Puffins are in trouble - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/29/climate/puffins-dwindling-iceland.html <comment><USER2> People might also be interested in the Guardian article [1], which concentrated on the precipitous decline of Puffin numbers in Shetland. Compared to places where the drop has not been so steep, it seems that the birds are having to travel much further to find food (hundreds of kilometers in some cases), which is linked to changes in sea temperatures as a result of global warming; as sea temperatures change plankton are not available at the right time to feed sand eel larvae and so there aren't so many sand eels for the puffins to eat.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/03/shetland...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/03/shetland- seabirds-climate-change-catastrophe-terns-kittiwakes-puffins)

</comment><comment><USER3> I live in Newfoundland and here the Puffin (our provincial bird) is doing really well [1]. The town where I'm from I can drive 5 minutes to two separate puffin nesting sites and in the city where I live I can get to a colony of 300,000 in ~20mins. Not trying to diminish the issues seen by the Iceland birds but I'm glad they appear to be doing well here. Great for our tourism too. (Should also note that they can't be hunted here either)

[1]: [https://ca.news.yahoo.com/puffins-aplenty-newfoundland- despi...](https://ca.news.yahoo.com/puffins-aplenty-newfoundland-despite- struggling-survive-globally-201657180.html)

<comment><USER4> I'm glad they're still doing well in Newfoundland. I always enjoyed spotting them on the small island next to Cape Bonavista Lighthouse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> To summarize: it's climate change. Just working it's way up the food chain until it impacts the apex predator on this planet.

<comment><USER6> Eh, you left off the hunters "killed hundreds" per day part...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is only tangentially related to the article, but if you have small children I can't recommend Puffin Rock enough as a kids show. It teaches really simple environmental messages in a very subtle way while being absolutely adorable and fun to watch.

<comment><USER3> I love that Chris O'Dowd [1] does the narration. Great mix of calming accent and my enjoyment of the IT crowd.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_O%27Dowd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_O%27Dowd)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Anyone who wants to passively save some puffins should eat Puffins the cereal.

[http://barbaras.com/community/project- puffin/](http://barbaras.com/community/project-puffin/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> When the adults can't catch enough to feed themselves and the chicks, they make an instinctive Malthusian choice; the chicks starve. Dr. Fayet called her quest "heartbreaking": "You put your hand in the burrow and feel with your hand a little ball on the floor, but then you realize it's cold, and not moving."

</comment><comment><USER9> What can we do to help?

<comment><USER10> Global warming may be slowed down to less catastrophic levels if society changes to live more sustainably, most importantly by burning less fossil fuel. Vote for political parties who support this, lobby your elected representatives to push for sustainable policies. Try to convince as many people as possible that this an issue we need to address now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why does a GPS tracker cost $800? What's special about it that pushes the cost so high?

<comment><USER12> I don't know about GPS trackers, but my experience with scientific sensors in general has been that they tend to be quite expensive when compared to similar commodity items. They need to be in robust waterproof housings, compatible with other proprietary equipment and software, and accessible to non- programmers and newbs. I have seen things less fancy then a GPS tracker, like temperature or water level sensors with a few kb of storage and a serial port, that easily exceed $800 cost. This is frustrating to scientists, and many use substitute consumer equipment, roll their own when they can, or substitute cheap labor for overpriced automation. Sometimes an undergrad research assistant with sneaker-net is cheaper then then sensors' proprietary networking module. Most of this stuff has a "stuck in the 90's" kind of feel to it. 9600b serial ports, ncurses looking vendor software and propriety radio instead of wifi or cellular. Which would be cool if it was free and open, but it's not.

I think it's low-volume, high margin market, and not very competitive. An opportunity perhaps?

<comment><USER13> sure sounds like an opportunity

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> TLDR: Warming oceans lead to the decline of sand eels which they feed to their young.

</comment><comment><USER15> Maybe the presence of 7,646,237,844 people in the world has something to do with it; at the end of the day for as sad as it seems the best thing it could happen to wildlife is a plague that only affects humans (perhaps a plague that sterilizes us would suffice)

<comment><USER16> Or we could just, you know, _decide_ to have fewer kids.

<comment><USER15> If there is one thing humans can't clearly do is agree on something; so I'm afraid that is not an option, specially since the desire to have kids is one of the most hard-wired desires in sexual organisms.

<comment><USER16> If ever there was a self-fulfilling prophecy, that's it. There's a first time for everything. And in fact, there's a proven way to make people decide to have fewer kids: make them rich. People in more affluent societies generally choose to have fewer kids, to the point where the fertility rate in some places (Japan, Italy) is below the replacement rate. So it clearly can be done.

<comment><USER17> Wealth is just a proxy. What lowers the reproduction rate is higher living standards. And having all humans on current industrialized nation living standards with current methods of production certainly would not make things more sustainable.

If you want sustainability you either need fewer humans or clean up the entire supply chain. And the latter might just suffer from jevon's paradox.

<comment><USER16> I didn't say it would be easy to get from A to B. But it's not impossible.

