TC39, ECMAScript, and the Future of JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://ponyfoo.com/articles/tc39-ecmascript-proposals-future-of-javascript <comment><USER2> It's worth noting that proposals can move down as well. For example, I think there was lots of work done on atomics before it was ultimately scrapped. Heck, the global proposal doesn't look like it has moved in months due to a few web compatibility issues.

<comment><USER3> The shared memory and atomics proposal was approved as part of the ES2017 spec. [https://github.com/tc39/ecmascript_sharedmem](https://github.com/tc39/ecmascript_sharedmem)

<comment><USER2> Ah, it looks like you're correct. Apologies, I actually meant SIMD[0].

[0] [https://github.com/tc39/ecmascript_simd](https://github.com/tc39/ecmascript_simd)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> When will js have enough features? Maybe not there yet, but is there an endgame?

<comment><AUTHOR> We don't ask ourselves that of websites or apps, why would we ask it of programming languages?

<comment><USER5> More is not better.

I always like the old saying "it's not done until you can't remove any more". Adding features doesn't make a thing better, it just makes it more complicated.

<comment><USER6> But in case of languages you don't have to use that feature. And it's there for a reason, and that is that it makes certain class of things much easier to solve/implement/model/approach.

And if you don't work in that subfield, you don't have to know that part of the language. (Just as if you don't do compiler development you don't need to know Assembly mnemonics, and you don't have to know how many cycles a a particular microcode takes, and so on. You just use perf if you want to, and see that duh, it's too much, let's use -O3... or ask an expert. Or look into it yourself.)

But when you encounter something new in a language, you can learn about it. If it's there because it made something elegant, great. If not, refactor it. Make it simpler.

But this is the same Deletionist approach that is plaguing Wikipedia, just now with the tragedy of commons language, JS.

<comment><USER7> > But in case of languages you don't have to use that feature. And it's there > for a reason, and that is that it makes certain class of things much easier > to solve/implement/model/approach.

You can choose for _your_ code, sure, but you can't choose for everyone else's code. This is brought up whenever C++ complexity threads start. Sure you can choose to not use template metaprogramming or whatever, but some library will use it, and then pow you're using it too.

<comment><USER6> You don't have to use that library.

And as I've mentioned, that library started to use it for a reason.

If you use a library that just starts using expensive features (like templates in C++), just because they think they're cool, then I regret to inform you, that you already depend on a bunch of script kiddies.

This is the same thing as we always discuss with functional programming and all those extremely complicated category-theory heavy con-fuck-structs. They make sense in a setting for some problems. ( [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5057136/real-world- appli...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5057136/real-world-applications- of-zygohistomorphic-prepromorphisms) )

But it's very much like a special weapon that is large, and heavy, and only those can handle it that are blessed by the priests of The Temple of Homotopy Type Theory, or whatever, and so on. So mere mortals should not touch it.

And in a proper library, those beasts are locked up well, encapsulated.

It's the language's (or the lib's) shortcoming if you can't interface with the library, can't apply parameters to the library without knowing the hairy internals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Class Decorators (Stage 2)

Does it means both Typescript and AngularJS implement/use an experimental feature that is still under discussion as of now, in production? this is a bit risky.

<comment><USER9> Yep, interestingly the decorators proposal has changed significantly since it was in stage-0.

So much so that this exists: [https://github.com/loganfsmyth/babel-plugin- transform-decora...](https://github.com/loganfsmyth/babel-plugin-transform- decorators-legacy)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Really wish there was more momentum on adding a safe access operator. Even Ruby has that now, it's disappointing that we still don't have it in JS.

<comment><USER11> you mean you wish you had an Option monad, right? ;-)

<comment><USER6> [https://github.com/saneyuki/option-t.js](https://github.com/saneyuki/option-t.js) :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Really looking forward to class decorators.

<comment><USER13> Decorators are one of those things that I've not seen a use case that sells them to me.

Like... I'm sure one day I'll see something and it'll just click, but not there yet.

<comment><USER14> When marshaling classes in and out of xml/json decarators can be added to properties to change the name of the equivalent Json field value as well as indicating if it's optional or not. Orms use decators to map object to relational tables the may have different field names, expressing key values, etc

<comment><USER13> None of that sounds particularly hard, complex, or tricky _without_ decorators though.

Like, I get they can be used for _stuff_ but why are they a better option?

So far - based on the responses here - it appears to be syntax for syntax sake and no practical benefit.

<comment><USER14> It's just sugar but it's less code and I find it easy to read at least in go.

<comment><USER13> It's not really _less_ code though. It's about the same but with an syntax that obfuscates where the logic happens.

Terse _at the usage point_ yes, but it swaps clarity for brevity. A sometimes useful trade off to be sure but... not sure I've seen any demonstration of benefits here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > TC39 is currently working on over 30 active proposals. What else does the > future hold in store? These days we download our packages from npm.

I am surprised that no more mentions of NPM were made. I hope that commitee TC39 addresses the topic of NPM and tries to create a new version that is standarized and that elliminates the serious flaws of NPM, which for me are one of the major hindrances to adopting Node.js for things that go beyond prototyping.

<comment><USER16> TC39 has no affiliation with Node or its package manager. It's only for the ECMAScript language specification.

<comment><USER17> Well, the module spec tries to be a standard for Node AND browser modules

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is there any plan for 64-bit integers?

<comment><USER19> There is some work underway.

[https://github.com/tc39/proposal- bigint/blob/master/README.m...](https://github.com/tc39/proposal- bigint/blob/master/README.md)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I would argue that the future of JS looks bleak when you effectively can't have any meaningful discussions about proposals if you are not in the committee (the author just ignored the issue for half a year, then closed and locked it): [https://github.com/tc39/proposal-dynamic- import/issues/35](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-dynamic-import/issues/35)</comment>


PR Passion – Why Startups Should Never Outsource Public Relations - <AUTHOR> http://www.infochachkie.com/prpassion/ Explains why startups should keep public relations in-house during their early days. <comment><USER2> Totally agree!

PR firms are good at closing you and then moving on to the next startup sucker</comment>


Google faces EU antitrust fine over Android case - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-antitrust/google-faces-eu-antitrust-fine-over-android-case-in-july-sources-idUSKCN1J31SP <comment><USER2> The Wikipedia article on this case is much more informative: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google)

> In their Statement of Objections, the European Commission accused Google of > the breach of EU antitrust rules in three ways:

> \- by requiring mobile manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google > Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search > service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google > proprietary apps;

> \- by preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on > competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;

> \- by giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network > operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on > their devices.

<comment><USER3> I cannot for the life of me understand how Apple's ironclad control over the hardware, OS, and App store isn't considered vastly worse than this.

<comment><USER4> Apple is not a monopoly. You don't like Apple, you go elsewhere.

In much of Europe, Android is the only choice.

<comment><USER5> Rubbish. Apple sell their phones in all of Europe.

<comment><USER6> It's enough that Android has massive market share to be monopoly. Back in MS monopoly times, there were alternatives too (Linux, Apple..).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Apple - OS only runs on their hardware, and you can only install applications approved by them.

Google - Allows any hardware manufacturer to use their OS, and you can install any application you want.

And yet the EU is going after Google?

<comment><USER8> Google has a near monopoly on smartphones--In my country Android has like 95% market share.

You can only abuse your dominant position if you have a dominant position, and Apple does not have one.

<comment><USER9> Google does not sell (much) smartphones. If you have several manufacturers selling Android smartphones where is the monopoly coming from?

<comment><USER10> They push their OS, which requires fees from and compliances with manufacturers.

The same analogy can be drawn from Microsoft and the desktop OS market in the 90s/00s. They had a monopoly Ewen though they didn't sell computers directly. They still strong-armed manufacturers, like Google is doing today.

<comment><USER9> > like Google is doing today.

any source for that?

<comment><USER10> Here are some examples:

[https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/03/27/google-confirms- blo...](https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/03/27/google-confirms-blocking- google-apps-uncertified-android-devices-heres-deal/)

[https://www.androidpolice.com/2017/10/04/google-announces- ma...](https://www.androidpolice.com/2017/10/04/google-announces-made-google- program-certify-accessories/)

Also, you know, the article here and any evidence the EU produces against Google...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If smartphones were open we wouldn't have the whole problem. Why can't we have the model of IBM clones of the 80s/90s, where I actually own the device I buy. Right now, I can't even become root on my device without tricks (which one day may not even work).

<comment><USER12> > Why can't we have the model of IBM clones of the 80s/90s

Because that model was a costly mistake from IBM's perspective, which they tried (and failed) to crush as soon as they realized what was happening (and later, by promoting a new proprietary architecture with the PS/2).

No one, on the supplier side, wants to repeat that model.

<comment><USER13> And we ended up with MS being a monopoly, exactly the way the EU says Google is.

So it wouldn't even prevent this problem as the OP proposes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Good. There's nothing more annoying on Android than the Google app presence on it perhaps ironically and having this pushed at you all the time really puts you off.

<comment><USER15> And the Google Play Services mandatory for almost every third party app. And Google Location Services so that everytime you need to locate yourself, Google knows it.

