside the crater of a volcano.

<comment><USER32> Ok, but make sure it's active, we don't want them polluting inactive craters :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I noticed this when I visited Iceland a few years ago. Lots of tourists littering, jumping over barriers/ropes at waterfalls, and ignoring the signs that say "don't go near the ocean - it washed away a family last week!" Stupid and selfish on so many levels.

Sadly, I also noticed the same thing on Skye last month.

It goes beyond just numbers of tourists (a problem in and of itself, and one I'm obviously part of). Some people are just selfish pricks.

</comment><comment><USER32> I think this is a potential basically everywhere, unfortunately most people do not respect the environment and given access will treat nature like a city. Where it becomes an issue is more a matter of forces acting to encourage "normal" people with no previous interest in nature to go and e.g have their piece of the pie for their worthless facebook pic.

Anecdotally, I've seen this multiple times on smaller scales in nature reserves in the UK, social networking and selfies definitely play a big role. It's usually the places with easy access, almost no commitment or effort required, easy selfie opportunities... in these locations in recent years i've observed massive amounts of litter and disrespect, to add insult to injury these intruders tend to be ignorant of safety in general, hurling rocks, boulders and bottles into the path of walkers and climbers bellow from cliff tops.

The reaction from local authorities is to add more fences and gates, locking previously available easy access routes... basically keep the barrier for entry into nature reserves high enough for careless people to stay away.

<comment><USER43> Went on a roadtrip through England in 2017 with a friend.

Your second paragraph was the reason we didn't like it at Stonehenge. Busses and busses of people, littering everywhere. They had to prohibit going near the rocks, as people would break off parts of it to take home (who in their right mind would fucking do this), draw on them, damage them otherwise... Huge bummer for me and my friend.

On the other hand, wandering through Dartmoor, meeting 5 people the whole day was absolutely one of the best memories of the trip. Easy access, no effort required is exactly the tourist category that we didn't enjoy in the end.

<comment><USER33> I visited Japan a couple months ago during "Golden Week", which is their big national vacation week. Several of the sites I visited were absolutely packed with (Japanese) tourists. No one was vandalizing anything, littering, or even acting rude and obnoxious, or in any way I could see breaking any of the rules. As an American, it was rather weird because American tourists wouldn't be like this at all. It's pretty amazing to see a culture where people know how to act properly even when there's a high degree of crowding.

<comment><USER32> There are pros and cons of that culture though, Japan takes it to the other extreme from what i've read.

<comment><USER33> What extreme is that? As far as visiting when it's packed with Japanese tourists, I didn't see any downside aside from (obviously) some long lines and lots of people in the gardens.

Sure, Japan has some issues such as too much overwork in their culture, but America has that too. How many Silicon Valley engineers only work 40 hours? And how many poorer people have multiple part-time jobs to make ends meet and they still can't afford health insurance?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Iceland is trying to reduce its dependence on oil exports, which is a good thing, by directing efforts towards Tourism. But looks like this is also affecting nature in its own way. It is like we can't really interact with nature without destroying it in some way or the other.

Instagram does affect people a lot and the same people deny it. I am not on Instagram, never got onto it as I realized the impact FB was having in my life when it was the most popular medium. Uninstalled the FB app as well, I do access it through the browser occasionally, necessary evil and all that. But of course, instagramers (don't know if this is even a word) think they are inspiring people. What do I know ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

I hope Instagram goes through their new change of not showing the number of likes to viewers. Would be interesting to see whether that has any modification of societal behavior of people hooked onto it.

</comment><comment><USER45> A while back someone posted a comment on another story about travel and tourism - I forget who - basically saying that travel is the ultimate extension of selfishness and narcissism. I disagreed, and I still do, but I will agree with that statement entirely when it concerns Instagram influencers.

</comment><comment> d-sc I've lived in touristy areas all my life. The phenomenon of locals being disinterested in the tourists is not a new one and existed long before social media. Mysteriously they don't seem to mind the money from those same tourists (or live on trust funds).

</comment><comment><USER46> >Iceland tire of tourists trashing their nature

Rightfully so!

My city recently opened up a direct flight to Reykjavík.

Sadly, I've seen how people treat _our_ national parks.

I hope Iceland use the increased tourism revenue to up their ranger presence and fine and/or deport the offenders.

To Iceland if you're listening: we're not all bad, I promise :)

</comment><comment><USER47> Tourists: people that would be better off elsewhere in a place that would be better off without them.

</comment><comment> rv-de There are so many countries and towns all over the world I have seen which basically just prostitute themselves for tourism. It's as disgusting as it is disgraceful. I don't want to see that - I like societies who welcome foreigners but do not depend on their money and hence won't sell their soul to this economic segment. It's obvious how the majority of the population suffers from this attitude where every service is made for customers who won't come back and accordingly is the quality.

Iceland is a role model in this regard.

</comment><comment><USER48> Typo in title: should be "Icelanders".

<comment><USER33> Unfortunately, you're wrong here. This is from BBC, and they're using a very peculiar and annoying British-ism where they refer to an entity in the plural sense. They do it all the time with companies, saying something like "[Company] have announced earnings" instead of "[Company] _has_ announced earnings" as in American English. Their reasoning is that the company (or country in this case) is composed of many people, so you should use plural. But it's awkward-sounding and annoying, and really doesn't make sense. An individual person is composed of billions of cells, but we don't refer to him or her with the plural tense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Those causing the problem should pay the price. So a small tax on the tourists to clean up after them should be in order.

</comment><comment><USER50> There may come a time where tourists are tagged with GPS trackers. Those who go off the beaten path could face fines.

<comment><USER51> Maybe a GPS tracker attached around the neck and it zaps you if you go off course.

That might lead to weird rise in BDSM tourism to your area

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> They need tougher laws & throw these digital attention whores into prison for 2 years. Deny them access to their IG, or all SM, for the entire time.

Guaranteed to stop bad behavior.

</comment><comment><USER53> Easy:

Hand every tourist a brochure about the Do's and Dont's. Aka, like Singapore prints warnings (DEATH TO DRUG TRAFFICKERS) on their landing cards.

If laws and rules are disrespected fine the sweet bejeezus out of those assholes (like in the thousands of $ range) and ban them from the country (or ideally, from the Schengen room) for 5 to 10 years.

The problem will solve itself in short time.

<comment><USER23> We have something like that, which you find in the airport and various places.

[https://www.inspiredbyiceland.com/icelandicpledge/](https://www.inspiredbyiceland.com/icelandicpledge/)

The people that need to read it the most though, either don't or don't care.

<comment><USER53> This should just be common sense to every traveller anywhere.

It's really a sad reflection of where we stand that this does not seem to be the case.

Thanks for the link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> *Iceland tires ...

</comment><comment><USER55> At first they were just shitting up the Web - now it's the real world too :(

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

<comment><USER56> This isn't even remotely comparable to the tragedy of nature being so carelessly trashed.

<comment><USER57> I think it's an analogy, not a comparison. "Eternal September" being a time when there is a ceaseless influx of those who are unaware / uncaring of the rules.