<comment><USER17> It's also possible that someone discovers a way to build a cheap commercial fusion power plant tomorrow. But we generally don't rely on these kinds of remote possibilities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Too many people.</comment>


Blackberry CEO says Apple has gone to a "dark place" with pro-privacy stance - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/blackberry-ceo-says-apple-has-gone-to-dark-place-with-pro-privacy-stance/ <comment><USER2> Unless he disagrees with the decisions of his own company, he is being extremely hypocritical.

Blog post (from another person representing Blackberry) a few days ago:

[http://blogs.blackberry.com/2015/11/why-blackberry-is- exitin...](http://blogs.blackberry.com/2015/11/why-blackberry-is-exiting- pakistan/)

"After November 30, BlackBerry will no longer operate in Pakistan. While we regret leaving this important market and our valued customers there, remaining in Pakistan would have meant forfeiting our commitment to protect our users' privacy. That is a compromise we are not willing to make."

<comment><USER3> To him, there is a distinction between complying with a search warrant and building backdoors into devices. From the article: "The CEO also said he would never build government backdoors into its products and noted that the Canadian company was leaving Pakistan because the Pakistani government wants to monitor all Blackberry Enterprise Service traffic"</comment></comment>


Cxx.jl: C++ interpreter embedded in Julia - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Keno/Cxx.jl <comment><USER2> Oh, cool to see my little project on here, just in time for some lunch-time procrastination. Happy to answer any questions.

</comment><comment><USER3> While cool, it isn't nearly as cool as the current title (Cxx.jl: C++ interpreter embedded in Julia) implies, since it is not a C++ interpreter. A more reasonable title could be "The Julia C++ Foreign Function Interface" like the subtitle of the project.

<comment><USER2> It actually is a C++ interpreter ;), that functionality is just not advertised: [http://imgur.com/miYn092](http://imgur.com/miYn092)

<comment><USER4> That is pretty amazing, you should definitely advertise it!

<comment><USER2> We'll it's been a pain to build so far, so I've been avoiding making it known more widely. That's about to change though.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


My next laptop isn't gonna be a Mac - <AUTHOR> http://tenfourfox.blogspot.com/2018/01/why-my-next-laptop-isnt-gonna-be-mac.html <comment><USER2> Is the author of the article actually complaining about not being able to run 68K Mac software in 2018? The last 68K Mac came out in 1994.

Why shouldn't Apple remove insecure ftp and telnet from the default installation? You can still install it if you really need it but who in this day and age would use anything that transmits passwords over plaintext?

As far as complaining about no desktop for Pros, I've read nothing but good things about the iMac Pro.

There are a lot of real complaints about the Mac -the Mac Mini not being upgraded in 4 years, the Mac Pro not being seriously upgraded in 5, the MacBook line being dated and not keeping up with latest innovations, etc.

<comment><USER3> I'm going to regret this, but as the author of the blog post, let me be explicit about what I'm complaining about.

Apple used to care that their stuff kept working. The 68K example was that you could buy a computer, in 2005, that would still run software from 1990 or so. Now I'm worried about a computer I bought in 2014 being still able to run software which may have been updated last only a couple years before that. I don't think Apple cares much about this anymore.

As far as telnet and ftp, I'll even concede no one would probably use at least password secured stuff over cleartext in a WAN context (anonymous FTP is arguable). But "just install it from Homebrew" is only a solution as long as Apple lets it be a solution; see previous paragraph.

The iMac Pro is not a Mac Pro. It's an all-in-one desktop with high-end features. That appeals to certain people, but not to me. And I don't care for x86, never have.

If the post makes much about these issues and more than you think is warranted, it's mostly because they do personally matter to me, but I think they're emblematic of bigger problems with Apple. IMHO, Apple doesn't have an interest in legacy users, and certainly not in legacy users that have professional needs.

Clearly, pretty much everyone in this thread disagrees, and that's fine. Good luck with it.

<comment><USER2> I'm not disagreeing with your right to your opinion - just that I think you have rose colored glasses on about Apple and their quest to maintain backwards compatibility.

The Mac came out in 1984 and was incompatible with the Apple //e.

System 7 back in 1992 broke a number of old apps.

The 040 line came out and broke a number of apps.

Sure you _could_ run 68K Mac apps on the first PPC Macs but they were dreadfully slow and people ended up buying SpeedDoubler by Connectix with a much improved emulator.

Have you forgotten about all of the apps that broke that weren't "32 bit clean" and the ones that broke that used self modifying code when the '040 came out?

<comment><USER3> But in all of those cases there was a mitigation. Apps that weren't 32-bit clean could be run in 24-bit mode, at least for those machines that supported it. The '040 had a cache switch. Heck, there was an IIe card for certain models (though I think the Mac vs Apple II example is a little unfair; the systems really have almost nothing in common architecturally, far less than even Intel and Power Macs have in common).

For that matter, the 68K performance problem was mostly an issue for the 603. It wasn't an issue on the 601, which had sufficient cache, nor for the 603e which quickly displaced it. And when the PCI Power Macs came out, Apple had a much better dynamic compilation translator available.

In none of these cases was the answer "too bad."