<comment><USER16> The alternatives to Google's service don't necessarily offer any distinct advantage in terms of hiding your location whereabouts. [https://f-droid.org/forums/topic/mozillanlpbackend-vs- apple-...](https://f-droid.org/forums/topic/mozillanlpbackend-vs-apple- unifiednlp-backend/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> People that do not understand why Android is free and fail to recognize how Google is using its dominating position in one market to dominate other market should read this "Laws of Tech Economics: Commoditize Your Complement" [1] and here HN discussion [2].

[1] [https://www.gwern.net/Complement#2](https://www.gwern.net/Complement#2)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17047348](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17047348)

<comment><USER18> I don't think Google is using its dominant position in one market (search) to dominate other markets in any way other than financial - search pays the bills for developing Android. It's not like Microsoft did back in the day, where dominance in the OS was used to try to force customers to use IE instead of Netscape.

Google wasn't trying to dominate phones or tablets. They were trying to _prevent_ Microsoft dominance in those platforms, because they expected that if Microsoft got dominance there, it would use it to drive all the mobile searches to Bing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This doesn't make sense. Google gives away it's OS for free. It's the overwhelming major contributor to Android R&D. What's EU's expectation here? Just give it away for free without an expectation of profit?

This is in contrast to the old Microsoft that required payments of about $40 for their OS license, and they further restricted browser choice etc. Google is nothing like that, the Android framework and underlying OS is fully open source. There exist non Google forks of Android, Amazon being the most famous.

Then there's the whole worshipping of Apple - the most evil, monopolistic company on the planet. Apple's only recourse seems to be their ~17% hardware market share. Though, that's not really the lens to use. When considering the 'mobile paid apps' market, their position immediately moves into Monopoly territory, and in that segment that fuck with the developers and consumers in every way possible.

<comment><USER20> It's about whether a market strategy makes it hard to compete for others, not if they make money on it or not, esp. if a company operates on multiple verticals - they offset "free" on one vertical with monopoly on the other (ads, search).

<comment><USER19> No it's not. You cannot wripe away a monopoly's revenue stream in the name of regulation, you can however ensure that the competition isn't harmed in any way.

Google should simply offer a choice - install whatever competitor's service, but license Android for $30. Like Microsoft does and gets away with. Would that seem fair to you? Because that chat eventually gets passed on to the end user.

<comment><USER21> Antitrust law is for protecting competition; I think you're confusing it with something else. It's simply not the case that Microsoft "does and gets away with" antitrust violations because of charging money, this is mentioned in the article.

Also, I realized I've seen you a lot in these sorts of threads posting fanatically pro-Google stuff, what's with that?

<comment><USER19> I'd suggest you keep your personal judgements like 'fanatically' to yourself. HN steers clear of personal attacks

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The 2016 blog post it refers to is presumably this one: [https://blog.google/topics/google-europe/android-choice- comp...](https://blog.google/topics/google-europe/android-choice-competition- response-europe/)

</comment><comment><USER23> It's interesting to see the HN reaction to this. The last time the EU fined Google a huge amount of money for anti-trust reasons the general sentiment here was that it was just socialist Europeans taxing American companies trying to make an honest living.

I guess Google is a lot less popular now compared to like two years ago.

<comment><USER24> I happen to believe the US should begin reciprocal economic targeting against the EU if they continue down the path of attacking our tech companies via massive fines as a means to offset their inability to compete. Indeed, this outcome is guaranteed to occur. The US isn't going to just watch as the EU continuously steals billions of dollars from its top companies.

They're so far behind in the EU, the US would have to stop all technological progress for at least a decade to allow them to partially catch up. When Britain exits the EU, the EU GDP per capita will nearly be 50% lower than the US. Realistically they have no means to keep up with the US over time, they simply don't have the financial capability to do it, I almost sympathize with their desperation.

The US is booming, it'll add a trillion dollars to its GDP this year alone. Meanwhile half the EU is a perpetual rolling economic disaster still, a decade after the great recession began. Populists keep gaining more and more traction in EU countries, with Italy looking like it might be the next to leave the EU. It really is hard to blame the EU leadership for trying to find some way to extract value from the US economic dominion, given how weak the EU outlook is.

<comment><USER25> > When Britain exits the EU

This is looking less and less certain every day, not helped by the fact that the government has absolutely no idea what it wants or how to achieve it while increasing numbers of people point out that the "no deal" option results in total chaos: food shortages within a week etc.

<comment><USER26> I still believe even if happens, UK will eventually end up in a situation similar to Norway, Switzerland, with bilateral agreements, not changing that much in practice.

<comment><USER27> Out of interest, why do you believe that?

I have no strong opinion either way. But I was wondering if your belief isn't motivated more by your familiarity (with those scenarios) than anything else.

Personally I would note that in those examples you mentioned you have freedom of movement, which to me seems isn't a politically unacceptable solution in the UK.

<comment><USER26> Not sure.

Yeah, I am familiar with those scenarios, which kind of allow those countries to benefit from EU agreements without losing too much of their independence, in comparison with other European countries.

I am also regularly in the UK, and for many people it wasn't clear what being outside EU meant regarding European companies with HQ in UK.

Having such agreements would allow a kind of win-win situation, leaving EU while allowing many of those businesses to stay in UK.

That is just a personal opinion, in any case I don't have any vote in UK matters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Little silly. Google should just charge for Android and then credit if ship with their stuff. Problem solved.

Really think the EU risks getting a worse result with this type of thing.

<comment><USER29> > _Little silly. Google should just charge for Android and then credit if ship > with their stuff. Problem solved._

You really think that's going to be somehow treated differently?

<comment><USER30> It might. If there was a fee, then theoretically other companies could offer to cover it. Google still gets paid, but other companies get a shot.

MSFT has struck deals with OEMs in the past where windows 8.1 was free for OEMs if Bing was the default search engine, and $10 otherwise (for tablets). You could argue they were not a Monopoly on tablets, but it's one indicator.

Another is the recent Google Shopping fight; the "resolution" to that has been that companies can bid to display their own complete slate of shopping results and Google Shopping now has separate accounting and must run as a profitable business unit. Google is still taking most of the ad traffic since it can afford to bid more than the people who brought the original complaint, but it does provide a way for entities to be there if they have a business not predicated on free traffic from commercial search queries.

It's not totally clear that this will be accepted, but if it is, then you could imagine a similar structural separation argument being used where Search & Android have separate accounting, Android charges $10 and Google pays phone makers $10 (the same way they pay Apple). While leaving a path for the status quo, this would let anyone building a search engine or mobile OS not have to build both at once to provide a competing alternative.

<comment><USER29> But from my understanding the problem isn't that there's cost to shipping Google stuff, it's that it's all-or-nothing. Changing the accounting rules doesn't make much of a difference if the surrounding contracts still prohibit the OEM from using competing products if they use any of the Google extras. And if they'd be willing to deviate from that under the alternative model, it IMHO wouldn't be much different from agreeing now change it.

<comment><USER28> Well then itemize the things so you can chose what to include with a big credit if you chose all.

There is almost 2 billion Android phones sold a year. So just a $1 is a lot of money and then almost all goes to the bottom line.

Part of the problem is Google giving away stuff for free and being different. Instead just become more traditional and charge people for things.

I hate it as love how much Google gives back but it is clearly hurting them to give away stuff for free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Android isn't the issue near as much as Google proper. \- One answer seearch results scraped from sites to be dominant in keeping ppl on Google \- Maps showing places scraped by Google \- Google results order

These are the real anti-trust cases.</comment>


Isochronic Map shows how long it took to travel the world in 1914 (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/What-travelling-was-like-100-years-ago/ <comment><USER2> Rome2rio did a new version for 2016 in the same style, which is juxtaposed to the 1914 version to show how travel times have changed. It was big on Reddit a couple years ago: [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/3ztqqr/a_2...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/3ztqqr/a_2016_version_of_the_1914_isochronic_londonworld/)

Since Rome2rio had no interest in selling it, I licensed it and have it for sale on my website: [https://www.wellingtonstravel.com/isochronic- map.html](https://www.wellingtonstravel.com/isochronic-map.html)

I'd love to sell the original one too but couldn't determine the copyright owner and get a high quality version of it.

<comment><USER3> It's a bit unexpected to see the interior of the Amazon region is more accessible than the interior of Australia or the northern regions of Alaska. My guess is that commerce is driving exploration/exploitation of the interior of the Amazon (more than those other places).

<comment><USER4> My guess would be a combination of the relative closeness of the next airport to any given point in the Amazonas region and the flight time from London to South America being about 10 hours shorter than to Australia due to 5km less distance and favorable flight direction regarding the earth's rotation.

<comment><USER5> > favorable flight direction regarding the earth's rotation.

is the rotation a direct factor or are you referring to high altitude winds?

<comment><USER4> I was referring to the high altitude winds that are highly affected by the coriolis force.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> An isochronic map of the Roman Empire: [http://orbis.stanford.edu/](http://orbis.stanford.edu/) (path: "About" popup > "Gallery") Sigh.