<comment><USER56> It's not really a ceaseless influx if those people are inevitably leaving.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Walking on moss and sitting on glaciers. Whatever is Iceland going to do about such anti-social and destructive behavior?

</comment><comment><USER59> Okay, so restrict their entrance and live without their tourism money. :')

<comment><USER60> That would require withdrawing from Schengen, and probably the EEA, impacting Icelanders' travel rights to Europe.

<comment><USER61> That's one option, but another would be taxes: increase landing tax for flights, hotel tax, car rental tax, tourist services tax, etc.

Or simply limit numbers: require that people buy tickets to enter particular places (including national parks), and restrict entry once the place is "full".</comment></comment></comment>


What tools/apps/processes do you use to stay productive? Pros and cons of each? - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiehackers.com/forum/what-tools-apps-and-processes-do-you-use-to-stay-productive-pros-and-cons-of-each-55c81ebb0d <comment><AUTHOR> I usually like to use Google Calendar to sort out my activities for the day and figure out any blocks I have for the tasks I want to complete. I just wish there were a way for the calendar to automatically "reflow" around my tasks/events in case I miss something, and I want to reschedule it later. Better yet, why not have a calendar that auto-schedules my tasks for me? Is anyone working on this problem, or just generally a better calendar?</comment>


Google Chrome redirects 'www' to Google's servers - <AUTHOR> http://www/

<comment><USER2> It's being treated like any other search, it goes to a search for 'www'.</comment>


How Mark Zuckerberg's Altruism Helps Himself - <AUTHOR> https://www.propublica.org/article/how-mark-zuckerbergs-altruism-helps-himself <comment><USER2> I was gonna say "Autism" lol. I thought's what the title was at first. But more importantly, did you see that video with his Wife--dude this guy is practically on the spectrum. Listen to the last words that come out of his mouth and how awkward it was.

"She [his daughter] and everyone in her generation really should be able to live much better lives than we can in all these ways. And I hope that--not just our child--everyone in our community has an opportunity to go on and have an even bigger impact in the world...[pause, awkward learned grin, as if he just said something witty and profound] I think she'll get there."

Where "there" is unbeknownst to me, but Zuck sure seems to be proud of his witticism. For me though, i see right through the campiness for what it truly is: Zuck trying so hard to be appealing as a person (socially) while also being a thought-leader of sorts, but just missing the mark, and as a result making him look like a phony. Acting things out is fine, but if it can't be easily believed, it usually means the actor doesn't believe it, which usually means their heart isn't in it. I don't buy that Zuck's heart is really in it, in short.</comment>


Weinre - Debug Mobile Websites from your Desktop - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaAI29UkVCc

<comment><USER2> some links:

downloads - <https://github.com/pmuellr/weinre/downloads>

doc - <http://pmuellr.github.com/weinre/>

</comment><comment><USER3> This and phonegap — up, up and away!</comment>


Genes Show Limited Value in Predicting Diseases - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/health/research/16gene.html?hp

<comment><USER2> I don't understand why they are saying this is the first time someone is saying that genes, and genetic association, are not sufficient. Eric Schadt has published some great work on network analysis and eQTL (<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18552845>). Others have argued about the importance of studying copy number variation.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Gene expression" is the key phrase. Genes on their own don't mean much with regard to disease. Diet and lifestyle drive how they are expressed.</comment>


Ask HN: Does 'Evidence Based Scheduling' work in practice? - <AUTHOR>

I've just re-read an old article by Joel Spolsky about using a monte-carlo simulation to create accurate software release schedules [1].<p>Does anyone have any experience using this approach?  If so, would you recommend it?<p>[1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html <comment><USER2> Clickable link:

[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html)</comment>


The worst is yet to come for American shopping malls - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/12/news/companies/mall-closing/index.html <comment><USER2> Content-free catastrophe clickbait like this is likely a good indicator that the mall-closing phenomenon in the states has peaked.

Lots of the retail stores in trouble were victims of high debt loads from private equity buyouts rather than major competition from online shopping.

Almost all of the major retail chains are now very competitive in online and mixed online/in-person shopping models and mall operators are re-tooling malls with a mix of retail and experiential stores and even governmental and professional services.

Even Sears looks like it might survive in some form and smart observers like Scott Galloway think its more likely than not that Amazon will buy a major department store soon to keep up with the Walmarts and Best Buy's that have effective physical footprints.

<comment><USER3> The other element is restaurants, I've noticed malls that have name brand chain restaurants always seem busy.

People will go out to eat, and since they are there do some shopping. There are still things that are better buying in person rather than getting something shipped, not liking it, shipping it back, etc.

<comment><USER2> Yes, 'Fast Casual' in the Chipotle and Panera style has seen a huge growth boom as well as experiential retail like the Apple Store, Sephora Makeup, Alamo Drafthouse and etc..

Personally I try to buy everything online that I can't walk to and I bought a lot at Best Buy this year. They gave me free wall mount installation from their local location on my television that I bought from their web site and it's nice to have a physical location nearby for bigger purchases in case you need to return something.

In addition, the Walmarts and Targets see an obvious future where you buy things from their web stores online but just have it shipped to their physical locations where you can pick it up during your weekly grocery run. This is already a reality.

There are clear secular trends towards online shopping and against malls but a lot of the shakeout has taken place already and a lot of the weak hands have already left the game. Those that remain along with new entrants are adapting quickly which is why I think the 'retail apocalypse' has already hit the peak of the hype cycle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Dan Bell's Dead Mall Series is oddly depressing and he often gives some back story into their declines.

[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNz4Un92pGNxQ9vNgmnCx...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNz4Un92pGNxQ9vNgmnCx7dwchPJGJ3IQ)

A common theme appears to be either struggling footfall or the fact that what I guess are major US anchor stores (Maceys, Sears, KMart) going through tough times. Once the anchors move out, it becomes difficult to run the mall.

Interestingly, in one video, the Mall was half turned into offices, and it had a thriving food hall which I thought was a great idea to keep it relevant. No other dead malls in the series appear to adapt so they become ghost towns then abandoned and later demolished.

A shame really.

<comment><USER5> I love the series. I notice also in the series an anchors space would often be subdivided into 10' x 20' vendor areas. that way small community businesses could sell their goods for very little overhead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> In New Zealand and Australia (and I'm sure many other places, but those are the ones I know first-hand) malls also feature supermarkets, post offices, and banks. They're designed to be a destination for not just "recreational" shopping but day-to-day errands. Always missed that when in US malls, and apparently they're still not cottoning on.

<comment><USER5> In the US, malls have been fighting that trend. Until recently they saw those stores as a cancer. Grocery stores and work-out locations would 'push out' the high dollar customers. Of course the internet is taking away those high dollar customers so the malls need those stores now.

I stay away from the big local mall because of the lack of security. Also 2/3's of the mall are women's clothing stores. There nothing really there for me anyone more.

The next closest mall is a rotting heap that is kept alive by the marker space and a theater. They need to repave the parking lot and fix the roof to attract new good stores.

<comment><USER7> What do you mean by lack of security? Do you feel you're in danger of being robbed _in a mall_?

<comment><USER8> Probably in the parking lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I clicked this headline thinking "hmm it's not going to be Howard Davidowitz banging this old drum?" and sure enough it's Howard Davidowitz with his same talking points one decade later...

