Why Isn't It a Crime to Kill a Cyclist with a Car? - <AUTHOR> https://nextcity.org/features/view/how-much-is-a-cyclists-life-worth-anyway <comment><USER2> In the Netherlands, it goes as following:

\- Car drivers' fault? -> Insurance of car driver pays

\- Cyclist' fault?

1\. Cyclist younger then 14? It's the car drivers' fault. __In any case __. Drivers should expect younger cyclists to behave unexpected.

2\. Bicycle driver older then 14? __50% __of damage is drivers ' fault. Unless cyclist does reckless things the car driver cannot anticipate on (e.g. cycling through red traffic light over a busy intersection where drivers drive fast).

\- Car driver & cyclist made mistakes? -> Cyclist is able to get more then 50% of damages depending on the situation.

<comment><USER3> > 1\. Cyclist younger then 14? It's the car drivers' fault. In any case. > Drivers should expect younger cyclists to behave unexpected.

Do cycles have some sort of tag (like an 'L' sign), which helps identify such cyclists?

<comment><USER4> The question here is:

Does the presence of the sign make you behave differently when you're the car driver? Will you be more aggressive and/or reckless if they cyclist doesn't have the _tag_ ?

If the answers to both are no, which they should be, then one wonders the need of a sign to begin with, no?

<comment><USER5> >Does the presence of the sign make you behave differently when you're the car driver?

Yes. When a car passes a cyclist they should leave enough room to pass safely assuming the cyclist continues in a straight line (unless they signal otherwise). A kid may suddenly try to turn left from the right side of the street, meaning they should be given more room and the car should reduce their speed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As pointed out in the article, it can be a crime, depending on jurisdiction and local laws. The problem is prosecuting that crime in the same way you'd process a murder with a knife, because the public doesn't see them the same way.

Honestly, I get that. Driving a bike on a road with cars seems dangerous. I do it, and I don't want to die, but it's not the same as walking on the sidewalk or sitting in my yard. If there were bad choices made by the driver, then sure, let's prosecute. But passing a biker going 15mph on a 45mph road doesn't seem crazy. Going 72 in a 65 doesn't seem crazy. I like to think I'm an aware driver, and I haven't hit any bikers yet, but I've seen myself be two distracted moments away from hitting one. It's not crazy that I would be checking my maps app at the same time a police siren comes into view, leading me to miss the biker who'd just turned into the lane next to me.

The problem seems to me that we've built both physical and social structures around roads being for cars. It needs to feel comfortable to bike while taking up a whole lane, both for bikers and cars. ("Drive at the speed bikers go" isn't reasonable, imho.) Bike lanes help a lot, and having a lot of bikers around helps a lot. But we can't just start with "killing a biker is deliberate murder", because it's simply not. It's old attitudes being applied to a new world, and I'd rather find a way to bring people into the new world than punish a few of them for making a mistake.

<comment><USER7> > It's not crazy that I would be checking my maps app at the same time a > police siren comes into view, leading me to miss the biker who'd just turned > into the lane next to me.

Perhaps it's not crazy, but it _is_ illegal. You're supposed to keep your eyes on the road, and looking at your smartphone is just as bad whether you're texting or using a map app. Phones have voice output for this reason.

If you need to take your eyes off the road, then first _stop_. If you don't, and as a result hit someone, then yes, it's murder.

<comment><USER8> Poor example on his part. The same situation could happen while changing the radio, adjusting AC, or even looking in a different mirror. The safety- dogmatism of "If you need to take your eyes off the road, then first stop" is not practical advice.

<comment><USER9> There's an allowance for these things, where you can spend half a second fixing something, but some people are astonishingly bad drivers and get fixated on things for tens of seconds, still driving.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It isn't just cyclists, but pedestrians too. The best way to murder someone in America is to run them over with your car and say it was an accident. The other person, being dead, can't testify otherwise.

There's a particularly egregious example of an NYC taxi driver killing a child when the pedestrians had the right of way[1]. No charges other than a minor traffic ticket.

[1]: [http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/cabbie- mowed-m...](http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/cabbie-mowed- manhattan-boy-traffic-fine-article-1.2184010)

<comment><USER11> > There's a particularly egregious example of an NYC taxi driver killing a > child when the pedestrians had the right of way[1]. No charges other than a > minor traffic ticket.

What charges do you think he should have been brought up on? Manslaughter?

If the father and son were in a car that had the right of way, would that also justify a manslaughter charge or is it only egregious because they were on foot?

<comment><USER10> I think vehicular manslaughter is a reasonable charge. If you can't not plow into pedestrians who have the right of way, you are negligent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "To the three of them, it appeared as if Norton was trying to move her car to the side of the road. But in the process, she drove over Morgan's head, with her right front tire placed squarely on top. (Norton's attorney says that she was in a state of shock.) They screamed at Norton to back the car up, which she did, but after getting out of the car a second time, she reentered the vehicle. "I was horrified that she was trying to drive it again," Richardson says. "I was screaming at her through the passenger-side window, which was down. She was trying to put her keys in the ignition… I was trying to reach into the sedan to grab her keys.""

I got sick reading this.

<comment><USER13> Sicker when you realise she was on the phone the entire time.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, as an EMS provider, entirely possible she was in shock (of the mental sense, not physiological).

Also entirely possible she was being told to leave, or something. You wouldn't (or maybe you would) believe the number of times we've shown up to DUI injury accidents where a spouse has shown up "coincidentally" and is trying to ferry their drunk partner into their car before police or fire get there.

In one case, while we were checking out such a drunk driver, the cop looked over and his wife was about 5 feet away, gesticulating at her chest and then a choking sound, repeatedly. He had a confused look and then started complaining of chest pain.

A waste of time, but counterproductive for them both - she/they were thinking they'd lessen his blood alcohol by feigning a medical condition, but instead an ECG was run, all clear, but due to his continuing complaint he was transported by ambulance to hospital where the first thing done... was a blood draw.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It is in many countries. For example, in Germany, in any situation where a driver and a pedestrian or cyclist crash, the driver always has partial fault. In cases where the cyclist or pedestrian dies, it almost always is a crime for the driver.

In some situations, when the driver is driving recklessly, it becomes _murder_. On February 27, a driver was sentenced to lifelong imprisonment for murder by car: [http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2017-02/berlin...](http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2017-02/berlin- illegales-autorennen-fahrer-urteil) (that was two drivers doing an illegal car race, and hitting a car that wasn't participating).

<comment><USER16> Laws like these are very dangerous.

<comment><USER17> No, they recognise the danger cars pose to others and the responsibility this places on drivers. What makes cars so special that it's seen as okay when a person is killed with one?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I injured a cyclist with my car when I was 18. I wasn't punished, and I don't think I should have been.

The cyclist ran a red light on a busy 4-lane road with turn lanes, a 45 mph speed limit and frontage roads. A box van in the left turn lane made it impossible for me to see him until he entered my lane. His leg was broken in three places and he spent six months in the hospital; something taller than the sports car I was driving probably would have killed him. He was fined for running a red light.

I don't think anybody should be criminally punished purely due to a bad outcome when they were acting with due care. Driving negligently is another matter entirely, and at a minimum, those who do it should be prevented from driving for a time.

<comment><USER14> I think your example shows perfectly well why you shouldn't be charged, and why she (probably) should - you were driving with due care, other party was negligent, whereas she (it's heavily implied) was on her phone at the time of the accident (and after).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> It can be very difficult for someone to notice a bicycle on 40~55mph roads. Cyclists are definitely taking a risk. I wear Neon cycling shirt and avoid peak time when cycling.

Laws aside, I don't think Cyclists should block lanes esp' during peak traffic time. I actually would like a ban on main roads during rush hours, number of folks change lanes and create very dangerous situations for all.

<comment><USER19> As a cyclist I hate travelling on the main road. Not only do I feel guilty for slowing traffic but all it takes is one inattentive knucklehead to end my life.

Yet, what choice do I have? Sidewalks are obstacle courses of pedestrians, trashbins, bus stops, sign posts, etc. Bicycle lanes are blocked by taxis/uber/lyft, delivery vans, double parked cars.

<comment><USER20> Not to be snarky, but have you considered driving or taking a taxi/Uber/Lyft? If you're going to spend a bunch of time on the main road, why not do it in a car?

<comment><USER19> Because as a citizen I'm entitled to use the road as well. The city decided that cars and bikes can share the lane so that is what I will do.

Also, in my case, it takes the same amount of time to travel by bike as a car and costs a whole lot less.

<comment><USER20> If you have weighted the costs of driving vs the increased injury and fatality rate of cycling and have concluded that cycling is be better option for you, then that totally makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Because nearly all US police have a perverse incentive to issue easy-revenue traffic tickets. From the article:

> The New York City Police Department, for example, issued more than 96,000 > citations to drivers in 2012 for excessive window tinting, which wasn't an > influence in any fatal or injurious crashes.