<comment><USER7> "ORBIS is designed for modern browsers and uses technology that works best in Chrome or Safari. If you want to try ORBIS in your unsupported browser, click here"

Double sigh, me & my Firefox.

<comment><USER8> What they meant to write was:

"ORBIS has only been tested in Chrome and Safari. If you want to try ORBIS in your browser we didn't want to allocate ressources to support, click here"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> When I was a kid in Britain in the 70s "Outer Mongolia" was slang for "the furthest corner of the Earth", and there it is one of the places with the longest travel time from Britain a few generations before. it's interesting how slang and preconceptions get fossilised in children's vernacular.

My wife is from the Chinese regions of Inner Mongolia, which I didn't even know existed until I met her. It looks like her hometown would actually have been harder to reach than Mongolia itself!

<comment><USER10> I think logically speaking any point within a region can only be as easy to reach as the region itself, and depending how you travel and how you define 'reaching the region' most probably will be required to be harder to reach than the region itself.

That said it must be cool being married to someone from the farthest corner of the earth. Congratulation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting to see how both the Suez Canal and the Trans-Siberian Railway "distort" the map: without them travel to eg India or the Far East would have been much slower.

</comment><comment><USER12> A curated collection of isochrone maps can be found here: [https://alternativetransport.wordpress.com/category/isochron...](https://alternativetransport.wordpress.com/category/isochrone- maps/)

</comment><comment><USER13> I wonder how visa availability affected travel time in 1914 and 2015. I know that I'd like to travel in Europe, but getting visa is very burdensome and unreliable, so I'm just traveling elsewhere. World where you could ride anywhere and settle there without any paperwork sounds like a miracle we lost.

<comment><USER14> What nationality are you? Most first world countries can get an automatic 3 months tourist visa to the EU upon landing.

I am also surprised that any nationality (except Americans) would have an easier time getting a US visa than an EU one!

<comment><USER15> There's no such thing as EU visa. You probably refer to Schengen. Here's a list of countries requiring a visa to visit Schengen zone:

[https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/who-needs-schengen- visa/](https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/who-needs-schengen-visa/)

Among the people needing visa are citizens of India, China and Russia. I don't know which world you count them in, but that's helluva lots of people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Has anyone seen a map like this for a fictional world? I'd love to see the Isochronics of Narnia.</comment>


Show HN: Meme the News (WIP) - <AUTHOR> https://meme-the-news.herokuapp.com <comment><AUTHOR> The news is a joke!

Here's a quick site I hacked together so we can all make fun of the latest news together. Because it's ridiculous.

1\. Click on an article and meme it. 2\. Smile because you've made the news slightly better for everyone.</comment>


Symbolic Links Did Not Work as Expected - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@alexandraj777/symbolic-links-did-not-work-as-expected-6a3af628da53 <comment><USER2> Oh, but they do work as expected. It's just you who didn't understand what symlink stores and how relative paths work.</comment>


A blog for Minorities to share knowledge and experiences - <AUTHOR> http://huesstartup.com <comment><AUTHOR> Subscribe and write us at firstname.lastname@example.com about your journey and be featured once we launch!

Open to all who believe in our mission!</comment>


Ask HN: Any caveats with publishing business plans while looking for investors? - <AUTHOR> Hey HN, looking for some advice or insight from others.  I've been kicking around the idea of starting a farm for the past 3-4 years.  It's going to happen regardless.  But in the past couple weeks I've been presented with an ambitious opportunity that requires investment from outsiders.  I was already planning to publish all my research (business plans, market research, financial plannings, competitive advantages, etc.) through an open and public medium, but since I'm faced with this opportunity I have some reservations.  How much do investors scoff at the idea of having this material available to the public?  Would it in any way hinder or negatively impact my future engagements?  Would I be limiting my pool of investors?  For more details: the opportunity is to start a marijuana cultivation facility in Colorado (which already limits my scope of available investors).  I'm also only looking at ~$100,000-$250,000.  It's also technically a startup as I'm expecting 7% growth (measured seasonally/quarterly).<p>Thanks! <comment><USER2> Having gone through the process of raising money in the past, I'd say the 1 determining factor is if you have some sort of IP that belongs to you that will make the idea work. If you have a patent,then there is nothing stopping you from publishing, but just know that it's strange in the community that this would be published.

As a Reference, my last start-up owned a patent and I believe that my pitch deck is still currently floating around online.

I have never lived in the marijuana industry and never dealt with their VC's do you have friends in the industry that you can reach out to to ask their opinion.

As a general rule, I wouldn't publish anything if you don't have the IP.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for mentioning IP! I haven't double checked that for a while so it's now on the front of my radar. Thankfully though IP capital isn't something I'm banking on... as far as I know.

In RE VC: Unfortunately not. I've met one person who owns a full scale dispensary + retail outlet and seemed cool but we didn't have that kind of introduction. It did seem like he'd be a business contact in the future, though.

<comment><USER2> Understandable about the IP, mostly my thought being if you don't have IP, I wouldn't publish the work and let someone come and steal your plan.

You can figure out who you would like to get investment from and just call a couple places tell them that you're in the beginning of the process and want to ask a couple of questions. I know it sounds strange, but you'll get someone to bite.

I would think that the inventor groups are small with all the regulations. I was talking with a group from NY about what they were doing to get one of the dispensary licenses, and the regulatory red tape was crazy. I think the industry has crazy growth potential, and hope you succeed!</comment></comment></comment>


Apple gives itself passing EPEAT grade for Retina MacBook Pro - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/apple-gives-itself-passing-epeat-grade-for-retina-macbook-pro <comment> jack-r-abbit OK... I am generally not the person to come to Apple's defense but I don't think everyone should jumping to these conclusion. That Barbara Kyle lady from the Electronics Take Back Coalition says _"We seriously doubt that these MacBooks should qualify for EPEAT at any level because we think they flunk two required criteria in the 'Design for End of Life' section of the standard."_ They _think_ it flunks. Has that been shown?

The article goes on to say _Those criteria are "188.8.131.52 Easy disassembly of external enclosure," and "22.214.171.124 Identification and removal of components containing hazardous materials." Kyle noted that the glue makes the battery difficult to remove "safely," which is "exactly the kind of design that this standard seeks to discourage."_

So, has it yet been shown that Kyle is right about the glue? Maybe the glue is easier to get off than she thinks? Maybe Apple truly does believe their glue allows for "easy disassembly".

<comment><USER2> This is journalism, though, not science. The point isn't to answer the question, just to document the controversy. Apple says one thing. Another party with relevant qualifications says that they are wrong. And the subject has previously been covered in the media, so it's newsworthy. They even contacted Apple for a response. I don't see anything weird here at all.

I will say, though, that if Apple _truly_ felt their glue allows for easy disassembly, they probably wouldn't have withdrawn from EPEAT in the first place.

<comment> jack-r-abbit > _This is journalism, though, not science. The point isn't to answer the > question, just to document the controversy._

Or in many cases, _create_ the controversy.

Edit: But anyway, the article does fine with the journalism part. I was just thinking that people should probably wait to see if the rating really is ridiculous or not. I've certainly never taken a MBP apart. So I have no idea if it is easy or not. Either way, I have no more reason to trust one over the other.

<comment><USER3> Apple's the one that originally didn't want to certify, so I don't think you can say the news organizations are creating anything here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just in case you aren't aware, all companies award themselves an EPEAT grade. Once they award the grade, it is then reviewed and the grade can be lowered if they don't live up to the standard.

I only bring this up because you would be mislead if you think that Apple broke any rules on this one. They followed the book...

The problem however is that they _grossly_ overestimate their qualification for EPEAT gold rating. EPEAT must review and reduce this self-awarded and clearly inflated rating if they want to keep any credibility for this standard...

Disclaimer: I love seeing things go bad for Apple... But, they haven't strictly broken any rules.. They've just been ridiculous trying to award themselves EPEAT gold.

<comment><USER5> > this self-awarded and clearly inflated rating

You just said that _all ratings are self-awarded_. Now can you show why it's "clearly" inflated?

For comparison, _all 95 models_ of Toshiba laptops claim EPEAT Gold rating [1]. Is it that surprising that the most advanced laptop of them all is just as qualified?

[1] [http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/customlanding.to?page=EP...](http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/customlanding.to?page=EPEATgold)

<comment><USER6> Maybe not surprising, but still having EPEAT certification is not something I would take for granted. If Toshiba was using significantly different manufacturing techniques than everybody else, or if they started making it impossible to replace or upgrade the innards of their laptops, it would be a different matter. Like desktops, most laptops are roughly the same, with just cases, quality of workmanship, and choice of which (mostly COTS) components they use for the internals providing variety in the marketplace.

I don't own a single Apple product, but it does seem like they're really doing things differently in order to make laptops that stand out on hardware alone. Given that there hasn't been an unusually large price increase, it's not that surprising to think that they're skimping on something like EPEAT certification. This isn't evidence that they don't deserve EPEAT gold, just that it wouldn't be surprising if it turns out they don't qualify.