</comment><comment><USER10> Maybe someone from the US can clarify this for me: are people upset about this as an indicator for the economic changes happening at the moment, or are they genuinely concerned about the malls themselves?

Never having left Europe myself, I could relate to the former, but not to the latter. What makes those malls so... relevant?

<comment><USER11> That's an interesting question. How is a mall closing a problem provided that people are still buying things, albeit from a different company to the one they bought from before?

If money continues to move around the system, surely this is something that _looks like_ an economic indicator, but is really more of a cultural shift. (Separately there could well be economic problems with the decline of manufacturing etc.).

Are shopping malls somehow deeply rooted in the American psyche? Watching US movies from the 80's and 90's might suggest that they are...

<comment><USER10> that last bit is what prompted my question.

crydas' and mseebach's answers make a good point that for some reasons, malls in the US started taking on other roles than just the places of exchange for everyday goods. so from that perspective, if malls fail, those roles need to be filled by some other entity.

<comment><USER12> It's a sentimental attachment for Gen Xers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Someone told me about a mall in Cincinnati that was now a ghost town. I visited it a few months ago and it's surreal. Over half the storefronts have blacked out windows. Almost all the remaining stores have all conglomerated on one side of the building. I was pretty shocked when I saw my favourite body jewelry store was still there. I bought some earrings.

</comment><comment><USER14> A more quantitative, in-depth article on the topic was published by Bloomberg in early November.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-retail- debt/](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-retail-debt/)

</comment><comment><USER15> Just a thought, malls in America all look the same (with some exceptions). I do realize this was a concious effort based on data that consistency in mall design reduces "friction" and provides "familiarity" to consumers.

This isn't the case in a lot of other countries/cities; Dubai for example has multiple malls which look entirely different with it's own unique theme (or themes). They have an overlap of brand name stores, yet the business is brisk. Can American mall owners learn something from this?

</comment><comment><USER16> they need more arcades, plenty of opportunity for full 4k gaming and vr experiences that would be too expensive for many in the home.

<comment><USER17> A lot of malls started kicking out the arcades in the early 1990s, assuming they had them in the first place.

Then they started kicking out the kids completely, and act surprised when they don't return after reaching adulthood.

<comment><USER18> Maybe it's also just that a mall is a place where you shop for fun, and post- gen-X there's been less general fetishizing of consumption all around.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Good, I wish malls would just die out and disappear. They're horrible sterile temples to overconsumption and consumer culture.

</comment><comment><USER20> Since bulldozing trees began many of those malls, how about returning them back to the natural state we clearcut?

</comment><comment><USER21> We should repurpose these dead malls. On that note -- how feasible would it be to buy a mall and turn it into an indoor city? Line the top with solar panels, and it could be neat.

<comment><USER22> See my earlier comment [0] about Rackspace HQ. Apparently they bought the mall for USD 27 million in 2007 [1] so it's certainly feasible, if not cheap.

0\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922440](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922440)

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Park_Mall#2007-present...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Park_Mall#2007-present:_The_Castle)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> To summarise the summary:

\- Amazon is taking all their business and will continue to do so even more

Longer summary:

\- shopping malls have been in decline for years

\- the decline seems likely to continue due to amazon's growth

\- once large department stores leave, smaller shops lose customers who would have passed them on the way to the larger store

\- smaller stores often have break clauses in their leases in case this very thing happens

\- this has been said before</comment>


Ancient mound works of Ohio, published 1851 - <AUTHOR> https://archive.org/details/descriptionsofan00whit <comment><AUTHOR> Great book to start with that is free to download and has detailed maps of some of the mounds. Charles Whittlesey 1851 for the Smithsonian. Fascinating slice of history that not many talk about. You can locate some if not all of these areas on google earth. Most have been built over but you can find ones that have not been. Drawings can be found around page 20.</comment>


What the Heck is SEO? A rebuttal - <AUTHOR> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2012/12/21/what-heck-seo-rebuttal/

<comment><USER2> Original article (discussion): <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4947013></comment>


Things That Need To Be In iOS 5  - <AUTHOR> http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2011/04/01/10-things-that-simply-need-to-be-in-ios-5/

<comment><USER2> If they bring in a better notification system and lock screen, that itself would be a good enough reason for me to upgrade to iOS5/iPhone5.

The writer's on crack though, if he thinks Apple is going to reverse their decision about sideloading 3rd party apps or integrating Gmail features into the mail client.

<comment><USER3> I don't think it's a definite that there will never be sideloading of apps from 3rd party sources. At a certain point — perhaps when every carrier, every country carries the iPhone, or perhaps when there are a full range of iPhones (similar to the current iPods), or when the hardware innovation stagnates to the point of ongoing incremental improvements with occasional substantial improvements (like the the MacBooks) — being able to offer sideloading from the non-Apple app store may bring in a whole bunch of "advanced" users who wants to achieve what isn't possible at the moment.

At that point, the Apple app store will be so established and prevalent and known to the masses that unless you really needed to, you wouldn't use sideloading: not unlike how Apple app store and the JB app stores exist now, but officially.

<comment><USER4> Who cares about 'advanced' users? There's so many less of them than normal users.

Do normal users actually pick devices based on being able to side-load apps? If yes, then I'd eventually expect to see it in iOS. If no, then I'd not expect to see it.

For what little it's worth, I think the answer is 'no', but that's based purely on my personal experience and could well be wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> i.e. 10 ways to make iOS 5 more like Android.

</comment><comment><USER6> I have never heard of MobileNotifier. Pretty Cool, but covering up a row of the icons will never fly with Apple. For my purposes the notifications work fine, except for when you are a phone call and you get an alert, you have to respond to it - to end the call.

</comment><comment><USER7> Seems like the writer technical ignorance forgot something important: a real html5 browser.

The iPhone, iPad, Android and Windows Phone browsers doesn't support designMode/contentEditable on their browsers. So, there is a limit in doing WYSIWYG interfaces like Google Docs.

<comment><USER8> Not to take anything away from your comment, but Google Doc's are not build using contentEditable as far as I know. I think they are capturing every input and building the DOM "by hand".

<comment><USER7> This is from a new Google Docs Document:

<body style="background-color: transparent; " contenteditable="true"></body>

Obviously they can do other tricks, but doesn't work without changes on mobile browsers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am generally happy with iOS but here are the three things I would like to see:

1\. The option to encrypt ALL user data. 2\. Get rid of the iTunes requirement. A post PC device shouldn't need a PC to operate. 3\. Multiuser support so I can let someone use my device without giving them access to all my stuff.

That said, I don't expect to see any of these from Apple (except for, maybe, number 1).

</comment><comment><USER10> Hopefully someday I will be able to do more than swipe left and right to navigate the system. How bout releasing a whole new look and feel to iOS by swiping upwards/downwards, which'll bring you to an open and customizable feel. Widgets I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER11> I want the ability to have app updates (per app choice) installed automatically that can be scheduled during my sleep time.