> By comparison, according to a October 2013 Transportation Alternatives > report, the NYPD issued fewer than 12 summonses a month in 2012 to drivers > who failed to yield, one of the leading causes of injurious crashes in New > York.

<comment><USER22> > drivers who failed to yield, one of the leading causes of injurious crashes > in New York.

That's like saying "speed causes accidents". Yes, the accident probably would have been avoidable at 5mph. Yes, not cutting people off when taking a left turn would be nice but eventually you just have to make eye contact and floor it if you want to take a left turn (granted that's not a good example but "failure to yield" is a broad enough category to be useless).

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It sometimes is, and often should be.

However! The one cyclist I have been centimeters from killing or causing grievous bodily harm ought _not_ to have counted against me, even had I been a tad less dexterous with brakes and steering. Some young woman, ears plugged into some iDevice, running a red light at full speed. Not joking about the centimeters. She would have been toast under the Toyota HiAce I was driving.

The girl continued, apparently without even registering the close scrape she just had. I chased her down and delivered the shit sermon of the century. She appeared non-comprehending and utterly indifferent.

Not claiming this to be typical cyclist behavior, but alas, it's not all that uncommon either.

I am a sometime truck driver, and believe me, I know the terror of crowded city traffic, right turns, and cyclists. Some drivers are squarely to blame when the shit hit the fan, or the front wheel the cyclist, but some are most certainly not, and may suffer undeservedly for the rest of their lives.

No, I am not reckless. I have done an awful lot of professionel driving, and haven't had an accident since 1983 when someone from a sideroad disregarded a stop sign.

By the way, I am in full favour of also potentially criminalising hitting an animal. Most roadkills would be easily avoided, if people would just pay some goddamn attention to driving while driving.

<comment><USER24> I think criminalizing hitting an animal is a terrible idea. Pedestrians, other drivers, and cyclists can be unpredictable, but more often than not they are within a certain range of expected behavior. Not so with animals.

Driving late evening, with high beams on, no one else on the straight road, and right around the speed limit, I came upon a large herd of deer. I slowed down and kept a close eye on them. A small group decided to go from standing to running literally as I was passing them, and one grazed my right rear door with its butt as it did a 180 next to my car. They are not predictable and no amount of attention would prevent that.

That's not mentioning the small animals that can be very hard to see.

<comment><USER23> I know it's tricky. Nevertheless, it's our damn duty to keep our eyes on the road - at _all_ times. Living far out in the countryside, I see a lot of roadkill, deer included, but have yet to hit an animal, even though I leave home every morning long before daybreak. Cats and hedgehogs really are avoidable by any competent driver.

<comment><USER25> Cats? Are you kidding? I love cats but I swear those fuckers wait for a car to be there before they cross the street.

<comment><USER23> They do. I have had some real close encounters. That's why drivers need their focus on the road ahead at _all_ times, all the time. Not on phones or radios or views or passengers. On the road.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Because humans suck ass at preventing harm.

When cars were first introduced, they were implicitly allowed free roam over streets that were full of pedestrians, horses and carriages. They injured so many people they stopped counting, and each month would bring dozens of deaths. Only after enough people had died did they invent stop signs, traffic signals, lane markers, and one-way streets. They had to create new police departments to enforce the law on the road, and new courts to process offenses. They still didn't have mandatory driver education, brake lights, or posted speed limits. Left hand turns were difficult, drinking and driving was common, and people didn't understand why taking a corner at high speed might flip a car over.

There were literally decades of people (mostly children) killed by automobiles on a regular basis, usually by reckless drivers and exacerbated by a lack of planning. And yet, even though some drivers would be pulled from their cars by angry mobs, nobody seemed to question whether all people should even be allowed to drive a car. Rules like crossing the street at designated intersections were created to put responsibility on pedestrians for their safety.

By the mid-1920s, after two and a half decades of driving, we finally adopted national laws regarding driving, with driver education coming in the 1930's.

Can you imagine if we let just anyone fly a plane? The sheer scope of the damage done makes even the idea laughable. But once the technology becomes cheap and available, it will happen, and we'll run into the same stupid problems. Because we suck at keeping people safe.

Once automated cars become reliable and widespread, we're probably going to outlaw driving yourself, because it literally makes no sense to give a human total control over a two ton mass of steel hurtling down the road next to pedestrians and cyclists with no protection whatsoever (a curb is a guide, not protection). I mean, we don't even install metal bollards around cycling paths or sidewalks.

<comment><USER27> It was actually a fascinating early example of mass-media propaganda. Since the rule for centuries previously was that everyone had equal access to the roads, they had to repurpose a slur and frame the automotive road-takeover as progress over the yokels. Lots of lessons there that can be taken in a number of different ways.

One bit of the history here, google will give you a lot more:

[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> In the UK, we've recently had a very rare case of a cyclists killing a pedestrian.

The cyclist was highly irrsponsible - he had only one brake, and the law requires two. As a result he was jailed for 18 months [1].

I think his conviction is reasonable. But it's highly unfair that the same standard isn't applied to drunk drivers, or drivers using their mobile phone, or drivers who have failed to renew their mandatory annual safety test (MOT) certificate.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike- blog/2017/aug/2...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike- blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious- driving-charge)

</comment><comment><USER29> 2014 article by the way.

This is something that's going to change slowly until legislators start rising bikes to work (not holding my breath). It's also something that may get worse - at least currently it's often possible to hear approaching cars due to engine noise. Quieter cars will make it harder for even fully alert riders to avoid approaching vehicles (I'm not implying that it's the riders' responsibility to avoid being hit, but it may be the reality).

<comment><USER30> At higher speeds I believe road noise from tires is the dominating noise factor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> We need to ban assault cars at once! No honest person needs a 300+ horsepower tank powered by a fuel that is literally explosive.

<comment><USER32> Especially the ones with the arm rests that go up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> > _To the three of them, it appeared as if Norton was trying to move her car > to the side of the road. But in the process, she drove over Morgan's head, > with her right front tire placed squarely on top. "_

What the fuck.

What's even the best way to proceed in that situation?

I know everyone screamed at the driver to back up, but to me that sounds extremely dangerous, especially with a front or all-wheel drive vehicle. Having the hysterical fool that managed to run over the victim a second time continue to operate the car with the victim's head under the tire is crazy on the face of it, even if it was perhaps the best course of action for that particular situation.

If there's enough bystanders, lifting the vehicle and following it up with a short drag of the victim from under the tire almost seems better, spinal injury immobilization concerns be damned.

Probably not enough people to lift in this particular case however, and most of the damage had probably already been done at that point.

I also can't help but wonder how much worse similar situations could get if firearms came into play. At what point is it legally justifiable for an uncompliant driver that keeps running over a victim to be shot? I'd say most juries would likely acquit for a third time, and circumstances somewhat similar to this instance could be trial of the century material.

That might sound absurd, but there's the argument that attempting to physically remove a continually-uncompliant wreckless driver would not only waste precious time, but may cause them to panic—hitting the gas and inflicting grevious harm to the victim. The driver could concievably be drunk and belligerent, for example.

Furthermore, it could be argued that the firearm user was hysterical themselves: even the coolest customer in the world might snap when the tire of some idiot's car is resting on their immediate family member's head, because they were just run over _again_.

</comment><comment><USER34> things are slowly changing. this guy was recently convicted for 2nd degree manslaughter:

[http://gothamist.com/2017/09/25/matthew_von_ohlen_conviction...](http://gothamist.com/2017/09/25/matthew_von_ohlen_conviction.php)

The joke in nyc is, after a cycling accident, nypd will be out in force ticketing bicyclists the day after.

</comment><comment><USER35> I don't really understand the article.

The article suggests they are advocating for a blanket law. Are they saying that anytime an accident happens involving a car and a bike where the driver was at fault it should be a criminal prosecution? Is that the type of society we want? Do we expect accidents to never happen and want to criminalize anything less than perfection?

We have manslaughter laws that allow for criminal penalties when a person's negligence rises to a level of criminality. Accidents happen. Accidents that result in terrible injury and death are tragic. But humans aren't perfect; we get distracted--by things other than cell phones. Not every accident is criminal in nature; and for that we have a civil system that--while focused on monetary compensation--is simply the best we've come up with beyond demanding blood satisfaction.

I guess I wish I understood the debate better.

<comment><USER36> "The society we want" expressed in this kind of article is one where public policy actively discourages (or at least doesn't go so far out of its way to encourage) driving. "Humans aren't perfect" \- so they shouldn't be permitted to drive. If draconian liability terrifies people into riding the bus, that's victory.

The state has effectively carved out an exception to the murder statutes because "hey, shit happens, humans aren't perfect behind the wheel." Challenging that is perfectly reasonable, especially if you don't accept that driving is or should be a necessary component of civilization.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Wouldn't this lead to cycling on streets being outlawed? Should it?