<comment><USER7> > Given that there hasn't been an unusually large price increase, it's not > that surprising to think that they're skimping on something like EPEAT > certification.

A big part of that is economies of scale and clever business dealings. Things like pre-purchasing billions of dollars of LCD panels and flash memory made a big difference in Apple's success in the last ten years, and their massive cash reserves mean that they're willing to spend a billion dollars on new machinery if it will pay off in the long run.

Most laptop companies aren't willing to do that because they'll have a dozen disparate models, with different cases, hardware, chipsets, sizes, etc. Apple right now has five: 11" and 13" MBA, 13" MBP, 15" Retina and non-Retina MBP. They're all manufactured similarly, with similar sizes and shapes, and identical materials used. There's a lot of economy of scale there as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> At the end of the article it mentions that Apple recently stated that in the near future they will be "working with EPEAT as their rating system and the underlying IEEE 1680.1 standard evolve."

Translation: Whatever exists in the EPEAT guidelines that would prevent the retina MBP's from receiving GOLD certification is about to be tossed in the rubbish bin.

</comment><comment><USER9> What a joke. If EPEAT doesn't overturn this rating, all credibility should be out the window. It seems like Apple is trying to strong-arm them into changing the requirements so the laptop complies.

> Apple declined to comment specifically on how it believes the Retina MacBook > Pro meets the EPEAT criteria, but referred us to SVP Mansfield's letter from > Friday, which noted that the company in looking forward to "working with > EPEAT as their rating system and the underlying IEEE 1680.1 standard > evolve."

</comment><comment><USER10> Three words: Reality Distortion Field.

<comment><USER11> The shield is dead captain!

<comment><USER10> The culture lives on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> From PR disaster to PR disaster. Good job, Apple. Did you really think that no one will dispute this and make a big deal about it online? In today's highly- connected and online world, honesty pays. Because if there's anything wrong or dishonest, _someone_ , _somewhere_ , will find out about it, and then let the whole world know.

<comment><USER13> _But the rating is less surprising if you consider how EPEAT ratings are awarded. Manufacturers voluntarily register their products with EPEAT, listing which of the required and optional criteria the devices meet. EPEAT then reviews the registration, and can have the rating reduced or removed at its discretion. According to Kyle, EPEAT hasn't yet reviewed Apple's registration for the Retina MacBook Pro...EPEAT CEO Robert Frisbee said last week that "flexibility within specified parameters" is one way the group could "reward innovations that are not yet envisioned with standards."_

<comment><USER14> Yes, but there's a difference between innovations in the technical field and innovations in the recyclable field. If Apple has some major innovation that makes industrial glue easier to recycle than screws, EPEAT should force them to prove it before allowing their grade.

It really sounds like EPEAT is looking to bow to Apple in every way possible.

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure that it comes down to whether or not Apple has innovated to make glue easier to recycle than screws, but rather if the use of the glue violates any _required_ criteria of the ratings standard:

 _> How products qualify for EPEAT

>Products are measured against both required and optional criteria. A product must meet all of the required criteria in its category to be added to the registry. It is then rated Bronze, Silver or Gold depending on how many of the optional criteria it meets._ <http://www.epeat.net/resources/criteria- discussion/>

I think you would have to have access to the list of required, non-optional criteria and assess those in order to make a determination. I personally have no idea as I don't know what the specifics of the criteria are (there are optional ones as well), but it is pretty clear what Apple's strategy is, and it certainly seems like EPEAT's CEO was signaling flexibility. Especially when you consider that fact that the EPEAT ratings have not been updated for a while, and that Apple helped create some of the criteria the ratings are based on in 2006, I have to imagine that Apple is either not actually in violation by some reading of the standards, or will end up being the recipient of the signaled 'flexibility' the CEO signaled, perhaps in advance of a draft rewrite of the standards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> They could just give us removable batteries and keep the EPEAT grade.</comment>


Should Disney World Have the Right to Build a Nuclear Power Plant? - <AUTHOR> https://www.citylab.com/environment/2019/05/disney-build-nuclear-reactor-orlando-florida-legal-history/587950/ <comment> munk-a I really wish nuclear power would stop getting all this unnecessary hate - apparently in the grand canyon there was a bucket of uranium[1] sitting in a storage closet, this wasn't particularly dangerous but far more dangerous than a well regulated power plant would be. We need to stop being irrational about the power source that may end up saving the planet.

[1] [https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/696001017/grand-canyon- museum...](https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/696001017/grand-canyon-museum- reportedly-had-buckets-of-uranium-sitting-around-for-18-year)

<comment><USER2> There is also the problem of nuclear waste being highly radioactive for thousands of years and us not knowing how to deal with it properly.

<comment><USER3> 1\. Dig a hole

2\. Put a fence around the hole

3\. Put a sign on the fence saying "if you cross this fence you will die"

4\. Put radioactive waste in the hole

5\. Cover the hole

It's not a complicated problem.

<comment><USER4> "We cannot guarantee that any simple or complex message, even when recognized and correctly interpreted, will deter a human being from inappropriate action."

From [https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access- control.cgi...](https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access- control.cgi/1992/921382.pdf)

See also [https://www.damninteresting.com/this-place-is-not-a-place- of...](https://www.damninteresting.com/this-place-is-not-a-place-of-honor/)

<comment><USER5> Unless humanity reverts to a pre industrial state, future inhabitants should have tech to detect radioactive material —just as we can now. If we fall to a pre industrial state, it's doubtful we'd be able to get to the buried waste material like Yucca mountain.

<comment> toper-centage Just add Geiger sensors to phones. If it goes beyond a certain level, you lose data connection. Then watch the people flock away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The legal machinations Disney went through to secure the site for The Florida Project, as it was then called, are unprecedented and will never be repeated. Disney _is_ the government there.

The rationale was that Disney knew more about safety and engineering than the cities that surrounded the property. And you know what? They were right. A drive through the area will make it obvious as soon as you hit Disney property (40 sq miles or larger than Manhattan, BTW). It's cleaner and safer with better roads, signs, and landscaping. There are no overhead power lines, for example. Even their parking lots are smarter with sensors that lead you to the nearest empty space.

Having said that, I don't think they would ever attempt a nuke plant and I'm glad about that.

<comment> munk-a > Having said that, I don't think they would ever attempt a nuke plant and I'm > glad about that.

I'm... not?

If they did it well they could demystify and de-...demonize nuclear power and maybe return some of that "Magic of Science" feeling they were famous for before the 90s. Disney was a real innovator back in the day, I'd be quite happy to see them take on nuclear power and do it well - maybe with a Gen4 reactor like thorium MSR.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure tritium-laced drinking fountains would go over well with Disney's safety team, nor their guests.

<comment><USER7> There _might_ be possibilities between "no nuclear power plant" and "tritium- laced drinking fountains".

<comment><USER6> That would be great! Let's get that tech for Turkey Point.

<comment><USER8> Can you elaborate?

Also, credit where credit is due: "Turkey Point has been a contributing force to the reclassification of the American crocodile from endangered to the less serious category of vulnerable." \- Wiki

<comment><USER6> Yes. It leaks radioactive tritium, like the vast majority of nuclear plants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I mean yeah I get the immediate fear monger response to the contrary a headline like this is meant to illicit, but... nuclear power plants are already built but private companies. Disney clearly has the capitol and I can think of no better company to run a nuclear power plant than disney! Think of their proven track record and commitment to maintence, and the culture that inevitably has had to subsequintly evolve to maintain that commitment to maintenance. Seriously there's not another company like them that's even in the same ballpark as to the level to attention to detail that they've been able to pull off for over half a century!

</comment><comment><USER10> > It created the Reedy Creek Improvement District, making Disney World its own > tightly controlled governmental entity with its own laws. Disney has the > power, for example, to create its own police force, even though it hasn't so > far.

It has, however, created its own Fire Department.

<comment><USER6> Actually, they do have their own police force and also an on-property jail. Nearly all Disney security personnel are undercover, dressed as tourists or other kinds of workers so as not to be off-putting to guests.

The book _Vinyl Leaves_ is an incredible and comprehensive look at many of the secrets behind the Disney empire.

<comment><USER11> Security forces and police forces are not the same thing.

Disney has both security - with no arrest powers - and contracts with Orange County Sheriff's Office to staff on-duty officers. "Jail" means a security office where they detain you while waiting for the cops to cart you off, just like a shoplifter at a store might sit for a few minutes in the manager's office awaiting the cops.

[https://www.clickorlando.com/news/disney-world-law- enforceme...](https://www.clickorlando.com/news/disney-world-law-enforcement- spending-increases)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Yes, please, let them keep the option. In 20-50 years when we are actually willing to build these things the correct way again I want everyone to have that option.

</comment><comment><USER13> In Florida Walt Disney had a greater plan than another theme park. He wanted to try and provide a living experience, a prototype for the cities of the future. He died before this could happen but the original plans for EPCOT were epic:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPCOT_(concept)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPCOT_\(concept\))

That's why they wanted a power plant, to be independent from that externatlity. With Walt, that plan died.