</comment><comment><USER12> No. "Sideloading of Third-party Apps" Whatever your opinion of it, Apple has shown time and time again that this will not officially happen. I would be extremely surprised if it were to happen. I am sure some of Apple's devices are sold at a loss to be later made into revenue by app and music sales. Third party applications would defeat this strategy.

<comment><USER13> but this is possible already.

from the business section of apple's homepage: "Wireless App Distribution

iPad enables enterprises to securely host and wirelessly distribute in-house apps to employees over Wi-Fi and 3G. Apps can be updated without requiring users to connect to their computers. In-house apps can be hosted on any web server accessible to users. Users simply tap on a URL to install apps wirelessly without needing to connect to their computers."

The company I work for distributes its iPad app through this to all our customers. No app store required. And yes, this is a full blown, native iOS app.

<comment><USER14> Yes, but Apple sets terms and conditions, when and how can you do it (it involves being company of over 500 employees and assk-kissing when handling the certificates).

Basically, you can't do any skunk works in your company, because when you start talking to all people necessary to handle Apple terms, some manager will come and tell you to not do anything, because the standard corporate phone is XYZ and that's it.

<comment><USER4> You can auth up to 100 devices for testing, and use TestFlight (<http://testflightapp.com/>) or similar to distribute them over the air.

Yes, adhoc distribution doesn't scale out, but if you've got 100 eager users you can probably get them to convince management to sign the forms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Except for number 9), the rest is not gonna happen.

<comment><USER16> I don't see why Apple wouldn't do #1. It's pretty much the most requested feature/improvement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> OpenCL

</comment><comment><USER18> So basically everything that's in Android 3.0 and most of which is in Android 2.2. Apple starting to play catch up now.</comment>


Why is elliptic curve cryptography not widely used, compared to RSA? - <AUTHOR> http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/1190/why-is-elliptic-curve-cryptography-not-widely-used-compared-to-rsa <comment><USER2> ECC is the emerging new standard for asymmetric crypto. It's misleading to say it's not widely used. It's not widely used in mainstream protocols, because those protocols were almost invariably designed in the 1990s. During the '90s, ECC was both patent-encumbered and a less conservative choice than RSA.

In 2013, the scales have tipped. RSA is now the less conservative choice. Classical number-theoretic asymmetric cryptography has been getting weaker and weaker with improvements both on factoring and the DLP. ECC has been deployed in more and more systems without patent debacles. Research has firmed up our confidence in ECC.

You should generally be distrustful of any new system that uses asymmetric crypto of any sort. Asymmetric crypto is very difficult to get right; it has more corner cases than AES/SHA constructions do. But you should be especially distrustful if you see a new system that uses RSA.

</comment><comment><USER3> RedHat/Fedora[1] do not enable elliptic curves in their openssl for "legal" reasons.

[1] [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=319901](https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=319901)

</comment><comment><USER4> Not relevant to ECC, but if anyone here has spare time and any interest at all in crypto, please contribute to the linked site ([http://crypto.stackexchange.com](http://crypto.stackexchange.com))! In case anyone doesn't know, StackExchange is a network of Q&A websites, of which StackOverflow was the first. Sites go through a proposal process and, if enough people commit, a private and then public beta. The Cryptography StackExchange site is currently in public beta. If it reaches a critical mass, then it will graduate and become fully-fledged member of the SE network.

As it is, the site is doing relatively well but daily activity is low (too few questions, too few visitors). But there are lots of knowledgeable people on it, and crypto is one of those areas everyone seems interested in, so the only real thing holding it back is a critical mass of good, active users. For many professions here on HN, it's useful to have a bit of crypto knowledge, so this post is a shameless plug. :)

You don't have to be an expert to contribute. In fact, one of the problem areas is a lack of good, well-researched, quality questions. Of course, any new expert is welcome too.

<comment><USER5> To explain a potential adversary, how crypto works or how he becomes a valueable asset for any given intelligence service without any given payment may not even attract people like me.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure how to parse your comment.

> how he becomes a valueable asset for any given intelligence

How _who_ becomes a valuable asset? Unless I am misreading this somehow, I don't even know what you're trying to say.

> without any given payment may not even attract people like me

If you're saying that you have no interest in answering questions because there's no pay involved, then I can understand that position. But a huge part of what the Crypto SE lacks is a study influx of quality questions. And the flip side of not being paid to answer is that you don't have to pay to ask.

I suppose if you are a cryptographer, you have little incentive to spend time roaming the site, true. However, other Stack Exchange sites have a bunch of experts on them too (ignoring the Big Three, the Math SE is one such place, as well as essentially all of the other graduated sites) and they don't seem to mind not being paid. I agree it's not for everyone, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I thought the most interesting thing in the stack overflow was the complete lack of systems analysis.

99% of people who need encryption already have it, and they probably use RSA or at least a non-EC system. So almost by definition you're talking about converting an entire system, not just linking in a new library or CSS file...

The question is really, "Why aren't people replacing their entire SSL cert system and all their SSH shared keys just for fun?". Or maybe "Why is gradual generational turnover rate in security systems so slow?". Combining the two questions is strangely reminiscent of why does it take forever to roll out ipv6 and sunset ipv4?

Its possible for new stuff I'd evaluate the field and possibly an E.C. tech might win. But if turnover is perhaps 1% annually, its going to take a century unless theres a "crisis" or major revolutionary kick to the system.

<comment><USER7> You don't need to replace your entire anything, and it's not "just for fun".

No, the question is really "EC has these benefits (lower CPU and memory usage) - why aren't these benefits attractive enough for someone to start experimenting with it?" \- with those someones probably being companies like Google, Facebook, Dropbox etc that have very substantial amounts of SSL traffic and could surely benefit from saving on memory and CPU.

<comment><USER6> "could surely benefit from saving on memory and CPU."

... at a certain labor cost. And memory and CPU prices are forever decreasing and labor cost is sorta increasing. So if it doesn't make sense as a system to do it today it probably never will, for an established organization anyway.

Also its not "why aren't they experimenting" but "why aren't they publicly experimenting". And it would nearly be a first in the security field to discuss algo changes this long in advance of rollout, if its ever discussed in public at all...

Finally its highly unclear why anyone uses SSL for these apps. That solely protects the relatively highly secure comm channel between two wide open insecure endpoints, so there's no point other than security theater/marketing. For email auth, yeah maybe. For finance its theater but necessary theater. But for G+, FB, DB as listed its just a waste of time. The MS windows enduser is probably owned 100x over with worms and keyloggers, and the server side will roll over and play dead to anyone remotely in .gov.

<comment><USER7> > Finally its highly unclear why anyone uses SSL for these apps

Huh? The reason you use SSL for Google and Facebook is so 15 random strangers don't get access to your accounts just because you go online for five minutes in Starbucks.

PRISM is awful and all but that doesn't mean non-state adversaries stopped being a thing overnight.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The one main reason ECC was not adopted initially is also patents. Certicom held a majority of the patents on those and every time I tried to push for elliptic curves the first thing every one talked about was patents. So we mostly stayed away from it to avoid any issues later on. One other reason is Openssl did not implement support for them until recently (a few years ago), probably because of the patent confusion. It will pick up in a few years.