</comment><comment><USER38> It is a crime when you do it by purpose, not if it is an accident.

A cyclist could kill a pedestrian as well in an unfortunate accident, should we treat that as a crime?

<comment><USER39> > A cyclist could kill a pedestrian as well in an unfortunate accident, should > we treat that as a crime?

Yeah, probably. If you're operating a dangerous piece of equipment the onus is on you to do it safely. Bikes are more dangerous than shoes, cars are more dangerous than bikes, and commercial vehicles are more dangerous than cars.

It's not actually that difficult to drive safely around cyclists. Go the speed limit, pay attention, and don't pass unless you can do so safely. Yes, this means sometimes you will go 15 in a 45mph zone for a couple of blocks. If someone finds that burdensome enough to risk killing someone else then I have no problem calling that criminal neglect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> It absolutely can be a crime.

<comment><USER41> yep causing bodily harm by "wanton or furious driving" is how its put in the UK

<comment><USER42> In the UK the offence would be Causing Death by Dangerous Driving [1], and it only applies to drivers of motorised vehicles. The "wanton or furious driving" charge that was used in the recent case of Kim Briggs's death [2] was used because the death was caused by a cyclist.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causing_death_by_dangerous_dri...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causing_death_by_dangerous_driving)

[2] [https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist...](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist- charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian)

<comment><USER41> no its not which is why they used such an archaic statute - there is a campaign to extend death by dangerous driving to cyclists

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Like the article says, "Criminal law punishes bad intentions and bad acts, not traffic accidents."

Accidents happen. There is no reason to ruin two lives instead of one, by harshly punishing another person.

If driver A takes the .002% chance they'll cause an accident while driving on the phone and drive B takes the same .002% chance, it makes no sense to throw B in jail and let A off with a 50 dollar fine just because driver B actually hit someone. Drive B should be liable for all medical costs and lost income.

But society gains nothing by punishing her. It's just a way to make us all feel more control. Accidents only happen to bad criminals! Good folks like us would never have an accident!

<comment><USER9> If you've killed someone using a vehicle you should be held accountable.

Would you use the same argument at a rape trial? People have, and it's utterly disgusting. "Why ruin this young man's life for a _mistake_ ," they say.

Being called "accidents" is bullshit. These things often happen for reasons.

<comment><USER43> Rape and accidental or negligent homicide aren't comparable because, by law, you can't accidentally rape someone. You have to recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally rape someone for it to be a crime.

When people say that a rape was a mistake, they mean they made an error in judgment or something else.

When we are talking about a car accident, we mean that they didn't intend to hurt anyone.

<comment><USER9> > ...you can't accidentally rape someone...

"I slipped" has been used as a defense _multiple_ times.

> You have to recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally rape someone for it to > be a crime.

In America? Not in other places like Sweden.

They're car _collisions_ , not accidents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> What really grinds my gears is the frequency with which cyclists are legally forced onto the roadway in a high-traffic area, when there is a perfectly good sidewalk available.

Just assume that Bob is going to have an accident on his bike today. Would you rather see him struck by a car and become a likely fatality, or see him hit a pedestrian and cause a few scrapes and bruises? Why would you unnecessarily force people into a potentially deadly situation for the crime of riding a bicycle?

<comment><USER45> Cycling on a sidewalk is punishable by 6 months (!!!) in jail in my city.

<comment><USER46> what city is that?

<comment><USER45> Santa Monica, CA

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> An accident is an accident, is an accident, is an accident.

We've all had accidents, and we know what that feels like.

Negligence, maliciousness and depravity all have clear definitions.

There's no clear rule for discerning human intent and emotion, retrospectively, but it's outlines are often detectable through residual evidence. It is often obvious when an event required careful planning, contrasted against chaotic incidents that couldn't possibly be replicated if you tried.

Sometimes, things are curiously a little bit in between. Most of reality is imperfect, and we have to accept that.

<comment><USER9> "I was just texting in my phone. I didn't mean to run over that lady."

That is not an accident. These are not accidents. The very phrase "accident" leads to the sort of thinking you're espousing here.

These are collisions. These are deaths. These are manslaughter. These are negligent homicide. These are avoidable.

If you're operating a vehicle and not paying attention, not driving according to the road conditions, aren't keeping your vehicle in proper mechanical shape, or don't have sufficient training, you're a hazard and shouldn't be on the road. Period.

<comment><USER31> That's exactly the same as saying "I was just drunk. I didn't mean to run over that lady." When the driver deliberately impairs their ability to drive, they assume culpability for any accident that might occur.

<comment><USER47> Ah, so every collision is the product of a willful decision to enter into circumstances that place others in harms way, and may be readily equivocated to handling a loaded gun, with the intent to possibly destroy things, yes?

And I suppose collisions are thus to be perceived as, not merely likely, but having been inevitable once they transpire, at least in the eyes of the law.

So, every traffic infraction is the result of someone waking up and trying to do harm, or in some way cause a problem they may have inflicted (or intended to inflict) upon the world. And especially so, when proven guilty by a trustworthy legal system, immune to manipulation.

Everyone is suicidal, everyone is self destructive, everyone is negligent, and these collisions are just representative of the moments in which such people succeed in fulfilling their desires.

I see how it works now. Thanks for the enlightenment.

<comment><USER48> Not sure where this malice comes from, but GP specifically said "impairs their ability to drive." You're striking at strawmen.

<comment><USER47> You're grasping for informal logical fallacies, because it makes you feel smart to level them at people on the internet.

Within the context of this article, there's no real evidence of an impairment to the driver's ability, willful or otherwise.

From TFA:

      ...remembers the driver [...] getting out of her car
         with a cell phone pressed against her ear...

But there's no statement that this was a cell phone related accident. No evidence denoted that the driver was willfully negligent, even after being convicted of criminal charges, which likely would have surfaced any relevant call records from the cell provider.

So, the very premise is bullshit with regard to this specific case, because GP's false quote not an actual statement from the situation at hand, in this case. It's hypothetical rhetoric.

As far I can tell, this is not really any kind of criminal assault. The law is being manipulated to achieve a desired outcome. Maybe this is an accident, in violation of the three foot rule, but a court requires evidence, not mere suspicion.

In reality, to classify this as assault is to equivocate this with intentional wrongdoing, which it isn't. Wrongful injury? Something deserving real consequences? Sure, but you'd never convince me of an assault charge, personally.

Revocation of driver's license? Yeah! Fines? Damages? Yeah!

Jail? Loss of rights? No way. This is not a very obviously violent person, to be removed from society on a whim. It's not a person who's behavior was so reprehensible that they get demoted from participating in civil society. Maybe they lose access to the roads, and vehicles therein, but this case is not deserving of further justice in the criminal sense. The conviction is really just a demonstration of contempt. It's not true justice, but the making of an example, and only to send a message, while the actual laws on the books remain an inadequate expression of social boundaries.

<comment><USER48> GGGP was not discussing the article per se. When GGGP said "impairs the ability to drive" and you responded to it, you assumed they were talking about the article. I think it's clear enough that this comment thread has opened lines of discussion beyond the limited context of the article.

<comment><USER47> I disagree.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The service mesh era: Using Istio and Stackdriver to build an SRE service - <AUTHOR> https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/devops-sre/the-service-mesh-era-using-istio-and-stackdriver-to-build-an-sre-service <comment><USER3> I am still praying that some day soon AWS will announce that they are joining Opencensus (along with Google, MS, Datadog, Prometheus)[1] in the hopes that we can move towards standard tooling for observability.

They also seriously need to give CloudWatch a UI/UX overhaul.

1\. [https://opencensus.io/introduction/#partners- contributors](https://opencensus.io/introduction/#partners-contributors)

<comment><USER4> OpenCensus seems like it's really a Google-only project. OpenTracing and OpenMetrics appear to have more community and vendor engagement.

E.G. Datadog is basing their newer tracing libraries on OpenTracing, and Prometheus devs are behind OpenMetrics.

<comment><USER5> That's exactly the fragmentation that we don't need. OpenCensus has backing from Microsoft too and is a designed as a single API and library to support both tracing and metrics using the same context.

OpenTracing and OpenMetrics are more like API specs with libraries left to others to implement, and they're never really used standalone for them to be separate projects. The best option for the industry would be to fold OT and OM into OC and make a single stack, and hopefully include structured logging as well.

<comment><USER6> Why is that best for the industry?

Or more precisely, which, industry?

<comment><USER5> Because tracing, metrics (and logs) are the 3 fundamentals of observability and having a single standard API and library would allow everyone to move on from implementing the same thing all these years.

There are 0 advantages offered by opentracing and openmetrics over opencensus to defend having separate projects.

<comment><USER4> OpenTracing began in 2015. It was accepted as a CNCF project in 2016.

OpenCensus began in 2018.

Don't get me wrong, it's better for Google and Microsoft to collaborate on OpenCensus instead of continuing to develop separate client libraries for Stackdriver and Application Insights. It would be lovely if AWS joined too.