I am pretty pro-nuclear but that's probably not a bad idea to refresh an agreement made during the 60s and either revoke it or add some security constraints.

The last thing you want if you are pro-nuclear is another scandal of a nuclear power plant being poorly handled.

</comment><comment><USER14> Youtuber Rob Plays did a video[1] about this as well

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

<comment><USER6> Good one! Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Disney was a great genius, and his charter city was extremely ambitious. It is amazing how far he got. I think he may have succeeded if he had lived.

EPCOT is an insult to his vision.

<comment><USER6> His brother, Roy, and the other members of the Board _did_ want to do the full Epcot but they didn't think they could pull it off without him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> There's a surprising amount of FUDD in here regarding nuclear power. Nuclear power is the only serious option we have for clean, reliable, carbon-free power. A no-brainer if you believe in climate change. Generation 3 reactors have been in operation for decades, proving themselves perfectly safe. Bonus - they use nuclear waste as fuel.

<comment><USER17> Realistically, hydro meets your three objectives (clean, reliable, carbon- free) with way less risk of irradiating a city or proliferating nuclear fuel generation.

Advances in transmission line technology also enable hydro plants to be hundreds or even thousands of miles from power consumers. There's a project currently underway to connect a huge hydro plant in Quebec, where all the water from the Great Lakes drains to the Atlantic, to the New England market via a transmission line through Maine.

<comment><USER16> Hydroelectricity is cheaper than nuclear, but relatively niche. It needs a lot of flowing water and a large change in elevation. In many places it is dead in the water.

Compare this to nuclear, which only needs a large body of cooling water. Saltwater or fresh water, doesn't matter.

<comment><USER17> HVDC means you can literally be a thousand miles from the power plant. That's distance from the Hoover Dam to Kansas City. There's literally nowhere in America beyond the range of a viable hydro plant.

<comment><USER16> Strange that America isn't pure hydro. Also strange that so many startups ignore hydro and jump to nuclear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The question is not "do they have the right", but rather should they be prevented via the government. Seeing as a coal plant (the other likely option) has impacts all its own, I think not. It is the lesser of two evils, if not a perfect good.

</comment><comment><USER19> A forward-thinking Disney would buy the rights to the Simpsons and make a (mal)functioning nuclear plant the centerpiece of Springfield, FL.

<comment><USER20> Disney owns Simpsons already!

<comment><USER21> Though, they don't own theme park rights! Fox previously sold theme park rights to Universal

</comment></comment></comment><comment> valiant-comma From deep in the article:

 _Even Antone, who almost filed the bill that would nix the nuclear option, doubts that the step is necessary. His bill, he told CityLab, is aimed at making contract arbitration binding for Reedy Creek firefighters; the nuclear clause was likely added for leverage, he said._

</comment><comment><USER22> Only if the fuel cooling ponds double as a "small world" boat ride.

</comment><comment><USER23> The fact that Disney controls their own governmental entity also means they have a cheaper cost of capital for (some) improvements. RCID can sell tax exempt bonds, which saves them money on interest.

</comment><comment><USER24> You solve all the nuclear reactor bullshit by demanding full insurance coverage - nobody can effort this. Problem solved.

</comment><comment><USER25> No, it's just a cover for their missile program.

</comment><comment><USER26> No

<comment><USER26> OK I'll expand on this since it was downvoted. Legislation, however old, allowing corporations to build nuclear power plants is a big no for me. Imagine Amazon or Apple building their own nuclear plants...

<comment><USER27> Letting them build sounds good to me. Nuclear power is safe when you want it to be, and we need more of it.

<comment><USER2> There is still the problem of nuclear waste being highly radioactive for thousands of years and us not knowing how to deal with it properly.

<comment><USER28> Why do you think we don't know how to deal with it properly?

What do you think we do with our current nuclear waste? What is "improper" about our current processes?

<comment><USER29> > Why do you think we don't know how to deal with it properly?

Is this a serious question?

We bury it underground in vast bunkers with hundreds of warnings and ominous- looking signs inteded to warn people thousands of years into the future not to fucking open the thing.

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

Of course we don't know how to handle it. We basically dump nuclear waste in glorified landfills. Look how great that turned out for our regular waste that doesn't pose the grave threat of biological/ecological hazard.

<comment><USER28> Yes its a serious question. Why do you consider burying it in a vast underground bunker not a sufficient solution?

You talk as if that's obviously a bad idea but to me it seems peefe fly reasonable. Yes there is some concern about people thousands of years from now not understanding the warnings, but the people during right now and in the near future due to coal and climate change seem like a bigger concern at the moment.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why Doesn't Paul Graham Get a SSL Certificate? - <AUTHOR> Let's Encrypt allows one to get a SSL cert in the time it takes to make a cup of coffee. Not to mention the SEO benefits, so it seems a bit odd that PG hasn't got a SSL cert for his blog. <comment><USER2> I see a couple of replies saying something like "plain HTTP [still] works fine."

Sure, it works in the sense that most of the time the page will load as expected, but it's not safe or reliable. I don't want our standard for technology to be that it "works" for some shoddy definition of works - I want it to be safe and reliable. Plain HTTP is neither safe nor reliable.

Even if you don't care about the privacy benefits of HTTPS, plain HTTP can be modified. This means that when you load an HTTP page you cannot be confident that what you're seeing is what the server sent. The content could have been manipulated, ads or malicious script could have been inserted. This has been exploited in real world attacks many times.

Sites that do not use HTTPS put their users at risk during every page load because the users are forced to load content that can be tampered with. Paul Graham (and everyone else using plain HTTP for their site) should not be putting their users at risk like this. All sites should use HTTPS.

</comment><comment><USER3> He is a non-confirmist :-D [http://paulgraham.com/conformism.html](http://paulgraham.com/conformism.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> Because (1) he doesn't have to, the web still works without (fortunately), (2) I highly doubt he cares about SEO benefits.

</comment><comment><USER5> [IANPG] HTTP seems like the simplest thing that might work.</comment>


How to support PGP encryption in Gmail - <AUTHOR> http://conorpp.com/blog/How-to-support-PGP-encryption-in-Gmail/ <comment><USER2> It's worth mentioning Mailvelope ( [https://www.mailvelope.com/](https://www.mailvelope.com/) )

\- Free \- Supported in FF / Chrome \- Supports Gmail, Yahoo, Outlook and GMX

I've been using it extensively for about 12 months now. It's solid, unobtrustive, and just .. works.

Decryption of attachments would be nice, but it's definitely not a deal breaker.

<comment><USER3> Signing of encrypted messages is not supported at the moment. Unfortunately that's a deal breaker for me :-( But it _does_ look very nice.

<comment><USER2> Plain vanilla signing obviously works, and you could (and can, according to a quick check) - just paste your encrypted message back into the window and sign it (unless I grossly mis-understand signing, which I might do..)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> At the moment, end-to-end is NOT production ready, and will likely undergo further hardening in the coming months. Use at your own risk.

<comment><USER5> I agree that it's not yet ready for general use, but what hardening do you expect to happen in the coming months?

I'm one of the original end-to-end authors, but haven't worked on it recently.

<comment><USER6> I'm an developer on E2E team as well and can confirm that there's no 'hardening' going on. E2E is, to the best of our knowledge and we have expressed what that exactly means in our threat model: [https://github.com/google/end-to-end/wiki/Threat- model](https://github.com/google/end-to-end/wiki/Threat-model). E2E is under Google VRP ([https://www.google.ch/about/appsecurity/reward- program/](https://www.google.ch/about/appsecurity/reward-program/)), so if you're aware of any vulnerabilities, let us know.

E2E extension is not production ready, but I myself am using the compiled version as it is, in my biased opinion, the most secure of existing PGP-in- the-browser extensions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What is so terrible for people about using an email client? I find using the Gmail web interface to be frustrating because they've removed the ability to pop out the compose view into it's own window, so I can't easily reference information in another browser tab while writing an email for instance. Meanwhile, Gmail has excellent IMAP support, which lets me use Thunderbird + Enigmail to get excellent PGP support.

<comment><USER8> Nothing is terrible, I suppose, but in the web client I personally enjoy the fast search, filtering, labeling, split pane smart inboxes, integration with Calendar, modal keyboard shortcuts (they aren't operative when you're typing in a text box but are active otherwise) and non-intrusive threading (conversation-view).

The fact that all this is the same on my Macbook Pro, on my Arch Linux desktop, or when I reboot to Windows, without any effort on my part to synchronize settings makes this all rather excellent.

<comment><USER9> Same here. I use at least 2 PCs as well as mobile Systems. I love to have the same data everywhere without having to sync something.

That beeing said, I wouldn't mind running my own webmailer as long as it has most of the google apps/office 365 features.

I'm hoping for mailpile myself even if it still takes some time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> At the moment, I use the Mailvelope extension.

[https://www.mailvelope.com/](https://www.mailvelope.com/)

Excellent in Chrome - a bit slow in Firefox.