To flip your question around, would you argue that Apple's backwards compatibility right now about the same as it was previously? Objectively I don't think the evidence supports that.

<comment><USER2> Yes. My first Mac in 1992 was a Mac LCII with a //e card. Before that, I had an Apple //e. But the card only worked on a few Macs, was discontinued a few years later, and never supported the //gs.

Just like Apple made a software emulator for the 68K. They could have done the same for the Apple //e. There was a third party software Apple emulator that worked fine on my 16Mhz LCII called Stop The Madness.

I had a 6100/60 - that was my 2nd Mac. It ran 68K software at about the speed of a 25Mhz 68030 Mac and slightly slower than my by then LCII with a 68030/40Mhz accelerator.

All that being said, I left the Mac around 1998 and didn't come back until the G4 Mac Mini in 2004 and the Intel Core Duo Mac Mini in 2006 and left again around 2008.

The Mac outside of the iMacs are in sad shape now. I probably will get another Mac this year just because I want a real Unix environment with more polish and It's the only computer that I can do iOS development. I think the 5K iMac is a decent buy.

<comment><USER3> > They could have done the same for the Apple //e.

Well, actually, they did, there was Gus (for the IIgs, but that would run IIe stuff, of course). In fairness this didn't have wide distribution and is best described as unofficial, but it existed. [http://macgui.com/downloads/?file_id=14109&keywords=gus](http://macgui.com/downloads/?file_id=14109&keywords=gus)

Anyway, I actually do agree the 5K iMac is a nice computer for the right person. I don't like high-end AIOs because I rarely upgrade all the components simultaneously, but I can't deny it's slick.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Context: this guy maintains a version of Firefox for PowerPC Macs, TenFourFox. He's enough of a POWER architecture die-hard that he complains about $1800 laptops, but is cool to plunk down $4800 on a new POWER9 workstation that will run none of the 68k Mac OS tools that he finds speedy.

Modern Apple has plenty of faults, but shipping x64 machines is not high up my list.

</comment><comment><USER5> My biggest problem with the current MacBook line up is the much higher price, reduced feature set and the widely reported hardware quality issues with keyboards, speakers and body rattles.

I won't be buying a Mac with the current keyboard simply because I don't want the risk of it failing, not that I can afford one. Fortunately my mid 2014 15" is still going strong.

iirc the first generation 2012 15" also has all kinds of problems. I'm hoping Apple get their act together, and USB C is more ubiquitous, by the time I have to upgrade.

(I'm also lucky enough to have a couple of work supplied machines of all types)

<comment><USER6> USB-C is already pretty ubiquitous, but I agree. I don't understand why they dumbed down the mbp - the 'plain' macbook is more than good enough for most consumers and I'm sure they would've loved the touchbar and whatnot.

Obviously I don't want them to make the pro into an ugly thinkpad style thing for the sake of more battery and ports, but I think plenty of people would've been perfectly fine with the new mbp mostly just being an upgrade to internals and maybe the screen. Instead, they dumped the Esc key for a novelty feature pretty much nobody really cares about, dumped the awesome magsafe charging, and got rid of a bunch of ports - not that the old version had a ton in the first place - for pretty much no good reason.

If there were another laptop on the market that Just Worked™ anywhere near as well as the mbp, I definitely would've switched but as it is I'm sticking to my late 2014 model and hoping the next gen mbp is less of a flop.

<comment><USER7> It's so ubiquitous that the newest iPhones still come with USB-A->Lightning cables. You can't plug one on a brand new MacBook Pro without a dongle or buying a new cable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My computer after MacBook Pro is PC with i5 7600 and I couldn't be happier. Total cost was around $1200 and I got much more powerful system than my old MacBook for which I paid $2500. Processor is not throttled mobile nonsense. I bought 16 GB RAM for few hundred bucks and if I want, I can buy another 16GB and put it there. Windows 10 is actually good enough (it's the first Windows that's actually quite usable for me) and with all those bugs in new macOS I'm not regretting about switching, I only regret about investing so much money in Mac software.

I guess MacBooks are good for people who don't want to tinker with hardware or who don't want to use Windows or Linux and ready to pay a lot of money for this. I was hyped in the past about it, but it turned out that my priorities are just very different.

Also, contrary to popular beliefs, I've found Apple's engineering very poor, hardware is very unreliable and in many cases it seems to be done on purpose. Apple is the only manufacturer, whose cords are wearing out, I never encountered that with other manufacturers and I encountered that with every Apple device I owned (2 macbooks, iPhone, iPad, iPod).

That said, I really like iOS, so, I guess, I'll still buy iPhone. And that's the only reason I'm still looking into Macs (I like integration between iOS and macOS). The only computer that I'm interested in is new Mac Pro, so I'll wait and see what they'll make. But it's very unlikely that they'll make a compelling computer, IMO.

<comment><USER9> I have a 6yo T420 with a Samsung SSD and 16GB of RAM. It was $400 with a new battery. It easily outperforms the MBP 2015 monster I had before on my daily programming tasks.

Point being. Most hardware is overkill anyway. You'll want enough RAM and the fastest SSD you can afford.