I just want to point out that there was a lot of community effort and vendor adoption around OpenTracing by 2018 that Google chose to ignore. If you want to reduce fragmentation and reimplementation, criticize that decision, not the existence of OpenTracing.

<comment><USER5> Users don't care what came first. OpenCensus created a better model by combining tracing and metrics and building libraries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Zero instrumentation visibility with the service mesh, but the demo app is instrumented. I've seen this point being sold everywhere for service mesh, but the vanilla tracing data given by Istio or others is not that useful by itself. There is no magic, you need to instrument your code

<comment><USER8> There is magic, (caveat: I work here), but Instana ([https://instana.com](https://instana.com)) will instrument most major languages and frameworks auto-magically. As in, I don't have to declare a dependency, change a configuration, or anything - our agent finds processes running on the system and bootstraps the libraries while running and monkey patches a huge number of standard libraries and frameworks with no restarts. (don't believe me, give the trial a shot)

There is literally nothing else quite like it in the market, and it gives you distributed tracing, automatic metric collection, and pre-defined alerts for a reasonable price.

[https://docs.instana.io/core_concepts/tracing/#supported- tec...](https://docs.instana.io/core_concepts/tracing/#supported-technologies)

<comment><USER9> That sounds horrific for whoever is going to be supporting that system...

The last thing I would want in a production environment is to have some 3rd party software monkey-patching the code at runtime.

What happens when: \- a bug only occurs (due to timing or some other extremely subtle issue) when this monkey-patching is applied. \- there's a bug in the monkey-patching itself (sounds like a fun debugging session!) \- a library is accidentally monkey-patched with a slightly different version, or falsely detected as a known library (maybe it is a fork)

Give me statically compiled, reproducible, dependency free, bit-for-bit identical with what has been thoroughly tested in CI, musl binaries any day. That's how you avoid getting woken up at 4am.

This kind of magic should happen at compile time, if at all.

<comment><USER8> We have hundreds of customers (and thousands of engineers) who are willing to make the trade-off.

It's OK that you're not, but I hope you can agree that engineering observability isn't cheap nor easy - and if you're using standard libraries, frameworks, and tooling (and not going way off the rails) we have observed that, for the most part, our agent works as intended.

We always recommend our customers run the agent in their test and integration environments, but you are correct, there are always risks involved. Other than the automation how is this any different then putting a New Relic jar into your Java app, or including a Datadog library? We simply figured out how to do it automatically at runtime.

<comment><USER9> I definitely value ease of use and zero-setup solutions - the issue for me here is that the situations where I would consider running a service mesh are the same situations where predictability and reproducibility would trump ease of use - namely any kind of production setting where down-time is sufficiently undesirable.

Testing with the agent would certainly help, but then you lose some of the "ease of use" benefits as I expect you would have to run a mini cluster in CI in order to run your agent?

There are few important difference between this and a "normal" dependency:

\- Even if the application is fully tested with your agent, it could be something as simple as turning your agent _off_ that could break things.

Hypothetical scenario: multiple instances of the application are running with your agent enabled. Someone decides to turn off monitoring for some reason - nothing bad happens and they go home at the end of the day. Later on, some instances are restarted, or the cluster is re-scaled. Now you have half your cluster on a different code-base and your serialisation breaks because you were doing something silly like using pickle or a java object stream.

\- The examples I mentioned in my previous comment would not happen with a normal dependency, because the version of that dependency would already be managed through standard means. If I were to go an look at the code, I would be able to see the actual code that is running, and the exact versions of all dependencies used.

<comment><USER8> Well, I'm guessing a competitor flagged my OP; but I digress, I was just trying to raise awareness to what is actually possible (even if it's not free, but I'd argue nothing of value is ever free - even open source, you still have to implement and operate it).

Anyways, I feel like we've come to an impasse, there is no monitoring solution out there which is bug-free (even opentracing and it's various implementations have caused performance/stability issues, re: [https://github.com/opentracing- contrib/java-spring-web/pull/...](https://github.com/opentracing-contrib/java- spring-web/pull/44))

Regarding CI, our agent has no requirements other than a supported OS - <USER2> could be running your integration tests as a bare JVM and our agent would detect, instrument, and monitor it the same way if it were running inside a CRI-O container on K8S (though I'd question why you would run your integration tests in that manner).

IRT your examples, I'll be brief in my responses because you're not wrong, but the engineers on our team have taken great care to ensure we don't break our customers environments (we run on systems which process 10's of millions of requests an hour and where minutes of downtime cause losses in the 100s of thousands).

We dynamically unload our sensors/instrumentation when the agent is unloaded - so the likelihood of the issue which was mentioned earlier happening is slim (though nothing is impossible)

We also don't instrument serialization methods (unless you were to decide to use our SDK to do so) so that'd literally never happen. We hook onto methods which handle communication between systems — HTTP request handlers, DB handlers, Messaging System handlers, Schedulers, etc.

Our sensors are open source, so you can check out the code if you'd like ([https://github.com/instana](https://github.com/instana)). As I said earlier, we live in a world of trade-offs. I'd argue that systems which require the use of a service mesh are significantly complex enough to warrant the use of this level of automation to provide visibility that quite frankly 99.9% of organizations don't have the time to do themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> SRE service. Not any kind of service - an SRE service!

Can we please stop the buzzword train?

</comment><comment><USER11> I would interested in anyones feedback of embracing and rolling out a service mesh/Istio in a non-GCP environment.

I apologize if this is a naive question but how come this wasn't included as part of the Kubernetes project given that it has the same Google origins?

<comment><USER12> The Istio project is not supposed to be tied to Kubernetes. It is supposed to be a general-purpose service mesh.

That being said, I have been looking for a while and I can't find anyone who uses it in production on a platform other than Kubernetes.

<comment><USER13> Also worth noting that Istio is not part of the CNCF while Linkerd is.

<comment><USER14> It is a good note to make. How does this bear weight on the question above?

<comment><USER13> He was asking why Istio was not included as part of Kubernetes itself despite both projects originating at Google. I was implying that there must be some reason as Istio is not in the CNCF while Linkerd (arguably an Istio competitor) and Kubernetes are. To further that idea, it seems that Google wants to maintain direct control over Istio itself, rather than put it into an organization with multiple sources of institutional governance (Amazon, Huawei, Samsung, Microsoft, Oracle, etc.). If Istio or any other service mesh had been incorporated directly into Kubernetes by Google, they would have lost some control over it.

(There are also obvious technical reasons for decoupling something like this from Kubernetes, mostly the opinionated nature of forcing a service mesh over other potential solutions).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> n00b question, I always see service meshes used in the context of containers and mostly with kube. Would they work with more monolithic/traditional n-tier architecture deployed directly on host OS as well? Or maybe put another way, are there likely to be pain points that don't exist in containerized architectures?

<comment><USER12> The main pain point at the moment is that meshes were written for containerized environments first, and attempts to extend full functionality to other environments are pretty immature at the moment.

Meshes are a lot more than just sidecar proxying -- they are what make sidecar proxying manageable, and they add a lot of other features like authentication, network policies, various other traffic control policies, service discovery, etc. They are an attempt to do for service-to-service communication what Kubernetes has done for container deployment -- make it abstract and declarative, with configurations that are independent from the underlying implementation.

The underlying implementation that works right now is the Kubernetes API and etcd, and alternate implementations need to be provided for those features to work well outside of Kubernetes. I think it will happen sometime in the next few years.</comment></comment>


Demystifying Apple Pay (sec. Analysis on Apple Pay and Touch ID) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GjzwKwaVw0

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a translation of an original talk in Spanish from the security congress RootedCon. If you understand Spanish, do watch the spanish version here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZoDKsxPM08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZoDKsxPM08)

TL;DW: He proves how with a jailbroken device you can extract feature points of fingerprints stored in the Secure Element, or override Touch ID sec. completely (as an example, he unlocks a device with his nose)</comment>


Twitter uses SPDY - <AUTHOR> https://skitch.com/igrigorik/8egi2/chrome-net-internals-eventsandq-type-spdy-session-20is-active

<comment><USER2> Probably using the code for SPDY that they contributed to Netty: <http://netty.io/blog/2012/02/04/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this the start of a move by more and more sites to support SPDY?

Is there any reason not to support it?

<comment><USER4> Aside of the lacking availability of stable servers, another issue is that SPDY runs over SSL exclusively. That means that due to XP's lack of support of SNI, it's still not possible to do name-based virtual hosting.

Wasting an ip address for smaller sites is not always opportune or even possible, especially as we are running out of IP addresses.

<comment><USER5> > That means that due to XP's lack of support of SNI, it's still not possible > to do name-based virtual hosting.

I thought Chrome supported SNI on XP, so since it is the only browser with SPDY, there are no problems.