<comment><USER11> There is WebPG too:

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

It wraps around your existing gnupg installation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> FAQ is a bit confusing. They say there's only one keyring, but at [https://github.com/google/end-to- end/wiki/Keyring](https://github.com/google/end-to-end/wiki/Keyring) they admit it was not a great idea and that they're splitting the responsibilities.

Based on the last planned implementation (External Key Manager (GnuPG bridge, other hardware, network oracle etc..)), I hope it will "just work" with hardware keys.

<comment><USER6> One of the developers here:

Yes, the Keyring reimplementation is in progress and ends very soon. After the redesign, applications built on top of E2E library will be able to use different sources of both public and private keys (so it's easy to do integrations with GnuPG, hardware keys HKP, or e.g. Facebook).

The API will be similar to what's in [https://github.com/google/end-to- end/wiki/Keyring](https://github.com/google/end-to-end/wiki/Keyring).

<comment><USER3> One thing that is currently missing from E2E (as far as I can tell having played with it a little in the last month) is any kind of web of trust. When I import a key, I can't tell if it has been signed by me or someone I trust. Is this on the radar for the UI after the Keyring reimplementation is finished?

At the moment, what we've suggested at our work is that people manage keys in GPG and then only export keys into E2E if they trust them. But it would be nice be able to do those kinds of things in E2E (or at least be able to tell if a key was signed by me).

BTW, thanks for working on this!

<comment><USER6> See [https://github.com/google/end-to-end/wiki/Key- Distribution](https://github.com/google/end-to-end/wiki/Key-Distribution). In short, we don't invest much into WoT.

<comment><USER13> After giving that a read, I'm happy that there are people way smarter than me working on these problems. Kudos to your efforts!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The fact that you lose your draft when the window loses focus kills it for me.

</comment><comment><USER15> There's no way I'd share my private key with whatever extensions there are. It just doesn't feel right.

</comment><comment><USER16> Good to see that E2E has been progressing, but I still wish we had a PFS alternative to PGP.

With today's hacks and the total state of surveillance in which we are in, it's a little crazy to expect people to use the same key 10+ years without it getting compromised. Even a year seems too much.

</comment><comment><USER17> Wait, you have to install a JDK to use this chrome extension?

<comment><USER18> No, to build the chrome extension from source.

<comment><USER17> oh, thanks for clarifying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Does it use inline PGP or PGP/MIME?

(On an unrelated note, I wonder if there's anything on mobile that supports PGP/MIME. K-9 Mail only knows about inline.)

</comment><comment><USER11> I tried to use gnupg but can't wrap my head around the web of trust. My main concern of WoT: What my signature of an other guy's public key actually means? My takeaway is that there is an implicit statement that you sign, but I don't really know what it is. According to the gnupg privacy handbook[1] this statement is roughly "I trust that this guy can properly sign other stuff" which is kind of recursive, but I like it.

But when you validate if a message is really written buy a guy named John Doe then the trust path doesn't actually verify this. The trust path verifies that this guy who claims to be John Doe is good at signing other guy's keys. I don't care about that at this point. Of course people don't actually think of the statement written in the privacy handbook, they implicitly sign the statement "I trust that this guy can properly trust other stuff _and_ I know that this guy's name is what he currently has as an ID.". There are several problems with this in practice:

\- Now you are signing two statements with one signature and you can't separate the two. Now using anonymous public keys becomes tricky as you lose one half of your statement.

\- Signing the id happens at the wrong place. Malory can revoke her identity than push "Barack Obama" as her new id, now she can send messages in the name of the president. Of course in practice it's hard, because you can't delete revoked ids from key servers. But at this point you trust the key servers. I thought that key servers are not trusted part of PGP.

\- gnupg guys advocate key signing parties: you gather at one place, bring your ID then sign each other's keys. The problem with this that you only verify half of your statement (id). The other half is tricky to verify (Can this guy properly protect his priv key? Will this guy just randomly sign everything he sees?), I think it makes more sense to trust a friend who you already know well. Of course there are trust levels and I think you should only use marginal trust at these parties, however I don't know what's the practice.

\- There are keys that are not tied to people, they are typically tied to software packages. Now what does it mean when someone signs such a key? Take putty as an example. Its master key is signed by several people. Each signature could mean that "this is the putty project's master key that is used to sign the binaries themselves" which can be verified by the given guy knowing the developer and that he is trustworthy (at this point PGP is misused though, the guy should have signed the developer's key instead and only the developer should sign the binary signing key, but it would make trust paths longer). It could also mean that "I trust that PuTTY is a great software and doesn't do anything nasty behind your back" which requires an entirely different verification.

In the end the trust path a way too simplified projection of these statements and most likely you can't actually verify the statement that you care about.

[1] [https://www.gnupg.org/gph/en/manual.html#AEN282](https://www.gnupg.org/gph/en/manual.html#AEN282)

<comment><USER20> \- re. anonymous keys. There is no need for them to be part of the web of trust. If you really want them there it is then a common requirements for signatories to require at least a verifiable e-mail address bound to the person they know and are authenticating. But then arguably it's not very anonymous any more.

\- re. multiple identities. cross-Signatures in the web of trust are done on individual identities, not the master key! So if you sign an identity and the key owner then creates another, that new identity will not carry your signature.

\- re. key parties: so far it wasn't an issue because it was implicitly assumed that people attending a key parting were savvy enough to understand how to sign. For PGP to be democratized the concept of key party needs to evolve. I personally combine them with a small lecture on PGP use, and say "you get to sign each other only if you have attended the lecture including its small practical".

\- re. software keys. These are typically considered as an extension to the developers' keys. You as a user shouldn't sign those.

<comment><USER11> > it was implicitly assumed that people attending a key parting were savvy > enough to understand how to sign

It's not only about being savvy though. You trust the person to not misuse his/her key unknowingly or knowingly. If you only use marginal trust on a key signing party then it can be mitigated somewhat though. What's the usual trust level used on such a party?

Edit:

Then the Putty master key is misused according to you: [https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x4F5E6DF56A...](https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x4F5E6DF56A93B34E)</comment></comment></comment>


Periscope Data Raises $9.5M Led by DFJ to Build "Tableau for Data Scientists" - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/22/periscope-data/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&sr_share=facebook <comment><USER2> dupe [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10434318](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10434318)

<comment><USER3> A story isn't considered a dupe until it has had significant attention on HN. Otherwise too many good stories would get buried without being noticed.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)</comment></comment>


The story behind the default Windows XP desktop background - <AUTHOR> https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-story-worlds-famous-desktop-background <comment><USER2> >Although he signed a non-disclosure agreement that prevents him from revealing the exact price, O'Rear has claimed it was the most he's ever been paid for an image.

I'm just ridiculously happy he got paid tons for this. There's so many stories about $BigCorps just helping themselves to this stuff and screwing artists via their legal teams that I was really hoping this wasn't one of them.

<comment><USER3> If anyone else is curious, FedEx generally won't insure a shipment for more than $50,000 without a special contract so we can assume it is more than that amount.

My completely uneducated guess would be in the $100k-$250k range.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's iconic. At some point a high-resolution version of the image turned up online. I regularly switch to this high-res variant at work just because it's funny how people react to seeing it: [https://i.imgur.com/C5ja2Kp.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/C5ja2Kp.jpg)

<comment><USER5> This is my favorite version of the Windows XP hills:

[http://i.imgur.com/1xtcI.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/1xtcI.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> They mention a bet (there was more than one) inside Microsoft about where that photo was taken

I lost $100 cause it's NOT eastern Washington.

</comment><comment><USER7> I love the story of the guy trying to track down the exact location of the Autumn desktop photo too:

[http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/02/autumn200702](http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/02/autumn200702)

</comment><comment><USER8> Years ago I used to tell customers that it was a picture of Bill Gates backyard. Most of them (if not all) believed me.

</comment><comment><USER9> I've heard this is likely the most viewed image of all time. Any evidence for or against this claim?

</comment><comment><USER10> Interestingly enough, I have the same type of camera (a Mamiya RZ67) and use the same type of film (Fuji Velvia 50) that were used to take this.

<comment><USER11> The "Alien Ray Gun" we used to call it. The rotating back was nifty, but in the end I prefer the square format. I did get to shoot a dozen or so rolls through a Mamiya 7, that camera was a joy to handle.

<comment><USER12> You can find 6x6 backs (as well as 6x4.5) but they're not as common as the 6x7 backs. Tried a Mamiya 7, and though I liked it, I just can't get into rangefinders. The framing not being exactly what the image will be always bugs me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Nice, I grew up in Sonoma county, definitely looks like home. More so the area to the right that's almost cropped out, but still.. nice to know that winxp's iconic background is of home. Wish I knew that back in '01 when it was the talk of the town.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'd have guessed this was taken somewhere in Palouse, WA because Microsoft and all... So much for Golden Hour, eh? I'm going to make another wild-ass guess and assume he's used a Circular Polarizer because the sky looks a bit too unnaturally blue on the right side of the image. :)

</comment><comment><USER15> In the portuguese version of Windows XP this was called "Alentejo".

Yet another losing bet, it seems.