</comment><comment><USER9> Wow, I always thought that elliptic curves were an algorithm to break cryptography like RSA. If I remember well, RSA is based on the fact that Z/pZ is a group when p is prime (for those who don't know, it's about taking the addition and multiplications for the numbers in [0..p-1] and taking the result modulo p), and elliptic curves offer a more generic framework for that...

<comment><AUTHOR> Not really, no.

Very briefly ...

==== Start RSA recap

Given an integer n>1, the numbers _a_ s.t. _0 <=a<n_ and _gcd(a,n)_ form a group under multiplication. That means that for every _e_ with _gcd(e,n)=1_ there is a _d_ s.t. _d.e=1 (mod n)_.

Now take _n=pq_ where _p_ and _q_ are primes. The function _phi(n)_ counts how many elements are co-prime to _n_ , and since _n=pq_ that turns out to be _(p-1)(q-1)_. So _phi(n)=(p-1)(q-1)._ I'm going to write _r=phi(n)._

Take any _e_ with _gcd(e,r)=1._ We can compute _d_ s.t. _d.e=1 (mod r),_ which means _d.e = k.r+1_ for some _k._ (Note: I'm doing this mod r, not mod n.)

Right.

Now take a message _M_ (with _0 <=M<n_ and _gcd(M,n)=1_ ) and compute _E=M^e_. We can do that fairly quickly using an adapted Russian Peasant Multiplication algorithm. This number "looks random" in some sense. You can transmit it to someone else.

They compute _D=E^d_. So what's that? Well, working modulo n:

        D = E^d
          = (M^e)^d
          = M^(d.e)
          = M^(k.r+1)
          = M^(k.r) x M
          = (M^r)^k x M

But Euler's extension of Fermat's Little Theorem says that if _gcd(a,n)=1_ , then _a^phi(n)=1 (mod n)_. Therefore _M^r=1 (mod n)_ , and so _D=M._

Therefore we can recover _M_ , so we can decrypt _E._

So if you publish _n_ and _e_ , but keep _d_ secret, people can send you _E=M^e (mod n)_ and only you can read it.

Probably.

If someone can compute _phi(n)_ then they can compute _d_ from _e_ and _n_ , but we think that's the same as factoring _n._ Similarly, if you can compute discrete logarithms, but that seems to be about as hard as factoring.

==== End RSA recap.

All of this can be cast more abstractly in the group (Z/nZ, * ). Doing so gives us the same system in more generality. This is what ECC does. You choose and publish an elliptic curve - _C_. Then you choose an element, _e_ , and compute its inverse _d_ in _C_. You encrypt a message _M_ by taking _e.M_ (remembering that in ECC we usually use + as the operation symbol instead of * - so this is the equivalent of _M^e_ ).

And it all works.

Possibly someone who knows more about this than I will find gaping holes in the above, but I think that should get you started.

To address the other question:

        > I always thought that elliptic curves were
        > an algorithm to break cryptography like RSA

There is also Lentra's Elliptic Curve Integer Factoring Algorithm. That is basically the Pollard Rho factoring method, but in a group corresponding to an Elliptic Curve, rather than in the usual Z/nZ. Factoring integers can result in breaking RSA, and Elliptic Curves can be used in factoring, but that's a different question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've often heard the claim that elliptic curve cryptography is not used much in practice compared to RSA. I don't doubt its true but I would like to have some evidence for it so I can also say it without being a parrot.

I don't know anything about real world implementations of cryptography. How can I go about getting data that RSA is more widely used?

<comment><USER11> Well, probably the most widely used cryptography is SSL, specifically the kind used in HTTPS. The whole HTTPS ecosystem revolves around certificates authorities that sign your RSA key. So on that fact alone, I would say there's more RSA out there than ECC.

SSH is also _very_ widely used and it has traditionally used RSA keys, though it supports DSA keys, too and, more recently, ECDSA (the "EC" being elliptic curve). Sadly, Mac OS X's built in openssh is an older version that doesn't support ECDSA and apparently Redhat turns off ECDSA support for some sort of legal/patent reasons. So that's another case where RSA is more popular.

<comment><USER12> SSL/X.509 and that whole ecosystem can use ECDSA based certificates and ECDH as key exchange, because it is explicitly designed to allow multiple variants of encryption algorithms.

There are relatively many widely deployed systems that use ECC because of resource constrains (short signatures, mainly). For example both Microsoft's product keys and FlexLM use something that is at least described in marketing materials as ECDSA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I can't find a smartcard that does ECC. Anyone has one? PGPcard only does RSA (granted, up to 3072 bits -- but that makes for extra long signatures and messages).

GPG and SSH can do ECC for a long time now - where's the trustworthy hardware to help them?

Anyone know of something that can run e.g. on the YubiKey NEO?

</comment><comment><USER14> And there's also the thing that many EC parameters are patented.

</comment><comment><USER15> check out www.surespot.me for a great example of elliptic curve cryptography. surespot is a free and open source mobile messenger encrypting all messages end-to-end with 256 bit AES symmetric-key encryption using keys created with 521 bit ECDH shared secret derivation. surespot was built from the ground up to provide this exceptional security in an unobtrusive way, this is not a layer over something existing. surespot is like whatsapp but actually encrypted! group chat on the way.

</comment><comment><USER5> Since RSA patents expired, it's available, easier to comprehend and good enough until 2020 when the ECC patents expire.

</comment><comment><USER16> The top answer tries to brush off the difference in hardness assumptions as "semi-valid", and I think that's rather odd. Assumptions about hardness are pretty damned important in cryptography, and 25 years is not really all that long for mathematicians to have been thinking about a problem.

<comment><USER17> As another answer points out, the mathematics of the discrete logarithm on elliptic curves is closely related to factoring, and most factoring algorithms have close analogs for the discrete logarithm, so the difference is actually not that great.

However it does have a subtle consequence. We've developed some very good sieve based algorithms for factoring in recent decades that do not have obvious analogs for elliptic curves. A large part of the performance advantage that elliptic curves have is that you can get away with shorter keys. However if we developed an analog to our best factoring algorithms, then that size (and therefore performance) benefit becomes much less.

If you choose key size to "be good enough that people won't be able to break this for X years" you really should assume that such analogs exist, and will be discovered within X years.

<comment><USER2> In additional to the NFS algorithms, we also have the index calculus algorithms for DLP; see Joux this year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I red somwhere that RSA signature verifcation (decryption with the pulic key) is significantly faster than with ECC. I didn't check it my self, but that is the reason. CryptoPP author told me the same thing.</comment>


A/B testing pitfalls and lessons learned - <AUTHOR> http://exp-platform.com/Documents/IEEEComputer2007OnlineExperiments.pdf

<comment><USER2> The advice is mixed in quality.

The worst piece of advice is to only use one metric, which is some complicated mix of other metrics. The basic reason they want this is to give a clear go/no go signal that everyone agrees on. Perhaps if you have to deal with the politics of a larger organization, that's a good idea. But if you're a small company, the extra detail you get about how your product is used from tracking multiple metrics is very good for helping clarify what you're trying to do, and how you want to do it.