<comment><USER6> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication> says that Chrome on XP supports SNI since Chrome 6.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is there a rule of thumb or generally accepted thought on the performance increase that would be gained SPDY vs legacy?

</comment><comment><USER8> Raffi tweeted this last night: [https://twitter.com/#!/raffi/status/177616491204714497/photo...](https://twitter.com/#!/raffi/status/177616491204714497/photo/1)

</comment><comment><USER9> I'd rather have a smaller page: relevant: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3666826>

</comment><comment><USER10> Twitter is the slowest site of all the major sites that I visit (apart from HN). I often open individual twit links, and pretty much every time all I see is the blue cloud background. It easily takes 3 to 5 seconds to load the actual content. (I'm on an 8-Mbit connection, other sites work fine.)

<comment><USER11> Twitter is slow for me too, but I don't see what this has to do with the discussion here. It seems like you're implying SPDY must be at fault, which doesn't seem likely.

Also if you want to take advantage of SPDY, only Firefox 13 and Chrome/Chromium have it enabled by default.</comment></comment>


Happy SysAdmin day – Have an IT themed adult coloring book from Device42 - <AUTHOR> http://www.device42.com/sysadmin-day-giveaway <comment><AUTHOR> Happy SysAdmin day, HN! To celebrate, we at Device42 are giving away our adult coloring book, designed with the help of fellow Sysadmins on Reddit /r/sysadmin & HN, and illustrated by us here at Device42. The design thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/4gtkeh/share_your...](https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/4gtkeh/share_your_ideas_for_an_itfocused_adult_coloring/)

Congratulations & thanks to those users whose ideas helped us illustrate the book ... You are all already guaranteed your copies (you'll get a PM!).

First 100 people to fill out the form on our site get a free [printed & electronic] copy! …anyone who isn't one of the first 100 can still download the coloring book pdf in its entirety until the end of SysAdmin Day!

Get it HERE: [http://www.device42.com/sysadmin-day- giveaway](http://www.device42.com/sysadmin-day-giveaway)

Happy Sysadmin Day from your friends at Device42!

<comment><USER2> Wow, in concept and execution the artwork is really well done! Thanks for creating this!

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad you like it! It was a lot of work ... especially getting it ready in time for SysAdmin day -- but it was also a ton of fun!

I hope you enjoy coloring it :)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask pg - <AUTHOR>

i could really use some advice. i will try to be as concise as possible. i have a number of ideas for productivity apps that i believe will add a lot of value to anyone who uses them. looking for seed financing of some sort. any advice? tia <comment><AUTHOR> i'm starting to get the idea that arc could be an incredibly powerful language

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'd love to run some of these ideas by you too

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe I can add value to (one of) the (many) team(s) you are currently building. Can we discuss more, either via the tubes or IRL?</comment></comment>


Deep Ocean 'Symphony' Identified - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/minke-whale-symphony_us_585476b7e4b0b3ddfd8cf915 <comment><USER2> " they believe "

So the title is dubious, as they 'think' they have.

Sloppy reporting on something otherwise interesting is a damn shame.</comment>


Martian Colonists Could Be Genetically Engineered for Democracy - <AUTHOR> http://m.nautil.us/blog/martian-colonists-could-be-genetically-engineered-for-democracy <comment><USER2> Upvoted for super-controversial and entertaining idea.

This would be the ultimate case of "When your model don't fit your population make your population fit your model".

Genetically engineered traits that discourage rebellion and foster cooperation sounds scary to me. Outliers could get even more power in that kind of society. I can see the headline "Scientists combine Swedish consensus seeking genes, Japanese Wa-genes and Labrador retriever genes to create new super cooperative Goofy-Lagom-Harmony Sapient race in Mars."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wa_(Japanese_culture)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wa_\(Japanese_culture\))

<comment><USER3> Then it's a good thing evolution and culture doesn't work as mechanistically as given in that piece.</comment></comment>


Moore's Law Not Dead – Intel's Use of HPC to Keep It Alive - <AUTHOR> http://www.hpcwire.com/2016/01/11/moores-law-not-dead-and-intels-use-of-hpc-to-keep-it-that-way/ <comment><USER2> One thing that I am really curious about is why CPU prices have seemingly stopped dropping? Many years ago, I distinctly remember that as clock speeds doubled (e.g. from 1GHz to 2GHz), the price per GHz would half (keeping prices of CPUs stable)... So why is it that prices of n-core CPUs seem to be growing linearly with n?

Is it because demand is higher for CPUs with low core-counts? I understand this argument in the consumer PC space, but what about in the datacenter?

Maybe companies which operate datacenters are too focused on horizontal scalability and stopped caring about vertical scalability? Surely this will change in the future? There are factors like power consumption and floor realestate to consider - From an electricity and realestate perspective, it is increasingly efficient to run your software on as few machines as possible (each machine having more CPU cores).

Am I right to believe that eventually companies will start writing/using software which leverages multiple CPU cores (when the cost benefits outweigh the hassle)?

Why is it not popular to scale both horizontally AND vertically?

I would be really interested in hearing ideas.

I started thinking about this after noticing that Amazon EC2 instance prices grew linearly as you doubled memory and CPU resources... I expected a sub- linear growth.

<comment><USER3> Since the 28nm node which happened around 2009, transistor prices didn't go down, and the cheapest chips use 28nm even today. So realistically the main economic interpretation of moore's law has stopped for some time .

<comment><USER4> Source? According to Intel, cost per transistor is still falling exponentially: [http://www.anandtech.com/show/8367/intels-14nm-technology- in...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/8367/intels-14nm-technology-in-detail)

<comment><USER3> source: [http://electroiq.com/blog/2014/03/moores-law-has-stopped- at-...](http://electroiq.com/blog/2014/03/moores-law-has-stopped-at-28nm/)

Look for "cost metrics" table, "cost per million transistors".

As or intel: they claim they can make cheaper transistors, but yet their cpu's don't reflect that. Also they've offered manufacturing services for some time, but nobody taken , and that's pretty weird if they are so cheap beyond industry.

So many in the industry don't think it is true.

<comment><USER5> Cost per transistor is still dropping, but transistor count is skyrocketing as Intel adds cores. Their flagship Xeon CPU has 18 cores and something like 5.5 billion transistors.

New CPUs during the clock speed doubling era had moderate increases in transistor count to accommodate new features. Now that clock speed increases have stalled, adding on more stuff is the only way to differentiate new products.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> People misunderstand Moore's Law a lot. If it had been called Moore's Target its real world usage would be much clearer. In other words, whilst it started as an observation about the rate of improvement in semiconductor manufacturing, it then became a target to work towards, which helped the industry grow in lockstep.

However, Moore's Law is clearly dying, despite what Intel wants to claim. The gaps between new process nodes is increasing, which is far more important than transistor count, as this is also affected by how large you make the silicon that holds your transistors.

<comment><USER7> Moore also specifically referred to the cost per transistor, a metric that is complicated by the increasing costs of fabrication now that the low hanging fruit has long gone.

<comment><USER8> > ...now that the low hanging fruit has long gone.

That begs the question of what we determine to be low-hanging fruit. An engineer in 2030 may look back on the time now and see the 2016 advancements as 'low-hanging fruit' relative to their time. Unless you think there's not much of a future in chip fabrication (in which case, you may want to tell Intel).

As I see it, Moore's Law is a rough metric coined by someone almost half a century ago. Just because the metric is no longer relevant, that doesn't mean the increase in complexity is slowing.

<comment><USER9> > ...now that the low hanging fruit has long gone.

I'd postulate that the low hanging fruit came in two forms.

The first being advances in general purpose CPUs by increasing the number of transistor. So, we're about to hit the hard limit in that regard.

The second, being the design of software under the assumption that CPU speed will continue to increase linearly.

\-----

Hardware:

Currently, the majority of systems architectures are designed to be general purpose. The exceptions being GPUs for parallel processing and ASIC for specialized tasks like encoding/decoding media formats.

The next generation under currently under development is SoC (Systems on a Chip). Ie SoC is the complete hardware infrastructure contained on a single chip. They run cooler, are more power efficient, and are faster in terms of passing data via the internal cache layers.

What may come after is a combination of SoC and dynamically configurable hardware architecture similar to how FPGAs work today. The combination of the cloud gaining mass appeal as well as IoT taking root (despite all the hype), a market will grow for chips with a combination of very predictable performance characteristics and specialized capabilities.

With dynamically configurable hardware you could bootstrap a system and tell it to specialize as a graph database node, a media encoding/decoding cluster node, a Smart TV platform, a smart car CPU, etc. There's already talk of neuromorphic chips that can dynamically change/adapt to a specific environment.

The other direction I see room for growth is communication speed. I've heard some about using optics as a communication bus on multi-layered chips. Material manufacturing seems to be the issue. If somebody were to come up with a solution then enabling on board optical communication busses could have a huge impact on IO performance/latency.