</comment><comment><USER16> That was pretty interesting</comment>


If I haven't succeeded by mid 20s, can I still be successful? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/Success/If-I-havent-succeeded-in-my-mid-20s-could-I-be-successful-in-the-rest-of-my-life?

<comment><USER2> This was also posted just a few days ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2322798>

</comment><comment><USER3> _"At age 28 Genghis Khan had nothing and was barely starting to get control over his own small tribe. He eventually ruled over the largest land empire in human history"_

Still though, basically just a ned.

</comment><comment><USER4> Everytime that I have a thought like that I'm reminded of a poem by Anis Mojgani that really moves me <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQAC3WXOOWE>.

I just love the ending, "Already am. Always was, and I still have time to be."</comment>


Earthquake early-warning system gave 10-second alert before Napa quake felt - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-lanow-ln-earthquake-earlywarning-system-gave-10second-alert-before-napa-quake-felt-20140824-story.html <comment><USER2> A few seconds warning seems like it might be kind of useless for humans, especially at 3am, but it would be cool to have this feed into automatic systems to automatically put them in a "safer" state before an earthquake hits. It might even be that 10 false positives a day are worth it to catch one real event, if the "safing" operation is relatively non-disruptive.

<comment><USER3> It's an interesting exercise to spend a day or two trying to be aware of what would be the most likely dangers where you are at the moment if you were caught in a good sizes quake right then.

I think that most will find that there are many times each day where a few seconds warning would make a difference. Some common situations:

• Carrying a heavy item that would hurt you if you dropped it on your foot, or fell down and it landed on you.

• Sitting near a shelf with something heavy on it (surround speaker, for example).

• Many things in the kitchen: carrying hot liquid; hot liquid on the stove; using a knife.

• Using power tools: soldering; drilling; sawing.

• Juggling torches.

Just a couple seconds warning can give you time to put down a heavy object, move from where your speaker will fall on you or prepare to deflect it, get out of the way of potential spills in the kitchen, put down the knife, stop your power tools, and stop juggling.

<comment><USER4> I attended a talk by one of the developers of this system, and since earthquake warnings are so short (tens of seconds), it's unlikely that traditional alert mechanisms can be delivered to the general public. As such, the primary consumers of the device will be places like nuclear power plants and major industrial operators who are willing to install special alarms.

The other example he gave was giving doctors performing surgery time to step away from the patient, so that they dont turn things into a real life game of surgeon simulator, an example I personally find to be extremely horrifying and nightmare inducing.

<comment><USER5> Cell phone app. Setup something like the reverse-911 system, or even just a downloadable app that can wake your phone from sleep and use the speakers to alert its carrier that an earthquake is on the way.

Hell, maybe this is even a use for "Yo".

<comment><USER6> How about the delay? The message is not delivered instantly. Plus, such a system would be required to be already scaled up, and stay in that state always, to support sending messages to millions of "subscribers", which would only add additional delay.

<comment><USER7> If you use broadcast messages, the number of subscribers shouldn't matter. There already exists a system like this in the US: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Mobile_Alert_System](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Mobile_Alert_System)

> CMAS will allow federal agencies to accept and aggregate alerts from the > President of the United States, the National Weather Service (NWS) and > emergency operations centers, and send the alerts to participating wireless > providers who will distribute the alerts to their customers with compatible > devices via Cell Broadcast, a technology similar to SMS text messages that > simultaneously delivers messages to all phones using a cell tower instead of > individual recipients.[3][4]

<comment><USER2> Will CMAS/cell broadcast bypass iOS Amber Alert and Emergency Alert "Government Alert" settings?

<comment><USER8> No. This would almost assuredly be sent as a level 2 extreme alert. The only alert that can bypass the settings is an alert directly from the president.

<comment><USER9> Well don't freaking turn off earthquake alerts!

<comment><USER10> If earthquake alerts are their own category, I probably won't. However, if they're lumped in with much more common events (thunderstorm! non-custodial parent spending time with child!) that I don't care to hear, then I will.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> To be clear, the detectors in Napa felt the tremors then transmitted the data to Berkeley. They got a 10 second warning because the tremors travel much slower than the speed of light. Being 10 seconds away means the quake is much less intense. This is helpful, but what we need is a warning for people within a few seconds of the epicenter.

<comment><USER12> The various types of seismic waves travel at different speeds. Luckily the most damaging are slowest, which travel at about half the speed of the fastest (~5 km/s). You can detect the fast waves and trigger warnings immediately, without having to wait for the damage to start.

California is a little bit of a special case, in that quake damage falls off rapidly with distance (the rock is kind of broken up here and doesn't transmit energy well). Earthquakes east of the rockies, while rarer, also have a much bigger radius of damage. In areas like the New Madrid Seismic Zone you could get useful warning times on the order of minutes.

Any early warning system is worth its weight in gold if it's automatically linked to infrastucture like gas mains and train signals (or data centers!). Even a few seconds warning can save lives. Unfortunately, like any other kind of public infrastructure besides roads, getting a decent warning system in place is politically impossibe in the US.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Japan's system ... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_Early_Warning_%28Jap...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_Early_Warning_%28Japan%29)

</comment><comment><USER13> Japan, Mexico City, and other seismically active places, have such systems in place and have had them for years. Amazing that California, the epicenter of tech, is just getting on board with this.

<comment><USER14> As someone who used to work for a university's geosciences department as a Unix sysadmin/programmer and who worked on two different seismic monitoring networks (one spread across the state for earthquake monitoring and one parked on top of a coal mine), allow me to explain why earthquake monitoring in the United States is largely stuck in the stone age: There's no f---ing money.

Back in the '80s, there were a _lot_ of regional seismic networks around the country, especially east of the Mississippi. But as time marched on and budgets got slashed, regional seismic networks disappeared one by one. Today, only the largest regional networks survive — generally the ones that are mostly funded by the states they're in and/or have increased their share of USGS/ANSS funding by taking over monitoring for areas of the country that used to be covered by the now-defunct networks.

The regional seismic networks that are left spend pretty much all of their dollars on equipment and operations. Installing/upgrading/running permanent seismograph stations is _expensive_ — a basic solar-powered one with a shallow fiberglass vault, a three component short period sensor, and a three channel digitizer will run you ~$12,000 just in equipment and materials. The sky's the limit if you go fancier than that (broadband sensors, strong motion sensors, atmospheric sensors, borehole sensors, six channel digitizer, elaborate vaults, VSAT, etc.). Then there's the recurring communications cost, the cost of regular site visits, the cost of regular battery replacements, replacing solar panels/equipment boxes that morons shoot at for laughs, etc.

What I'm getting at is that in the monetary battles of "keep seismograph stations working" vs. "hire programmer to write useful software", the stations will win every time. Even this LA Times article about Berkeley's early warning system notes, "A lack of funds, however, has slowed the system's progress."

If the epicenter of tech wants to do something wonderful for earthquake seismology, figure out how to make dirt cheap 1- or 3-channel seismic digitizers (low-pass filter + low noise amp + 20-bit ADC @ 100–200 accurately timestamped samples/s, ≤1 watt average power draw @ 12 VDC, speaks TCP/IP over 802.11g/n) and dirt cheap 1- or 3-component short period sensors (1 or 2 Hz corner frequency, decent sensitivity). Then figure out how to get thousands of these dirt cheap digitizers and sensors in backyards all over the country and contributing data in real-time to IRIS and/or the closest regional seismic network. If the cost of acquiring quality seismic data goes down, that frees up money to actually do something with the data.

When I was still at the university job, my job-related pipe dream was to blanket the state with these non-existent dirt cheap stations. Even one or two per county in my state would've increased our station count by a factor of >15, greatly improved the quality of our earthquake locations, and allowed us to determine focal mechanisms (the orientation of the fault and direction of the slip) even for small earthquakes.

<comment><USER15> How cheap is dirt cheap? $1000? $100? $10? $1? $0.1?

Are there established algorithms to determine what seismic data is 'interesting' as opposed to streaming it all in real time (and keeping the radio on) constantly?

Why 802.11n instead of cell phone networks - don't you need to be away from traffic vibrations, and hence roads and homes?

<comment><USER14> _How cheap is dirt cheap? $1000? $100? $10? $1? $0.1?_

I think a sub-$500 per-station cost would be wonderful, but this is all just a pipe dream...

 _Are there established algorithms to determine what seismic data is 'interesting' as opposed to streaming it all in real time (and keeping the radio on) constantly?_

Almost all digitizers I've seen support the same STA/LTA (short term average ÷ long term average) triggering mechanism, where data is declared interesting if the energy over a short time window divided by the energy over a long time window exceeds some configurable threshold. If you only send triggered data, it's a great way to trigger repeatedly on local noise and miss all/parts of events you actually want to record.

Sending continuous data from stations to a central processing site is greatly preferred, especially since the data rate is so low. Three channels of 20-bit, 100 samples/s data from a low- to moderate-noise site that's losslessly compressed by the digitizer fits comfortably in 9600 bits/s.