Furthermore the act of creating a complex weighted measure is pushing the argument elsewhere. And when you're still trying to figure out how your site is actually performing, you don't have the context to know what measure to use. Furthermore you won't be able to use the obvious chi-square test (or its better relative, the g-test). There is no need to over-complicate the statistics.

The idea of having a hashing function to do test assignment is one that I had not considered. I've always suggested the obvious rand() at assignment time approach, which accomplishes the same thing but with more overhead at run time. I'd caution people who try the hashing approach to use a standard library, because it would be really, really easy to have the website think that assignment is done one way while your analysis assumes that it is done in another.

The minimum duration point is interesting...and somewhat useless. When I was preparing my presentation a few years ago I found out that, even if you know exactly how much better A is than B, you can't predict to within an order of magnitude how quickly your experiment will show it. My attitude is the much simpler, "The test takes however long it will take, and you can't really know how long that will be in advance." After you've done a few tests, people will have a good enough idea for a back of the envelope estimate.

The other advice seemed good, and mostly was obvious to me. But I have more experience with A/B testing than most do.

<comment><USER3> Hashing has one major advantage over random assignment: reproducibility. If you have some way of IDing Mary Smith, you can consistently serve her the same tests on all machines, and expose the tests she is participating in to bug investigators, without having to actually store a users => chosen test alternatives map anywhere. Those can get fairly sizable and the access patterns suck.

A/Bingo does it by hashing taking MD5(user_id . test_name). You have to store user_I'd, but you're doing that anyhow.

<comment><USER2> If you do random assignment, and save the random assignments somewhere, then you can also get reproducibility. If you do random assignment, and don't save the random assignments anywhere, then you have no idea how many people were in your test versions. Which is not a good idea. (You can estimate this data. I've done it. But doing it properly is surprisingly tricky. It is very, very easy to do it wrong.)

There are several benefits to this approach.

The first benefit is that if you're testing a particular page, you can easily make your test only include people who have hit that page. This will cause results to converge more quickly than if you don't know which people on your site actually hit that page.

The second, and sometimes critical, benefit is that you know exactly _when_ someone entered the test. Multiple times when testing things with a longer sales cycle I've encountered the situation where a particular test version causes the sales cycle to become compressed, but may or may not provide a long-term improvement in conversion. Access to data about when people entered your test allows you to examine A/B test results only for people who have been in the test long enough to be likely to have completed either version.

A third benefit is that if you're testing multiple versions, then you can just continue the test and drop poorly performing versions as you prove that they are suboptimal.

The downside, as you say, is that the map of who is in what version can get very large. In my experience, though, the access patterns are not that bad. Particularly not if you are already using sessions, and can cache that information in the current session, so that most page hits don't have to fetch the A/B test version. Furthermore this is not data that you need to join to anything else on your live website. Therefore it is a perfect candidate to move somewhere like Redis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The MS site (<http://exp-platform.com/>) has more of Kohavi's papers on how MS uses experimentation across their systems. Worth a perusal if you want more depth than this overview document.</comment>


Tell HN: Calling UK Hackers. We're looking for an intern this summer - <AUTHOR>

I'm the co-founder, spec below. Drop me an email if any questions. peter [at] broadersheet.com
Broadersheet is looking for an enthusiastic developer who likes the idea of mixing up the news industry.
You'll have a background in computer science [or relevant experience].
We're building the next generation of the online news experience, so you should have a clue about at least one of these: text processing, news, semantics, mash-ups, AI and jQuery-fuelled web 2.0.
Ideally you'll know rails and have your fingers in plenty of github pies. We also want to talk to you if you've been focusing your time on another language/framework but are keen to learn rails. Much to teach we have.
Broadersheet is a young angel-funded Cambridge-based startup with a strong background in computer science and business. The perfect candidate will make a material contribution that will get us to our big public launch faster, better, stronger. <comment><USER2> I am really sick of companies calling these positions interns. If you really are a start-up that still has not launched your product, as your company seems to be, then you should be expending all your efforts on finishing your product, and simply won't have time to teach an inexperienced intern the ropes. What you're really asking for however is not an inexperienced intern but a competent developer who you want to work for you for free or below market rate. Why is it that people value development so lowly that they think they can get it for free while you never see a company asking for accountancy or lawyer interns.

<comment><AUTHOR> oh, this is a paid position. I assumed that was a given.

and you're being rather dramatic. We're not requesting a monster coder: "junior" developers are bloody useful to startups.

We thought it was a pretty great position to a summer student who wanted to work on an interesting project.

<comment><USER2> Maybe you're one of the rare good guys who doesn't take on interns simply as cheap labor to do crummy work but instead puts the effort and time in to mentor them and enthuse them about the industry. If so, good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> we like to think so ... because it was only a few years ago when we were looking for a valuable internship. :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


ECMAScript 6 looks promising - <AUTHOR> http://kishorelive.com/2011/11/22/ecmascript-6-looks-promising/

<comment><USER2> Let keyword: good. The function scoping of vars is gruesome.

Default arguments: good. Clearly useful and already used a lot with the if (foo === undefined) foo = 'default' pattern.

Non-strict destructuring: bad. It's neither destructuring-bind nor pattern matching... If I destructure a 3-list to 2 vars, I want it to _fail_ , dammit!

Multi-line strings: good, obviously.

Templating: hello, PHP! I thought we already know better.

List comprehension: useful.

My humble opinion: it's hopeless. A mix of useful and terrible features means it'll still be made out of "the good parts" and the awful rest.

<comment><USER3> >If I destructure a 3-list to 2 vars, I want it to fail, dammit!

Why should that fail any more than:

        var a = foo[0];
        var b = foo[1];
        // rest of foo unused

Destructing is just another way to access into a list. There's no notion of completeness here, and there's nothing necessarily erroneous with _not_ referring to all the elements. What would you do if you need just the first 5 elements of a 100-element long list?

That said, if they're going to include destructuring, it'd be nice if they also included a way to bind the tail.

<comment><USER4> > What would you do if you need just the first 5 elements of a 100-element > long list?

I like Python solution there:

        list = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]
        a,b,c = list[0:3]

Also when I do

        a,b,c = list[0:4]

I get "ValueError: too many values to unpack" as it should be - you can always catch the exception and ignore it, if your code really don't care.

<comment><USER5> Catch an exception of something that isn't exceptional? isn't that the anti- case for exception handling?

I don't get why strict restructuring is a bad thing... as long as it's consistant, it's just a nuance of the language.

Am I missing side effect of this? What are potential pit-falls of this pattern?

<comment><USER4> I was arguing that non-strict destructuring is bad, so this code IMHO should throw exception:

        a,b,c=[1,2,3,4]

The reason for this is - if you assume array has 3 elements, but it has more, your code will silently ignore the rest. You'll have to write your assertion every time you destructure, to be sure that destructuring don't ignore data. The exceptional case IMHO is when you need to ignore data, and so code for this case should be uglier, not the other way around. You are right that catching exception for regular code path isn't the best way, but at least programmer intention is clear then.

You could also do

         a,b,c = list.slice(0,3);

which copies the array, but at least it's clear what it assumes about the array. And it can be easily modified to get last 3 values, or 3 values from the middle of list. So no need for 2 idioms depending on which items you want to get from the array.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think it will be really sad if we end up with a module system that's incompatible with CommonJS, which is the only such system that has gained any real traction.