<comment><USER10> I have a 4 year old W530 and I built my own PC this year for the first time in over a decade. There's no comparison. If you can deal with the lack of portability, you'll see a huge benefit.

Also, if you're a programmer, there's no such thing as "most hardware is overkill anyway." Not in this age of bloated and slow software and tools. It's worth it anytime you can shave a couple of seconds off the time it takes to compile and/or interpret software. When it's something you do a couple hundred times a day, the time you save adds up fast.

<comment><USER9> I build a $3000 beast like half a year before i bought the laptop. I also had a MBP 2015 before. While given i dont do compiled language very often i dont fully agree. My VM startup times barely differ (dont most scripting languages boot single core anyway?) but i notice a real difference when working with huge databases compared to my MBP because i simply have better RAM and a faster SSD. However surely my desktop build was even faster.

<comment><USER10> Yes, single core speeds matter quite a bit. I can get faster single core clock speeds for a desktop for a lot cheaper. It is useful to have a lot of cores for running multiple VMs, but I would agree it's not worth spending 3k+ for a 16 core machine unless you're doing something that can utilize those cores.

In my mind, where the desktop rules is ram, bus speeds and cost. You can build multiple desktops for the price of a similarly priced MBP.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The only thing that still keeps me MacOS is the trackpad.

When my MBA 13" breaks, I will just replace it with another MBA 13", which I already did two times. One got orange juice, the other vomit of my son.

But what if the MBA 13" is not available anymore?

It will be somewhat difficult for me to find a replacement. Perhaps a Surface Book but will xfce handle the trackpad as smoothly as the MBA? But how to find out for myself without risking a purchase first?

Did anyone install Linux on a Surface Book and compare the smoothness of the trackpad with the one of the MBA?

<comment><USER12> Microsoft Stores tend to have the surface books for demo. You could boot from USB to try xfce. You can also just buy one from a store with a lenient return policy.

<comment><USER11> Good idea! Will try this out.

<comment><USER13> Please share your results.

<comment><USER11> This will take some time, a few months to up to a year. Sorry.

However there's already one insight: Yesterday I tried out the track pad of the Surface 1 and just tactically it does not feel the same as the MBA. Perhaps Surface 2 is better, we will see in March 2018.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My next laptop became a Threadripper desktop and the old laptop is only used for travel now.

Here is a PC-Partpicker recipe for my Threadripper machine.

[https://pcpartpicker.com/list/6JRNJV](https://pcpartpicker.com/list/6JRNJV)

1x Corsair 600Q (Can really recommend this case)

1x ASUS Prime X399-A Socket TR4 E-ATX

1x AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X s-TR4

1x Corsair Hydro Series H100i v2 CPU Cooler

1x Samsung 960 Pro 512GB M.2 PCI Express 3.0 x4 (NVMe)

1x Seagate IronWolf 4TB 3.5" SATA-600

4x G.Skill Flare X AMD Series 16GB 3200MHz DDR4

1x Corsair RMx Series RM850x 850Watt 80 PLUS Gold

<comment><USER10> Any opinions on going Threadripper over dual xeon?

<comment><USER14> I'm a fan of a market with competition, the CPU market has not had a lot of that the past years, so I support AMD right.

Also, Threadripper is the best choice for price/performance, also easier to build a quiet single "cpu" machine, than a dual setup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Not being on Facebook, what does

"contains speculative fixes for hangs on Facebook"

mean?

<comment><USER16> The sentence is saying that there was a bug in a previous version of TenFourFox that caused the browser to hang when browsing to Facebook, and they speculate that they have fixed the bug in this release.

<comment><USER15> ah sorry about that, the cookie warning was folded over the subtitle and missed that line; wrongly assumed it was an operating system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I didn't even know people are working on this kind of stuff.. and on a lot of other fronts too, Apple is losing its edge by not having the newer form factors like 2 in 1s and detachables. so much potential there.. but it's really not their bread and butter any more..

<comment><USER18> For people who are frustrated about Apple's software quality (the OP seems to be one of them), that would only make matters worse because additional form factors = even more bugs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> My next laptop is a phone with bluetooth keyboard.

I thing the idea of 'personal computer' you always carry with you is obsolete. Every geek has multiple laptops and workstations, just swap those as needed.

</comment><comment><USER20> Headline: refers to a laptop

Article: several hundred words about an architecture that is not currently available in a laptop form factor and probably never will be.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm sure the vast majority of consumers hate the Touch Bar because they're used to the escape key when they Vim.

</comment><comment><USER12> The Talos is interesting but $3700 as an entry point is pretty painful.

</comment><comment><USER22> Good for you, still millions of users will by apple products because they are simple to use out of box. People here are only thinking about their power user experience forgetting that most users don't give a damn about that and are whining that apple forget about "pro" users.

Apple never was design for being pro. Also argument about cost is silly. Apple products cost almost the same as high-end computers are Samsung flagship phones. Don't forget about high price of Microsoft products... World is about money and that will never change and voice of pro users will never be heard as they don't make that much money on you.

To emphasize, I'm not an Apple fanboy.

<comment><USER23> >Apple never was design for being pro.