 _Why 802.11n instead of cell phone networks - don 't you need to be away from traffic vibrations, and hence roads and homes?_

Siting seismograph stations is a tradeoff. Too far away from civilization and you have no way to get data back home except via (expensive, power hungry) VSAT or high power radios. Too close to civilization and you are subjected to civilization's noise (but you can use civilization's communications infrastructure to send your data home, sometimes for free).

The higher a site's noise level, the higher your event detection threshold gets. In other words, the noise consumes the signal from weak and/or distant earthquakes. You can make up for this somewhat by deploying a more dense network that pushes stations closer to where the earthquakes are happening...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Back in 1999/2000 I had a friend in Castro Valley call me in the morning to ask me if I was feeling the earthquake - I said nope, and then 5 seconds later - it hit me in Sunnyvale.

That's another way of earthquake advance warning - taking advantage of the latency between the epicenter and the surrounding area.

<comment><USER17> This is exactly what the system does...

<comment><USER16> I realized that after reading the threads, and some related articles.

I don't really understand why anybody felt a need to "announce" that the early warning system, "Worked" \- I would presume that it has _always_ been the case (at least since tele-connected seismometers were invented) that there has been an early warning of every earthquake from sites that were remote to where the sensors were.

Presumably this is Earthquake Monitoring/Alert systems 101. (And, in Japan they've greatly advanced the signaling to the public)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Low tech solution: [http://asset-c.soup.io/asset/2982/0993_c492.gif](http://asset-c.soup.io/asset/2982/0993_c492.gif)

<comment><USER19> Both of my dogs (aged 12 and 14, respectively) slept right through it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> "QuakeFinder" is crowdsourcing earthquake warning system. It uses accelerometers in laptops, tablets, smartphones and special PC boards. The hypothesis is that tens of thousands of networked accelerometers with so-so signals may be useful for seismology, compared to few hundred professional seismometers drilled into bedrock. I saw some promising early studies, but lost track of the project.

<comment><USER20> The original accelerometers were supposed to save laptop disks before a laptop hit the ground. But then Apple put them into smartphones to measure orientation and location. Their cost has fallen to a few dimes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I was in an earthquake in Hiroshima a few months ago. When the shaking started I was really confused. If my phone was blaring "earthquake" it would have been helpful.

Also, the warning on my iPhone was in Japanese and it was impossible to copy and paste it into a translator it so it was useless.

</comment><comment><USER22> 10 seconds can be a lifesaver for someone doing construction on a high-rise building.

</comment><comment><USER23> This could be very interesting if the 10 second timescale could be increased - as it stands 10 seconds is not enough time to do anything meaningful other than potentially crawl under your desk.

I know little of the science behind earthquakes and the movement of tectonic plates, however it would seem that if 10 seconds warning is possible today then further longer periods of time in the future could help people and or the technology surrounding building's and the infrastructure within the building to ready themselves/itself for the onset of an earthquake.

</comment><comment><USER24> 10 seconds might be enough time to trigger a custom alert on iPhones and Droids with a specific alarm that an earthquake is imminent. Enough time to get under a table.

</comment><comment><USER25> I couldn't find how I could get this. I got a txt from the USGS but that was after the event and because I set up twitter to txt me that account, does anyone know how to get these early warnings?

I woke up, but in SF it wasn't much of a big deal.

</comment><comment><USER26> So... why is it (geologically) not possible to predict an earthquake earlier than 10 seconds? Anyone know of research trying to beat that?

<comment><USER27> They're not actually predicting the earthquake - just detecting it as soon as it happens, and transmitting a signal out faster than the earthquake waves travel. So to beat that requires actually predicting when it will happen beforehand, which nobody has made any real headway on in a long time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> There should be a kaggle challenge for this, I would love to give that data a shot.

</comment><comment><USER29> Relevant xkcd: [http://xkcd.com/723/](http://xkcd.com/723/)

<comment><USER30> Very good one, especially in this context

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Yo. From EARTHQUAKE.

[edit] tough crowd...

<comment><USER32> Jokes are frowned upon on HN. Everyone is bent on avoiding the slashdot slippery slope. Communities do learn with History...

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Of course, we never hear about all the times the system has given false positives.

<comment><USER34> Given the design of this system (it's an early warning system, not a prediction system), the false positive rate could easily be zero so far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> This post is a nice reminder of the privacy issues (and how users should really consider what information they choose to give away).

Yes scientifically this is interesting. But it also means that we are willingly allowing ourselves to be tracked to great detail. You know they have internal reports or queries to show who has sex and when. Not that this is a big deal - we're human, and humans have sex. But it also can show who is having sex with whom, in some cases.

How long until Jawbone starts receiving court requests for this? (probably already happens).

</comment><comment><USER36> "The system works because while earthquakes travel at the speed of sound ..."

That sounds like a somewhat misleading simplification or a complete misunderstanding.

Presumably "the speed of sound in the earth" and "the speed at which earthquakes travel" is by definition the same - earthquakes just being "sound vibrations" in the earth with macro level amplitudes. I'd be very surprised if that was particularly close to what people think of as "the speed of sound" (which I'd assume means "about 350m/s").

<comment><USER37> Sure, and the warning signal doesn't travel at the full vacuum speed of light, either: part or all of its path goes through electronics, and electrical signals travel only something like 0.5c.

But this is a really short article aiming to give readers the gist of how the system works. Referring to "the speed of sound" without specifying the material is still probably within an order of magnitude or so of being accurate, and I don't know how valuable greater precision would be in this context.

(In any case, I'll wager that the number of people who 1) have a solid, intuitive understanding of the 350m/s speed of sound in air, but also 2) don't understand that earthquake wave speeds in rock are also essentially sound waves but travel significantly faster, is pretty low.)</comment></comment>


Show HN: JSON-Inspired Mind Mapping - <AUTHOR> https://www.nodeknockout.com/entries/105-wondermap <comment><AUTHOR> Josh and I made WonderMap in 48 hours for Node Knockout. It's kinda a Google Keep and Evernote hybrid, but with key/value pairs and rich types. We'll continue adding more features!

Please leave us a vote if it looks cool :) [https://www.nodeknockout.com/entries/105-wondermap/vote](https://www.nodeknockout.com/entries/105-wondermap/vote)</comment>


MIT top US university for study, Brown 'happiest' - <AUTHOR> http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/08/mit_top_us_univ.html <comment><USER2> Every time I read articles like this one I don't understand how they can measure the happiness of the students.

How happy are you?[0,5]

<comment><USER3> Maybe the Brown students took the survey S/NC:

      Are you happy?[undefined,true]

[http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Dean_of_the_College/cour...](http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Dean_of_the_College/courses/grade_options.php)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Brown has very liberal grading policies and you can even take all of your courses pass/fail.

There really isn't much of a required curriculum either.

If you are only taking classes that you actually wish to take or see the value in taking and then have less burden worrying about grades/your CPA is it really surprising that they are the happiest?</comment>


Data Visualization CourseWiki – CS 448B - <AUTHOR> https://graphics.stanford.edu/wikis/cs448b-12-fall/

<comment><USER2> Fun fact: early versions of d3 came out of a project in this class from 2009. I was in this class and d3 (Not called that then) was one of the more impressive projects that came out there. Here's a link to Mike's project description:

[https://graphics.stanford.edu/wikis/cs448b-09-winter/FP- Bost...](https://graphics.stanford.edu/wikis/cs448b-09-winter/FP-BostockMike)

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, that's awesome. I've been meaning to look into the origins of D3 because it's one of the things on my current "awesome web tech" list.

I've been really impressed by even my beginner's experience of D3 (eg: <http://hospital-tycoon.46bit.com> graphs).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This looks amazing based on the contents.

I don't think this one has the videos available?

I'd love to see video sessions of such a course (best if it's being taught with D3).

Are there any such courses?

<comment><USER4> Some time ago I took the "Developing iPad Applications for Visualization and Insight" course from CMU [1]. Honestly, I do not remember much from the "visualization theory" part. I have learned more about the tools needed to build those visualizations (programming the iPad).

I think it is one of the instances, where you learn by doing and reflecting your work with theory and users. It is not a linear process, you must be willing to build stuff, then go back to the theory again and improve. Without that, the message of these courses will be reduced to mantras like "good design should be simple".

[1] [https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/developing-ipad- applicati...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/developing-ipad- applications/id499050344)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wonderful slides, if there was a Coursera class on visualisation I would sign up in an instant.</comment>


A quantum computer could break 2048-bit RSA encryption in 8 hours - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613596/how-a-quantum-computer-could-break-2048-bit-rsa-encryption-in-8-hours/ <comment><USER2> Note: For the 8 hours, they need to use a quantum computer with 20-million- qubit, but the current quantum computer have only about 100 qbits.</comment>


Google Reader to shut down July 1st - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/13/4101144/google-shuts-down-reader-rss-aggregation-service

<comment><USER2> This is the worst news I've read all day.

<comment><USER3> Did you read it in google reader?

<comment><USER2> Of course! Which explains why I missed the other HN thread with all the comments on the front page, and posted here instead.</comment></comment></comment>