\-----

Software:

We're at the tail end of 3 decades of unrestricted software glut. Every system commonly available today runs on a general purpose monolithic architecture. With a ton of legacy glut and a huge surface attack surface for security vulnerabilities.

General purpose OSes won't go away for personal workstations but there's a lot of room for improvement when it comes to special purpose platforms. I've already been mocked on twitter for it but I think Unikernels will be the next major advancement in software for non-general-purpose systems.

Instead of installing a huge bloated software platform and configuring it to run your code. The OS will be reduced in size to the point where it can be versioned in source control and setup as a step in the build process.

NodeOS is one example of this. It uses a very tiny Linux kernel stripped of everything except the absolutely bare minimum foundation. It has a scheduler, dynamic memory management, enough of a HAL to run on a VM, and a basic network stack. Everything else runs on the V8 VM, including POSIX utility equivalents written in JS.

That's just Node. There are unikernels for a wide range of different languages. There's even the Runtime.js project which is working to implement even the underlying kernel from scratch in pure JS.

The Raspberry PI platform has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there's a gaping middle ground (and potential market) between embedded programming and general purpose platforms.

I think the greatest potential for future performance gains will come from cutting out the old cruft and optimizing on what we use today.

<comment><USER6> For what its worth, you and I clearly have similar ideas on this subject. Just thought you should know not everyone is against your views. Thanks for the tips about NodeOS and Runtime.js, that's two interesting projects I wasn't previously aware of.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the vote of solidarity.

I tend to read anything and everything I can get my hands on. Occasionally I stumble on something unique that's worth a deeper look. Very rarely that something appears to have the potential to drastically improve upon the current way of doing things.

At this point I don't really have any credibility in the tech community so I don't concern myself much with losing what I don't have. I assume people perceive me as the tech nerd equivalent of the crazy homeless guy on the corner holding a cardboard that says 'they're coming'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I still want 10+GHz single core performance. Since 2004 we have ca 4 GHz CPUs. (we got faster memory, etc - I know)

Intel needs a serious competitor, otherwise we won't get it by 2020. Is Intel waiting for AMD/ARM/Mips/etc to catch up (and milk the customer) so they produce faster CPUs they probably already have in various stages (prototypes).

<comment><USER6> Tracking GHz isn't an accurate way to measure performance. Take a look at this table, which looks at Instructions Per Second for a number of different processors/devices:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_second#Timeli...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_second#Timeline_of_instructions_per_second)

To see an example of why GHz isn't an accurate way to look at performance, compare these two:

Pentium 4 Extreme Edition - 9,726 MIPS at 3.2 GHz

Intel Core i7 5960X - 238,310 MIPS at 3.0 GHz

That said, it is possible to have CPUs that exceed 4GHz. Heat is the issue you need to overcome.

Here's an Intel's Core i7-4770K, overclocked to 8GHz:

[http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-Haswell- Overclock-i7-...](http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-Haswell- Overclock-i7-4770K,22454.html)

<comment><USER10> Thanks a lot.

Comparing your Intel Core i7 5960X with the old 2004 Pentium 4, single thread performance:

      Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4.00GHz  ... 2529
      Intel Pentium G3258 @ 3.20GHz  ... 2172
      Intel Core i7-5960X @ 3.00GHz  ... 1991
      Intel Pentium 4 @ 3.80GHz      ...  824
      Intel Atom 230 @ 1.60GHz       ...  238

[https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html](https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html)

Vector processors like the Cray-2 are very awesome and had huge amounts of main memory. We will see nVidia does with their GPUs and AMD does with their APUs that works great already in PS4/XB1.

(MIPS and GFLOPS measurements depend on the benchmark implementation and the used language/compiler/etc.; and they show unrealistic PEAK results, rather than real world performance) LINPACK benchmarks (Fortran based) is better than MIPS AND GFLOPS too, "The performance measured by the LINPACK benchmark consists of the number of 64-bit floating-point operations, generally additions and multiplications, a computer can perform per second, also known as FLOPS. However, a computer's performance when running actual applications is likely to be far behind the maximal performance it achieves running the appropriate LINPACK benchmark" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LINPACK_benchmarks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LINPACK_benchmarks)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This might seem like a stupid question, but why does the number of transistors relate to processing speed?

<comment><USER12> You can speed up any given instruction basically in two main ways:

Increase clock frequency or do more per clock.

Increasing clock frequency is tricky because you end up spending more and more of chip area to keep the clock in sync, and the chip will also run hotter unless you also manage to lower voltage drastically (which has its own problems); I don't know what it's like these days, but one of the DEC Alpha CPUs spent _40%_ of the die area just to keep the clock stable (because basically "everything" on the chip is contributing to skewing the clock one way or the other)

You may have noticed that clock speed increases have tapered off drastically. They're hard to do without ridiculous power usage. IBM's POWER CPUs still chase clock speed, because they're not as limited by the same constraints (targeting very specific niches).

The other alternative is to do more per cycle. That means trying to squeeze out whatever parallelism you can from the instruction stream and executing as much as you can in parallel. To be able to execute in parallel, you need multiple copies of various parts of the logic so each copy can process part of the work for one instruction.

<comment><USER13> Why is it important to keep the clock stable? Or rather, what level of stability are we talking about?

I would think that a customer doesn't particularly care if the clock is fluctuating 100MHz.

<comment><USER14> The clock is used to move items along the processing pipeline (between one set of transistors and another). If you don't keep everything in sync, then instructions get executed out of order and that's bad, obviously.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The scaling on the simulation of the nanowire was dismal. Having effective quantum simulation would make such a tremendous impact on semiconductor development.

<comment><USER16> The scaling behaviour is actually surprisingly good. The time to simulate quantum mechanical systems generally grows exponentially with the number of states, i.e. the number of atoms in this case, but the listed running times grow only somewhere between linearly and quadratically with the number of atoms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Moore's law is a marketing "law". It's invented so that you want to buy a CPU today (rather than waiting for next one) and also want to upgrade every 2-3 release cycles.

Sentiment of "good enough" can break the law unless we continue finding compelling reasons to buy more horsepower. 8K VR anyone?</comment>


Add Gestures and Touch to your Arduino - <AUTHOR> http://www.justhover.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> We created this dev-kit to let Arduino projects work with gestures + touch. It came out of the need for a project which required basic hand gestures to work accurately. We tested with proximity and distance-IR sensors but wasn't satisfied with the accuracy and development time required to make it work. We decided to build a dev-kit that uses e-field distortion to detect gestures accurately. We just launched it hoping it might help other hardware hackers looking to add gestures/touch to their projects.

<comment><USER2> Any chance you'll release how you built this?

<comment><USER3> looks like its basically just the reference implementation of the MGC3130 chip, with an arduino library for i2c communication.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Uses the MGC3130:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eclJ1mOFZZg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eclJ1mOFZZg)

[http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/40001667C.pd...](http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/40001667C.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> Anyone from the project here care to elaborate on the niceties of this dedicated chip? I'm currently putting finishing touches on a project with a swipe-based (touch, not hover) interface built around the (surely rough-and- dirty, but surprisingly capable) CapacitiveSensor Arduino library.

I'm sure the timing issues one sidesteps by using a dedicated controller ic are critical for projects more complicated than mine, but I'm curious if you know more about the limitations of trying to implement something similar onboard with the AVR. Is there something fundamentally different in the sensing method here compared to low-threshold capacitive sensing?

<comment><AUTHOR> One of the project owners here. I've used the capsense arduino library a long time ago and it's decent when you don't need the accuracy. I found that the sensor values were affected by the environment quite a bit e.x. I'd have to recalibrate everything if the project was being used in a room with a carpet which affected the body charge. Maybe you found a way around it?

Re: the sensing method, they're similar in the sense that both the avr and mgc3130 detects a change in capacitance to figure out the position. But the mgc3130 controller can detect capacitance changes in the femtofarad range.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Uses GPIO: So not just Arduinos!

I know this mentions it in the description, but I think it could be made more clear. Sincerely, _Order #0039_

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the support and you're correct! We're working on getting rpi integration as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Neat. How does the hovering work? Is that also using capacitive sensing?

<comment><AUTHOR> The capacitive electrodes form an electric field around the surface of the pcb. When your hand or finger (conductive surface) is in range, the chip senses the distortion of the e-field (change in capacitance) to track your hand movement and calculate the position.</comment></comment>


Dispelling the magic of dispersed storage - <AUTHOR> http://dev.cleversafe.org/weblog/?p=244

<comment><USER2> The article appears to measure "overhead" in bytes, whereas I would measure it in dollars.

If I understand the technology correctly, twice as many slices requires twice as many storage hosts. In dollars, that's decidedly more expensive than using disks with twice the capacity.