<comment><USER7> Do you have reason to think that's likely?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Nice to see many of CoffeeScript's constructs coming to ECMAScript.

<comment><USER9> True-- but it's frustrating that there's so much resistance to the idea of making the syntax prettier and more concise, which is one of the primary benefits of CoffeeScript.

(Almost?) all of these features can be added to JavaScript with libraries-- that's exactly what CoffeeScript demonstrates. The only thing missing is a contemporary syntax.

<comment><USER10> The syntax is one of the things that keeps me from using CoffeeScript.

<comment><USER11> Because it is badly designed? Or because it is too different from js?

<comment><USER12> Because it's kind-of a mish-mash, and syntactic elements imported from other languages (I know) tend to behave differently in subtle ways, usually making them worse or weird. Also having a single token change so much meaning (fat vs thin arrow) feels icky and hard to read/notice.

<comment><USER9> That's a fair perspective, although what you call a "mish-mash" I'd call borrowing the best syntax for every feature :) The syntax came out of a community effort over the course of many months, and a lot of thought went into the decisions that were made. (And of course it's still under development!)

Since you mentioned the => operator in particular, I'll defend it briefly-- it's a feature JavaScript sorely needs, and in the situations where it's useful it's a godsend, turning a pile of ugly JS into a single operator. The thing it describes is a little complex semantically, but in practice it's very straightforward, and in the cleaner environment of CoffeeScript it stands out well. It does seem like a small difference, but do you mix up == and -= much? Same deal. Visually speaking it actually makes a lot of sense: -> indicates a vanilla, unbound function, while => indicates a bound function whose context _equals_ the one it's defined in.

I know I'm a bit of a fanboy, but if you do a lot of JavaScript I'd encourage you to at least give CoffeeScript a second chance over a weekend sometime; it's the same, normal JS semantics you know and love, but you get to use all the futuristic shortcuts and clean syntax of a modern scripting language, and it outputs nice, readable, compliant JavaScript. (Say goodbye to JSLint!) That's well worth the minimal learning curve, in my opinion of course.

<comment><USER12> > Since you mentioned the => operator in particular, I'll defend it briefly-- > it's a feature JavaScript sorely needs, and in the situations where it's > useful it's a godsend, turning a pile of ugly JS into a single operator.

Oh I understand the need for it, my issue is not with the fat arrow in and of itself, but in the fat arrow _and_ the thin arrow.

> It does seem like a small difference, but do you mix up == and -= much? Same > deal.

Well...

1\. I rarely if ever use either, and

2\. they're generally used in different contexts, I would never use `-=` as part of a wider expression (unless I wanted to fuck with the reader of the code, who is usually me) whereas `==` is not very useful outside of a conditional expression (or at least as a parameter to something else, like a function).

The thin and fat arrows, by comparison, are used in the exact same contexts. This makes them much more error prone.

> That's well worth the minimal learning curve, in my opinion of course.

I don't mind the learning curve, I mind that I don't really like the way the syntax fits together (or does not). Though, to be fair, I also don't like the extra tooling or having to debug different code than was written.

<comment><USER9> > The thin and fat arrows, by comparison, are used in the exact same contexts. > This makes them much more error prone.

You can say that, but in practice it doesn't really happen. They look somewhat different, they do somewhat different things. It's programming, ya know?

Not that I'm trying to _make_ you like it or anything-- of course you have the right to your own aesthetic sensibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> But, how are we going to migrate? Compile down to the current version and serve two files? I feel like this migration process will take way too long.

<comment><USER14> For some web apps it will probably take long. But with all the developments in browser land there is often more then one reason to develop against the latest anyway. Hopefully this will motivate corporate IT to move faster also.

<comment><USER15> That's one good thing about using a feature like WebGL :)

By forcing my users to use the latest versions of Firefox and Chrome I get access to a lot of nice new functionality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Using the ` (backquote) character for multiline strings isn't a wise choice (probably inherited from Go) cause it's difficult to reach that character on non-english keyboard layout. In the italian layout it's alt+\ or alt+9 on the Mac but you can't reach it using Windows; you need to press alt+96.

<comment><USER17> What other character would you suggest? At least multi line strings arent super common (nor essential) so extra difficulty isn't a major problem.

<comment><USER16> I don't think that there is the need for a new character. The problem here is that JS has automatic semicolon insertion. This:

      var a = "abc
       def";

generate a "unterminated string literal" syntax error cause a semicolon is inserted after abc. Why not using C/C++/ObjC syntax?

      var a = "a very "
       "very long string";

<comment><USER18> The only thing about the C syntax version is you still end up with a bunch of double quotes all over the place. The #1 reason I have for using multi-line strings currently is when writing full-out SQL or Javascript code inside C#; using C#'s @-prefixed strings make the whole thing a lot prettier to look at IMO.

For me personally I'll probably never have to write multi-line JS strings more than once a year so I don't really care about the feature, but I do agree with their way of implementing them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Except for the inclusion of "let", it is looking like Python with braces.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, and David actually mentioned openly in that talk that they try to borrow good ideas from other languages if possible! There are templates from PHP too :)

<comment><USER19> Don't know much about PHP, but the templates also exist in Python.

<comment><USER20> Python's string formatting is different though– it doesn't automatically have access to the variables in the current scope. You have to explicitly pass in the variables that you want to include, which seems to me like a cleaner way of doing things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> That bears more than a passing resemblance to coffeescript. Great stuff.

</comment><comment><USER22> `let` is good but please, give me `let ... in` too:

        let callback = function(a, b) {
            // ...
        } in
        object.registerCallback(callback);

<comment><USER12> I don't know what they've selected for ECMAScript 6, but the `let` keyword as introduced in Firefox 2 has 3 different forms:

* Let definitions are equivalent to `var` but block-scoped, so

        if (x > y) {
          let gamma = 12.7 + y;
          i = gamma * x;
        }

      `gamma` is local to the `if` block and will not leak out. This form can be used to create bindings in `for` as well:

        for ( let i=0 ; i < 10 ; i++ ) {
          console.log(i);
        }

      here, `i` is only visible from the condition, incrementor and body of the `for` statement but not outside

* Let statement, mostly for side-effects, sufficient for what you need:

        let (callback = function (a, b) {
                    // ...
                }) {
            object.registerCallback();
        }

* Let expressions, this works like the `let` statement but returns a value, just drop off the braces:

        let foo = let (i=42) doSomethingWith(i)

      will bind the result of `doSomethingWith(42)` to `foo`.

<comment><USER22> _Let statement, mostly for side-effects, sufficient for what you need:_

Sadly it's not. JS has some semantic foibles, but I find myself up against syntax more often than I'd like. Every time I write it I'm impressed at how ugly the syntax is vs for such a good language (modulo the standard library.)

The very thing I'm trying to avoid is the use of blocks within parentheses. (Aside: I changed my font to Monaco for JS because of the frequent appearance of `})`, and went to the trouble of fixing it up in Fontforge so gvim et al. would be willing to use it.)