It was, but not for pro software engineers, but for pro designers, film editors, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I won't be buying a mac anytime soon. Because my mid-2013 one still serves me well for all my audio work, web dev and graphics programming needs.

When it fails I'll buy another.

PCs are great too.

Why are we still having these pissing contests?

</comment><comment><USER25> Sorry, but anyone who writes this sort of thing cannot be considered representative of any meaningfully-large consumer group (emphasis mine): "I bought the Talos II because I wanted _something non-x86_ without lurking proprietary obscenities like the Intel Management Engine (or even AMD's Platform Secure Processor) that was nevertheless powerful enough to match those chips in power, and the only thing practical and even close to it is _modern Power ISA._ "</comment>


U.S. wage growth is higher than we think, researchers say - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-27/u-s-wage-growth-is-higher-than-we-think-fed-researchers-say <comment><USER2> It seems to me that the explanation of why average individual wage growth is higher than AHE (the reported number) makes total sense. You have to weight it based on worker age because as they point out, wages grow faster early in working life, and slower late in working life. That means that the adjusted and weighted etc AHE is the correct measure.

Why does the headline slyly contradict the article's conclusions? Seems weird.</comment>


Tell HN: we've made dddone.com - a TODO app done right - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN, we've made http://dddone.com. It's a TODO app. The main idea is that you can have 2 views of the same todo list: one is for the structure, so that you can have the global vision of the project, and one is for the priority with the most important tasks at the top. We made it for ourselves, because we felt no existing app satisfied our purposes and this approach seems to be extremely productive for us.<p>Hope you'll like it. Of course, any suggestions and reviews are welcome. <comment><USER2> Few thoughts:

\- Gotta improve/simplify the actions between left and right view. It doesn't feel right that you can't mark an item DONE at the right.

\- You should show completed tasks by default. Nothing more satisfying than seeing that checkmark and seeing what you've done. After a day or so, they can dissapear.

<comment><USER3> I too like the idea of displaying completed tasks for a limited amount of time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The online to-do list application market is very crowded. There are a whole lot of different apps out there. I like your idea of a structured to-do list next to a priority one. Have you thought about using the APIs of the other to- do list apps to pull a user's data from those sites and display it using your novel method?

<comment><AUTHOR> As you can imagine, pulling data from another apps would take time to implement. Especially because there are so many apps out there. Personally, I'm not sure it would make sense, at least at the moment. Or do you think it would?

<comment><USER4> You are probably right that it doesn't make sense right now, just because a lot of the good suggestions in this post are more pressing.

The reason I suggest it is that it would give you access to a number of users right off the bat which could be good for getting feedback from a large group of people who are actually going to use your app for their actual to-do list (rather than the informal sort of playing around with it I just did for a few minutes). In the end, it really depends on where you want to go with this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> \- The clear/save buttons are a little un-intuitive. I'd expect everything to just get saved as we go.

\- I do really love the concept. Awesome way to improve upon something so simple.

\- The title editing is a little clunky: the edit button shouldn't be there (you should just be able to click the title), or else only show it on hover, and you need a submit/cancel button instead of only submitting on ENTER.

\- The "edit" icon before each item: the placement of this (and the way it looks) make it look like it's a checkbox where you can check things of when they're done. Move "edit" to the right, and put a checkbox before each item where you can mark items done. Don't hide done items immediately, but remove the checkbox with a checkmark (Green) and leave the item there for a day or so.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, sounds reasonable. We'll find some time to fix this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looks nice.

I get an error in IE8. Webpage error details

User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/4.0; GTB6.5; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; InfoPath.2) Timestamp: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:50:19 UTC

Message: 'console' is undefined Line: 48 Char: 11 Code: 0 URI: <http://dddone.com/javascripts/app/event_set.js?1277907280>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, we fixed that. It was a forgotten debug console.log() call.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Have you tried <http://www.folderboy.com>? That's the to-do-ish app that I'm building that allows you to put the same task in multiple lists. Full nested- labels.

And allows you to search for the task/data/idea real fast with search-as-you- type.

</shameless-plug>

<comment><AUTHOR> That seems like a great app, but unfortunately it lacks the main feature that we needed - two representations of the same todo list, synced with each other. Plus, does your app has a sharing feature?

I liked your search-while-typing feature. Looks great.

<comment><USER6> Cheers, thanks.

 _two representations of the same todo list_

Kind of. With FolderBoy, any note (or folder) can be in multiple places at the same time. So, I guess you could create a "Priority" folder, with all your tasks arranged by priority, and also put these (exact same) tasks in another folder(s) with them organized in a more project-like way.

I think what yours does better is that you can have two lists side by side.

Ah, yes, we don't do sharing...yet!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Nice, I like the concept, and love the example it opens up with.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's weird that I can't mark a task done on the right column...

<comment><AUTHOR> What do you mean? There are only delete buttons in the right column tasks. If you click "done" in the left column though, the task automatically becomes "completed" in both columns.

<comment><USER7> Ok, "Done" and "Delete" both make the item disappear, which would make one believe they do the same thing except one fades green, one fades red.