This is, perhaps, my general argument against what seems to be called "sharding:" $1k will buy 24 slots in a disk array but only 6 slots (if that) in a server.</comment>


Show HN: HAPPY PLANET – WE SEARCH AND APPLY FOR JOBS FOR YOU!!! - <AUTHOR> http://www.happypla.net

<comment><USER2> This is an interesting idea, as it does attempt to solve a problem. Filling out applications can be very tedious.

I have a couple of questions:

1\. A lot of job applications require information like a social security number. Is there a way you can do what you need to do without that information?

2\. None of the links in the footer work. I think any business that is actively engaging in the collection of personal data, even if the clients are willfully giving it to you, should provide access to all of your legal docs and maybe even an FAQ.

3\. Potentially there is a large % of your customer base that are short on cash, since I think it's safe to assume that a lot of them don't currently have a job. Do you collect the fees up front? If so that can be a problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. Currently, we circumvent that by only applying through job sites/listings that do not require sensitive information such as SSN

2\. links have been updated

3\. That indeed is a problem. We're planning on automating as much of the process as possible and thus, bringing the price down significantly. If they userbase is large enough, we may even make it free and charge companies for job listings and preferred access to our job seekers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> At scale, I don't see many job-seekers paying $100 to send out 50 applications on their behalf.

When you don't have a job, money is tight but time is cheap, so people will do the applying themselves.

When you do have a job, time is tight, but you won't be praying/spraying your CV all over and you'll be selective about your next job.

Good luck though.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Sorry for confusion. The legal links have been updated. Hope this helps.</comment>


Continuous Deployment with Mesos, Marathon and Docker - <AUTHOR> http://mesosphere.com/2015/04/02/continuous-deployment-with-mesos-marathon-docker/

<comment><USER2> Out of curiosity, who is using Mesos in production?

At GoGuardian, we've got ~10 offline workers, ~10 web services, and ~30 batch/cron jobs and we're starting to see pain in resource utilization. Is anyone running Mesos at a similar scale?

<comment><USER3> My next project is to take a look at it and perhaps make a trial system using it. Please tell me about your pain points.

<comment><USER2> We're using Opsworks/Chef for managing deployments and server configuration. I hate the resulting tight coupling between applications and the servers that they run on. In some cases, we have great utilization (where the application needs to auto-scale based on load and exceeds the capacity of a single box). However, in many other cases, we have significant underutilization (where the application uses a tiny fraction of the box's capacity).

Multi-tenancy (multiple apps on a single box) could alleviate our underutilization. It is possible with Opsworks/Chef, but it isn't a first- class feature.

Finally, we have a rather sad story for our batch/cron jobs. We have a single server and a master crontab for that server. Because of the various types of batch jobs we need to run (shell, python, java, php, node etc.), the cron server needs have runtimes for all of those.

<comment><USER3> Have you considered using Torque under Mesos for batch jobs?

Re underutilization: it's a big problem with clusters in general. Here's a decent talk on the topic:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpmElyi94AA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpmElyi94AA)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Improved incremental searching for Vim - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/haya14busa/incsearch.vim

<comment><USER2> That's pretty neat. How fast is it when a big file is open?</comment>


The craziest bug you never heard about from 2008: A Linux threading regression - <AUTHOR> http://timetobleed.com/digging-out-the-craziest-bug-you-never-heard-about-from-2008-a-linux-threading-regression/

<comment><USER2> Furnace controller product - optimized energy consumption in a steel recycling furnace. Customer reported the furnace got 'stuck' every couple of hours, the electrodes quit moving so it continued to burn electricity (megawatts!) but wasn't melting anything.

Turned out it was the 'power saving' setting on the PC. To save a couple of watts it slowed down the CPU, and screwed up a furnace that burned megawatts. Probably wasted more electricity in a day than the 'power save' feature saved in the whole US for a year.

<comment><USER3> One of my first professional projects out of school was a client/server system using WinForms. I wrote the server, another guy wrote the client.

We worked hard and fleshed out a good design quickly. We iterated a few times, then released. We soon got a major bug report from the field: the server would lock itself up after some time! I was baffled; I didn't write much in the way of threading code. I pored over the entire codebase several times looking for any possibility of deadlock. Nothing.

Finally, I went out to the customer site when it happened again. Someone had selected text in the console window the server was running on, which effectively halted the process. I wrote a small wrapper around the server that launched it as a service, and that fixed it.

(I probably should have written it as a service originally, but I was fresh out of school, so I instead took it as a hard knock.)

<comment><USER4> I hate it when Windows processes that really should output to the console, don't.

Users should learn how to deal with console windows.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, but the console subsystem is _ancient_. It's much easier to diagnose problems with the console always up, but I'm happy to settle for a log file.

Also happy to not be writing servers for Windows anymore. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Craziest to me is The Bug by Ellen Ullman.

Personal craziest was an Oracle performance problem on Windows NT in the 90s. Slow as hell. Going to the server, logging in, checking everything: Blazing fast. Back at the desk, slow as hell. Problem was the GL tube screen blanker with software rendering :-)

<comment><USER6> My craziest one turned out to be caused by World War 2.

Bug report from a bank said that a customer's birth date was not accepted when trying to open an account - they'd tried and found that any data within a range of about a month in the summer of 1945 was not accepted. This was a German bank, and the application was written in Java.

I could reproduce the bug and found that the date was rejected at a very low technical level in the Calendar class (long before any domain validation happened), just as if you'd entered the 30th of February. Some debugging sessions later I found that the Calendar class calculates a lot of internal date and time fields, and the daylight savings time field containd a value of 2 hours, which was rejected by internal sanity checks.

The name of that field led me to a Java API bug report which explained everything: The Locale for Germany is "centered" on Berlin, and in the summer of 1945 Berlin and the Soviet-occupied zone of Germany actually did have a 2 hour daylight savings time (which happened to be identical to Moscow time). Some smartass in the Java development team had "corrected" the sanity check in Java 1.4 because he believed 1 hour DST to be the maximum - but Berlin is in fact not the only timezone which had a 2 hour DST at one time or another. The bug was fixed in Java 1.5

<comment><USER7> Times and dates are such a minefield for developers. I really came to appreciate this about 10 years ago when I dove into the Python datetime module documentation to fix a 'simple' problem and saw how much work went into getting things right. Combine that with how much of it comes up on RISKS (comp.risks) and I try not to ever take dates and times for granted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My craziest bug was a Java clock issue. If you had some specific model of motherboard, calling System.getCurrentTimeMillis() repetitively could actually make your system clock run faster. I mean, actually CHANGE the system clock. For real. Like 10% faster. That led to veeeeery interesting issues related to timing on the game I was working on, and of course it me took days before I would even think that my problems could be caused by the time actually running faster on different machines.

<comment><USER9> Reminds me of this:

[http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/i86pc/ml/locore.s?v=OPENSOL...](http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/i86pc/ml/locore.s?v=OPENSOLARIS;im=10#L1943)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wow, already down, that was a fast one ;)

Cached version [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://timetobleed.com/digging- out-the-craziest-bug-you-never-heard-about-from-2008-a-linux-threading- regression/)

<comment><USER11> More permanent version: [http://web.archive.org/web/20131208100429/http://timetobleed...](http://web.archive.org/web/20131208100429/http://timetobleed.com/digging- out-the-craziest-bug-you-never-heard-about-from-2008-a-linux-threading- regression/)

<comment><USER12> Good to see that further permanence has been added. ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Luajit on Linux x64 uses MAP_32BIT so this bug will also affect it. Heaven help you if you were using luajit and pthreads in the same process.

</comment><comment><USER14> Oe the site comes back up the author has a phenomenal analysis of the perf events local root exploit from over the summer. If you're interested in exploit development or just security bugs in the kernel his analysis is great. He takes the time to explain things at a level that even the worst cs student could understand.

<comment><USER15> You can get the page itself from Coral Cache: [http://timetobleed.com.nyud.net:8090/digging-out-the- crazies...](http://timetobleed.com.nyud.net:8090/digging-out-the-craziest-bug- you-never-heard-about-from-2008-a-linux-threading-regression/)

But the site uses a fully-qualified link to its stylesheet and so won't render.

<comment><USER16> Full text, as I also prefer to read the text on the phone:

[http://pastebin.com/iTErn9fD](http://pastebin.com/iTErn9fD)</comment></comment></comment>


NVIDIA Develops NVLink Switch: NVSwitch, 18 Ports For DGX-2 - <AUTHOR> https://www.anandtech.com/show/12581/nvidia-develops-nvlink-switch-nvswitch-18-ports-for-dgx2-more <comment><AUTHOR> I'll just put the follow-up articles here rather than spamming tons of similar stories:

More DGX-2 information - [https://www.anandtech.com/show/12587/nvidias- dgx2-sixteen-v1...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/12587/nvidias- dgx2-sixteen-v100-gpus-30-tb-of-nvme-only-400k)

Quadro GV100 announced - [https://www.anandtech.com/show/12579/big-volta- comes-to-quad...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/12579/big-volta-comes-to- quadro-nvidia-announces-quadro-gv100)

Tesla V100 memory bumped to 32GB - [https://www.anandtech.com/show/12576/nvidia-bumps-all- tesla-...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/12576/nvidia-bumps-all- tesla-v100-models-to-32gb)

<comment><USER2> Five and a half years ago, one DGX-2 would be in the top 10 supercomputers in the world[1], and you'll probably be able to rent one on EC2 for under twenty bucks an hour before the year's out. You can already get the DGX-1 for under ten bucks an hour right now.