I never want to see this:

        anything(block {
            // ...
        }) <--- this
        ^^____this

but I still want the definition to be short-lived (more for self-documenting purposes than anything else, now that I think of it.) Your last example _almost_ has it, but the parens are right there where I want them gone.

<comment><USER12> > The very thing I'm trying to avoid is the use of blocks within parentheses.

That, er, makes no sense at all. Javascript's function uses braces, having an anonymous function within _anything_ will yield either a brace-and-parens or a brace-and-comma.

> Your last example almost has it, but the parens are right there where I want > them gone.

Then there's no point in using javascript, go do something else because trying to get rid of this will just yield to an idiosyncratic and mostly unusable coding style.

<comment><USER22> _Then there's no point in using javascript, go do something else_

No need to be rude. Look, I know JS likes to do things in ugly ways. It has great strength in the consistency of its syntax. That's cool. But by the time you say the word "just" you're being ignorant.

<comment><USER12> > No need to be rude.

The statement was not intended to be rude and I'm sorry you took it this way, it was merely intended to be factual: you seem unhappy with javascript's _core syntactic elements_ , you should use something else because they're not going to be changed.

> Look, I know JS likes to do things in ugly ways.

Uh... ok, whatever.

> But by the time you say the word "just" you're being ignorant.

Ignorant of what, of you trying to work around javascript's syntax _in javascript_ for debatable reasons of personal aesthetics? No, I think I got that now, I was originally mistaken indeed in that I thought you were looking for an improvement to the language, not "fixing" an irrelevant syntactic pet peeve.

<comment><USER22> _The statement was not intended to be rude_

It comes off as a euphemism for much shorter phrase. Perhaps you didn't intend to be rude, but you failed to be polite.

 _Ignorant of what_

(Exactly.) You've made assumptions and pinned them to me. I'd set you straight but I don't actually want to continue this conversation. Sorry it didn't work out.

<comment><USER12> > Perhaps you didn't intend to be rude, but you failed to be polite.

Considering your messages seem to be about misleading and avoiding spelling out your issues more than conversing, I had (and have) no reason to go out of my way to be polite.

> I'd set you straight but I don't actually want to continue this > conversation.

And now you're plain and simply lying. You never intended to set anything straight (or you'd have done this in your previous comment instead of going for the pithy implication) and never intended this to be a discussion.

> Sorry it didn't work out.

It's not a relation, there's no "working out" to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The most interesting part to me is the "generator function", which basically allows for cooperative scheduling.

This would put an end to spaghetti callbacks when doing blocking I/O operations. Very similar to EM-Synchrony for EventMachine/Ruby and (I guess) Inline Callbacks in Twisted/Python.

This and the new module would be a blast for Node.JS !

<comment><USER24> _and (I guess) Inline Callbacks in Twisted/Python_

Python has had real generators (using the yield keyword) for a long time... See <http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0255/> .

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> CoffeeScript is popular and there is Dart. Instead of using another language and translate to JavaScript, what are the hindrances to improve JavaScript so that the "bad parts" are removed? Maybe a 'half-clean' break from existing javaScript? Sorry for my ignorance.

<comment><USER12> There's a very high interia, as there are at least 5 major implementations still being developped (MSIE's Chakra, Mozilla's SpiderMonkey, Google's V8, Apple/Webkit's JavaScriptCore and Opera's Carakan).

Work has not stopped, but it's basically about cat-herding, and each player does his own additions. As an example, Mozilla has kept working on core Javascript with "internal" versions:

1.6 added Array Extras and String and Array generics (array extras have since then been adopted by everybody else) as well as E4X (literal XML syntax in JS) and a `for each` loop.

1.7 added generators and iterators, array comprehensions (listcomps), let definitions, statements and expressions and destructuring assignments

1.8 added a function shorthand (function (foo) { return bar; } => function (foo) bar), generator comprehensions (lazy listcomps) and two missing array extras (left and right folds)

1.8.1 and 1.8.5 mostly added ES5 and draft APIs (e.g. the Object.* stuff and the Proxy type)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> 64-bit integers and bitwise operations together with default arguments and destructuring would solve just about everything.

<comment><USER27> I cannot rightly comprehend what problems one must be having if the solution is a wider bit width and variable assignment sugar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Does anyone know if this will get implemented into ActionScript? I want _let_ so much.</comment>


Show HN: load.io a weekend project to track hits - <AUTHOR> http://load.io/

<comment><USER2> The design is nice, but why don't you go completely random with the URLs for the stats? Either make the URLs guessable (1000, 1001, 1002, ...) or list them so that everyone can see them properly or make them unguessable. This way, it seems sort of private, but it isn't at all, because it just increases 2 digits within the URL.

<comment><AUTHOR> Its using a BSON ObjectId, but I hear what you are saying. thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The write up on it: [http://openmymind.net/2011/3/29/tracking-hits-with-load- io-a...](http://openmymind.net/2011/3/29/tracking-hits-with-load-io-a-sunday- project)</comment>


Monsanto Attempts Defense That Would Negate All Glyphosate Lawsuits - <AUTHOR> https://modernfarmer.com/2019/12/monsanto-attempts-defense-that-would-negate-all-glyphosate-causes-cancer-lawsuits/ <comment><USER2> Doesn't their argument run up against the first amendment? If Monsanto desire to communicate to their customers that one of their products is potentially carcinogenic surely they have a first amendment right to do that, whatever the EPA thinks.

<comment><USER3> Not when it comes to labeling an EPA listed product.

Now, there's an argument that if they discovered something that contradicted EPA findings, that they should have reported it to the EPA and/or published their findings, although I'm not sure if that stands as a legal argument or just an ethical one.

But re: labeling: imagine we're talking prescription medication. One generic lists different side effects than another generic of the same type. Or even benefits. For selling a product that's chemically identical. It would be the stuff of dreams for homeopaths, who could list whatever benefit they wanted, as long as they could find a study to back it up.

Uniform labeling is sort of the (a) purpose of the elevated regulation of such products.

<comment><USER4> Aren't there several issues at hand?

They could communicate to their customers through means other than the label, eg, through advertising buys, or informing the media.

They would stop producing the chemical until things are corrected.

Is your point really applicable? California has labeling laws which are independent of the US ones, eg, "This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm" due to 1986 California Proposition 65.

This suggests that there isn't uniform labeling across the US.

<comment><USER3> If a State requires a certain label, that's usually fine as long as it doesn't conflict with federal labeling requirements or regs. But you've got to accomplish essentially the same thing you would need to on the federal level, except in one or more states.

As for "voluntary" labeling, the rules have evolved to be weird sometimes, but usually if the EPA claims a chemical is safe, a company can't "override" that on their label. Besides industry specific regs, libel and anti-competitive laws come into play as well.

So even if the EPA let's you add a warning to the label, doesn't mean a competitor won't sue you for doing it. Another concern is tacit admission of guilt. It strengthens the claims made by users/plaintiffs from before a warning was put on the label. There's a lot of conflicting cya aspects to consider.

For a non EPA example of this, look at the battle over milk labeling re: rBST.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the followup. Note that my comment specifically questioned your analogy with prescription medication.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>