Does that mean something else in the back-end? or is it the same ? The view/hide done tasks link is confusing because it's resetting the list which make it useless trying it out.

_ Update: Also it's weird to have the Pencil icon on the left, make a change, and then have to go all the way to the right for save. Maybe it's easier to just keep everything on one side?

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, I hear you. "Delete" button completely deletes the task from the list (from the db, if you wish). "Done" button just marks it as done and you can see it if you click the link "View dddone tasks too!" - although for some technical reasons it only works on the saved lists (e.g. it works everywhere else, but on the mainpage).

As for the pencil ico and save button - you can simply hit "Enter", that will save the title.

<comment><USER8> It might be clearer to have it fade to "disabled", but not entirely disappeared on Done, at least until the list is re-loaded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Do you have any plans with this, ie. to turn it into a full-fledged (paying?) service? Open source it? Etc?

<comment><AUTHOR> We'll see how it goes. We're going to use it ourselves and work on it a bit. If we see that more people are using it, we'll start reviewing suggestions and will be ready to invest more time into developing it.

<comment><USER2> Sounds like a plan.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> well, it's just what we need. Thanks for the idea, I will implement this concept on my internal ERP

(F)

</comment><comment><USER10> looks like your server is struggling with the HN traffic. i can't get the root to load.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's working now. Try it. We'll immediately upgrade if needed.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> clickable: <http://dddone.com>

<comment><USER11> Having a bit of trouble loading it in Chrome - is the site down?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, a problem with the linode, rebooted and working now. Weird, we don't even have the traffic.</comment></comment></comment>


Real and Stealthy Attacks on State-Of-the-Art Face Recognition [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sbhagava/papers/face-rec-ccs16.pdf <comment><USER2> The fact humans can easily see through the disguise means there are huge glaring faults in the recognition algorithm. These types of attacks will probably be wiped away one day with a single breakthrough.

You can't fool a human by covering up a small percentage of something with noise. Humans can recognize parts of a face pretty well, classifying smaller parts of an image separately may help defend against this (and also be able to detect composite images, for example where eyes and mouth of different people are combined).

Also humans instantly detect that those glasses are noise, there probably needs to be a filter that removes obvious noise before the face recognition begins.

<comment><USER3> On the flip side, I wonder how much of face recognition failures by humans would be considered "huge glaring faults" to machines?

For a famous example, take the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcher_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcher_effect) (where a face will look normal upside down even if you individually flip the eyes and mouth). Or the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_image](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_image) (where you see two different images depending on how far you are standing). I bet machines can or eventually handle those cases better than us.

Is trying to emulate our own recognition system the best possible approach? It might end up inheriting all our edge cases as well.

(For another example relevant to halloween, with a bit of face paint you can fool any human: [http://gfycat.com/DeliriousEdibleAustraliansilkyterrier](http://gfycat.com/DeliriousEdibleAustraliansilkyterrier). But you can totally imagine a sufficiently advanced algorithm that is capable of ignoring color information and reconstruct a 3d surface for comparison instead.)

<comment><USER4> Regarding Thatcher effect, one of the Hinton lectures from [https://www.coursera.org/learn/neural- networks](https://www.coursera.org/learn/neural-networks) talks about difficulties in recognition of reflected/upside down objects. I can't easily look it up, so here is my paraphrasing:

Humans exhibit a comparable delay when recognizing and reasoning normal and reflected objects. He then gives a few examples such as answering "is this a left or a right foot shoe" and suggests that brains do rotational transformations as part of the object recognition. The machine solution is probably similar to a human solution - do a bunch of transformations and pick highest confidence one.

The interesting part that is humans can answer "this is a shoe" question immediately, but take longer to reason about reflected images.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> When we were doing face recognition on Kinect, I'd pass by the Q/A areas and _eventually_ got used to seeing Richard Nixon, Mao Tse-tung, Marilyn Monroe and others dancing around, exercising the Kinect software stack. The masks were pretty startling at first.

I think that the next version of the camera did analysis in IR to try to detect masks, I don't know how effective it was.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm curious, since the facial recognition algorithms they are testing are created with ML, would adding the instances of someone wearing these glasses to the training set result in a version that wouldn't be fooled? Or is the method something the ML algorithms are inherently weak against? Is this an exploit that could be patched, in other words?

<comment><USER7> Adding some instances of these glasses to the training set would probably fix the model for these glasses, but then it might break for lipstick, hats, scarves, other glasses, or what-not.

The most interesting thing to me about this is that the models could be so badly fooled while obscuring such a small amount of the face. It shows the limits of solving problems by training zillion-parameter models to categorize zillion-dimensional data points: they won't necessarily be doing what you think they are, and may go completely off the rails when presented with data not close enough to their training sets.

<comment><USER8> > ... so badly fooled while obscuring such a small amount of the face ... may > go completely off the rails when presented with data not close enough to > their training sets.

Older research has looked at this, in the context of neural networks in self- driving cars. The nets take the easy way out: use just the most significant features (like road markers) to solve the problem. However, training sets may not contain roads where snow or fog is obscuring these significant features, which makes the nets fail, because they haven't learned to rely on other features too. In contrast, human vision is remarkably robust.