[1] 1920 petaflops of 4x4+4 matrix multiply/add, and see [https://www.top500.org/lists/2012/11/](https://www.top500.org/lists/2012/11/)

<comment><USER3> No it would not. You are comparing FP16 to FP64 performance.

<comment><USER4> It falls around 220th in the November 2012 list, and would make it onto the top 10 for the November 2007 list (comparing Rpeak) and the June 2008 list (comparing Rmax).

Systems of comparable performance in the top 10 used between 300-500 kW (30-50x the DGX2).

Red Storm, which has a listed Rpeak of 127 TFLOPs and placed sixth in the November 2007 TOP500, was "relatively inexpensive," costing only in the ballpark of $75M (~180x the price of the DGX2).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone know when graphics cards will be available at sane prices for people who actually want to use them one (or two max) at a time to render graphics?

<comment><USER6> It's really hard to come up with a timeline, but I'd say the worst has passed. It will take time to recover inventory, but the alt-coin market (basically, not-Bitcoin cryptocurrencies) has died down a lot and the rush to acquire mining capital has likely diminished.

6 months to a year, maybe?

<comment><USER7> If Ethereum does move over to proof-of-stake, then the market will be flooded with 1080Tis. I expect the DeepLearning11 server will then be a goldmine for DL researchers - cheap as chips.

<comment><USER8> Can't wait. Fingers crossed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can someone explain the technology edge Nvidia has?

AMD, Intel etc. have not been able to compute in high-performance GPU market, so Nvidia must have an edge. How big and sustainable it is?

<comment><USER10> They understood really early on that you need to invest in software just as much as you would need to invest in hardware if not more.

Open standards tend to be a horse designed by a committee, it can take years for them to evolve and to reach any consensus and they would never be able to match the speed in which hardware can evolve and adapt to market requirements.

So NVIDIA essentially made their own software ecosystem which can be just as flexible as their hardware and more importantly it allows NVIDIA to be proactive rather than reactive.

<comment><USER11> They also realized non-CS researchers don't have the time, expertise, budget, or interest in writing optimized ML libraries.

And that if a graphics card company wrote easier to use / higher stack libaries, this would be a competitive advantage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Without reading the article first, let me guess, $200k?

<comment><USER13> $400k

[https://www.anandtech.com/show/12587/nvidias- dgx2-sixteen-v1...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/12587/nvidias- dgx2-sixteen-v100-gpus-30-tb-of-nvme-only-400k)

<comment><USER12> Sheeeit. I'd love some of the stuff they're smoking. You can build a 100 GPU rig for half as much. Just scatter it around the office so it's not "in the data center".

<comment><USER4> 100 GPU rig would not have 512 GB in one address space, accessible by 16 GPUs. Each GPU can directly address the memory on any of the 16 GPUs.

<comment><USER14> For the 300k you'll save just hire a full time dev to write you a distributed implementation of your solver.

<comment><USER15> Hahha, good one. Just that by the time that one dev implements everything, you'll be overtaken by the competition -- at least that's what everyone's fear is, and it's partly warranted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> 10,000 watts...wow!

</comment><comment><USER17> Too bad this came from the one of the worst companies in the world, according to the policy towards open source. Too bad Google playing on their side by do not merging OpenCL support in TensorFlow.</comment>


No-Bullshit Guide to Detecting Everything in HTML5 - <AUTHOR> http://diveintohtml5.org/everything.html

<comment><USER2> Here, check your browsers:

<http://mylittlehacks.appspot.com/html5>

<comment><USER2> Checking IE6 is not even funny :-(

<comment><USER3> Unfortunately, IE8 doesn't do much better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Excuse my ignorance, what's the !! for?

<comment><USER5> It's to magnify the emotion expressed. In the olden days, before emoticons, people used a larger vocabulary to express themselves, but often times that failed to express the magnitude of their feelings. They used !! for that purpose. Of course, today we see the abuse of the !! quite rampant. I LOVE YOUR HTML5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is an example of this. Note that this is a post-fix operator.

<comment><USER6> Hah! I am guilty of over using exclamation marks in posts/texts. I eventually found myself re-reading messages and stripping them out! Unfortunately, nowadays, it's emoticons I overuse. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Useful. Sadly, I don't see detection for @font-face -- perhaps because it's not very simple?

<http://paulirish.com/2009/font-face-feature-detection/>

<comment><USER8> Modernizr (linked at the bottom of my guide) can detect support for @font- face. It is decidedly non-trivial.

<http://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr>

<comment><USER9> Thanks, and a note: under FFox3.5/Linux, I noticed a small delay before the title fonts (Agnes Nutter style ;-) loaded over something simpler. More interestingly, I cannot select the words "Appendix A" to copy elsewhere. I checked the source, and see they're in style ( h1:before{content:"Appendix A:"} ).

Curiously, under Konqueror 4.3 I can highlight those words, together with the rest of the title, but pasting (either X or ^c^v) also misses them ...

<comment><USER8> Ah, the oddities of CSS. The first issue is because I'm using custom fonts via @font-face. Firefox has made some... design decisions... that cause the effect you're seeing. I've actually just recently discovered a way to reduce the number of dynamic fonts I'm loading, but the underlying issue is still that Firefox wants to paint the page before the dynamic fonts are finished loading.

The second issue is CSS generated content. I honestly don't remember why I chose to put chapter numbers and appendix letters in CSS and the rest of the title in content. Purity? Really? That doesn't sound like me. ;-) It would probably be simpler to move it all into the h1.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Related -- <http://html5test.com/>

</comment><comment><USER11> css3 transition support. You could probably make something smaller, but this does work.

function checkForTransitionSupport() { var cssTransitionsSupported = false; var div = document.createElement('div'); div.innerHTML = '

'; cssTransitionsSupported = (div.firstChild.style.webkitTransition !== undefined) || (div.firstChild.style.OTransition !== undefined) || (div.firstChild.style.MozTransition !== undefined); delete div; return cssTransitionsSupported; }

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm constantly confused by 'HTML5', because many of these examples look more like Javascript than a markup language. I've used HTML5 a bit here and there, but just as the next version of XHTML, using things like the
 tag.

<comment><USER13> HTML5 is a set of enhancements to HTML and to the JavaScript DOM API. This page is actually a great summary of HTML5 features that developers are likely to care about. For instance:

\- The <audio> and <video> elements

\- The <canvas> element

\- Form validation (without JavaScript!)

\- New <input>s for data like dates, times, numbers, ranges, and colors, for which the UA can provide OS-native controls

\- An API for cross-domain communication between windows

\- An API for providing and accepting drag and drop within, between, into, and out of browser windows

\- Web Workers for computation in the background

\- Web Sockets for efficient communication with your server

\- A persistent local database

...and much more!

This page focuses on detecting support for many HTML5 features in JavaScript, so that a developer could, say, swap in their own datepicker if the browser doesn't offer one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wow, it's so intuitive.

<comment><USER15> Yes, it screams for a wrapper library. Might take all of 10 minutes to design the API.

<comment><USER8> Modernizr (linked at the end of my guide) can detect some of these features, plus a few others:

<http://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr>

My longer chapter on detecting HTML5 features ( <http://diveintohtml5.org/detect.html> ) explains the detection patterns, and shows how to detect things with or without Modernizr. I've been working with the Modernizr developers to expand their detections, and at the same time some of the code in this guide is taken directly from Modernizr.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> So is there a handy table showing the results of all these tests in all* browsers?

*within reason obviously...

<comment><USER17> For something like that, it's best to read PPK's excellent Quirks Mode site - <http://www.quirksmode.org/compatibility.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This will be useful for writing those "Regressive Enhancements".

</comment><comment><USER19> FUCAKING ADOBE HATERS!

<comment><USER19> This crowd has zero sense of humor. This post was meant to be seen in light of all the Flash gnashing and public war with adobe... Sigh. Thanks for the neg karma.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Guacamoly – personal notes with public feeds - <AUTHOR> http://guacamoly.rocks/ <comment><AUTHOR> Author here. The project itself is now one year old, originally written to fit exactly the needs of two people, who were frustrated with too much structure with other note-taking or just thought dump apps. So this app does not have any concept of types or even titles. Same way tags are simply extracted without the need to select a category/tag a note belongs to.

Any feedback is highly appreciated.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Given that the name "Guacamoly" caused a bit of confusion on a reddit post, I would very much welcome other name proposals.</comment>