[http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1176&c...](http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1176&context=compsci) [pdf] "FeatureBoost: A Meta Learning Algorithm that Improves Model Robustness"

<comment><USER7> Thank you! My knowledge of how these things work is somewhat general and out- of-date. I think I remember reading about FeatureBoost back in the day, and will try to refresh my memory of how it compares to max-margin methods.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> tl;dr Using spectacle frames with the other persons image "perturbed" onto that frame, facial recognition algorithms can be fooled into thinking your face is someone else's.

(There is a weirder ability to hide a human face using similar approach.)

This is surprisingly cool - the fact that the algorithm can be fooled is not amazing, but that they could _find_ a fairly practical attack is quite impressive.

And at least now a computer can think I look like George Clooney, even if it won't work in a singles bar.

</comment><comment><USER10> Saw this last night, and being that I work on the application side of facial recognition, I sent the paper and this discussion here to our neural R&D lab (on the other side of the planet, where it was morning for them.) The chief scientist read the paper with interest, ran their images through our system and found none of them worked as the paper claimed. I suspect the technique described had been suspected by some security industry technologists and measures put in place to combat these types of attacks. I suspect those that foresaw these developments have had their suspicions confirmed.

<comment><USER11> The paper presents different techniques, the first one is as they say in the thread model a "white-box scenario: the attacker knows the internals (architecture and parameters) of the system being attacked". It means the images or glasses are crafted for a particular instance of an algorithm using its internal data. In their black-box scenario they "have no access to the internals of the training process and the model used", they do say that "dodging attacks with randomly colored glasses and found that it worked immediately for several images" using the previously generated model, but they did use "Particle Swarm Optimization" to modify their impersonation attack based on the result of the black-box recognition. It means you can't take their images and expect to work on your model, because mostly what they claim is specially crafted image can impersonate white or black box model using features or trial and errors.

<comment><USER10> Yes, I gathered that from the paper. In discussion with our lead scientist, he felt it was interesting and started discussing another recent paper using genetic algorithms to reverse any black box service, and how current research focuses on on that type of attack. It looks like the larger security industry is at least one step in front of this type of research.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The real way to fool facial recognition via anything below UV light is with these bad boys:

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=770nI13-MJs](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=770nI13-MJs)

Takes care of the liveness test also. However, we still have a long way to go, to overcome uncanny valley.

<comment><USER12> The real question is, how would you fool wifi silhouette technology

[https://gizmodo.com/wifi-networks-can-now-identify-who- you-a...](https://gizmodo.com/wifi-networks-can-now-identify-who-you-are- through-wall-1738998333)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> In the real world, these attacks are fairly trivial to work around - you use an ensemble of independent architectures (say ResNet/Inception/VGG) and train them independently on the faces.

(Also, it's well known that if you include the perturbation in the training the networks won't be fooled by them.)

<comment><USER8> Ensembles are also vulnerable to adversarial images.

From one of the canonical papers on adversarial images:

> In addition, the specific nature of these perturbations is not a random > artifact of learning: the same perturbation can cause a different network, > that was trained on a different subset of the dataset, to misclassify the > same input.

> ... suggest that adversarial examples are somewhat universal and not just > the results of overfitting to a particular model or to the specific > selection of the training set

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6199](https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6199)

More recent research shows that one can make adversarial images which fool ensembles. Once you have these images there is a very high chance it will also fool any individual architecture you pass it on to next.

[https://twitter.com/goodfellow_ian/status/790330213963923456](https://twitter.com/goodfellow_ian/status/790330213963923456)

These attacks show the inherent flaws of ML models (not just convnets, as per [http://karpathy.github.io/2015/03/30/breaking- convnets/](http://karpathy.github.io/2015/03/30/breaking-convnets/) ), and as far as I know, they are not trivial to work around. Research on adversarial images is still very active, in part because the military would like to rely on deep learning, and does not like to mistake a tank for a puppy (and vice versa).

<comment><USER13> [https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6572](https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6572) is a Goodfellow et. al. (ie, the person who's Tweet you note above) paper where they show adversarial examples do apply across architectures (as you state above), but they show that using the adversarial examples during training has a regularization effect and improves performance:

[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.05432v3.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.05432v3.pdf) takes a similar approach:

 _We show that adversarial training of ANNs is in fact robustification of the network optimization, and that our proposed framework generalizes previous approaches for increasing local stability of ANNs. Experimental results reveal that our approach increases the robustness of the network to existing adversarial examples, while making it harder to generate new ones. Furthermore, our algorithm improves the accuracy of the network also on the original test data._

I agree this is an area of active research, but not that it is an inherent flaw.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> historical context: [https://cvdazzle.com/](https://cvdazzle.com/)

</comment><comment><USER15> Very cool ... we should all get eyeglass frames made to trick the system into thinking we're Guy Fawkes.

</comment><comment><USER16> Nice! Eye wear fashion will be changing in 3.. 2.. 1..

I have always been more interested in defeating just the whole tagging where cameras have seen you thing without makeup or tattoos and this is great for that, but if I can leave behind a false trail pointing at someone else? Wow that is even better.

</comment><comment><USER17> And thus a new cat and mouse game begins.

</comment><comment><USER18>
      ...Colin Powell, a 79-year-old white male;

<comment> some-guy Well he does have more Irish ancestry than African :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> iris scanners minority report style ya dig

</comment><comment><USER20> This is incredible, the pattern looks great and I'm really impressed with how well it dodges!</comment>


Changing your password regularly is a terrible idea - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/article/changing-your-password-regularly-is-a-terrible-idea-and-heres-why/ <comment><USER2> Also here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11519996](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11519996)

Same story, different source.</comment>


Change Portland's startup funding scene for the better - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@randyfernando/oh-portland-74bfbcf68541#.to560wgbl <comment><USER2> Portland is an amazing place, but it's its own achilles heel for evolving. I think that's why outside funds are taking a closer look at the environment and setting up shop here.

<comment><USER3> Completely agree. The funding scene in Portland and Oregon as a whole is joke. Just look at the funding announcements from companies in Portland lately and list out which ones are from Portland or Oregon. That list would be empty. It needs to change if Oregon and Portland want to continue to foster innovation.

<comment><USER4> I don't think a set that includes Notion or Senrio constitutes an empty set.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> All right on the mark and thanks to the author for saying this! I think a big part of this issue is that there are way more great teams/ideas/new businesses than there are investors in PDX with money... so it's an investors market. They have all the power here and they know it and act on that. Companies seeking funding outside Portland upset this balance and that's good for other founders/companies. Bravo!</comment>


Doctor tells patient he doesn't have long to live through video screen - <AUTHOR> http://www.ktvu.com/news/doctor-tells-patient-he-doesn-t-have-long-to-live-through-hospital-robot-s-video-screen <comment><USER2> For anybody who is confused about why this is an issue:

There's a right way and a wrong way to talk to someone about their death. The right way involves making eye contact, making sure that they can hear you, and if they are comfortable with it, holding their hand.

The wrong way involves doing none of those things, because you are talking to them via a shitty Skype connection on wheels.

Technology has a huge role to play in healthcare. It's invaluable in diagnosis and treatment. In the long run it'll probably put a lot of people who do those kind of things out of work. But it should _not_ be used to replace the empathic, emotional aspects of healthcare. If anything, the labour efficiencies generated by technology ought to _increase_ the resources put into empathy -- not be used to eliminate it.

<comment><USER3> Why is eye contact and holding hand the right way? For instance I would prefer an email.

Honesty is better than empathy as a job.

<comment><USER4> Ah, the classic "why is this email a meeting"?

Subject: You're dying. Message: 2-3 weeks. Cancer. Please see attached invoice.

<comment><USER5> Literature is more complex than that supposedly comic sketch. People is expressing all kind of really complex feelings since a lot of time with written language so that wouldn't need to be a problem. Is not a fair comparison.

Some people would prefer a theater of acting sad, holding your hand and pretending to be an old friend in a strange environment, other would prefer to receive the hit at their home and cry in private. Each people is different.

<comment><USER4> As the physician doesn't get to know the ins and outs (emotionally, not physically) of a person, they have to adopt the approach that they hope helps the most people.

<comment><USER6> There is great irony in your comment, given the topic. You are literally advocating for an approach based on not actually knowing the patient and going off of generalities. You aren't wrong, but it is...weird.

<comment><USER4> I think it's realistic - the physician doesn't know you as a person. They care about you as another human being but not on a personal level, and don't have the time or the emotional energy to get to know you. Really, I'm just advocating for a return to the conventional approach which the article is saying they should have followed. I'd say the "wheel a box into a room to tell people that someone is dead" approach is a bad one.

<comment><USER6> I get it - but I still believe that mimicry of concern is less desirable than actually HAVING concern. I'd much rather get bad news from someone remote that has concern than from someone in-person that doesn't. And I certainly wouldn't want to have to wait for an in-person meeting with a diagnosis hanging over my head if I can find out sooner.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you have 40 minutes, 99% Invisible did an episode last year on some of the history of how doctors deliver news like this.

[https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/breaking-bad- news/](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/breaking-bad-news/)

 _> That's why many medical schools now offer training for students on how to break bad news, bringing in actors to help them learn how to navigate this critically important and very high-stakes moment. And that's not the only connection between acting and this particular facet of medicine._

 _> It turns out that one of the first doctors to recognize the challenges of this particular kind of doctor-patient communication wasn't just a physician — he was also a comedian. And he drew on that experience to transform the way that doctors break bad news._

 _> His name was Dr. Rob Buckman, and his very unusual life experiences prepared him to tackle what might be the hardest part of a very hard job. Radio reporter and part-time medical school videographer John Fecile went back to trace the strange journey of this comedic doctor, and discovered unexpected connections along the way._

I don't think "through a video screen with poor audio quality" came up, but I'm guessing Buckman wouldn't have recommended it.

<comment><USER8> This podcast is a treasure!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was training as a paramedic in a hospital. A doctor needed to give this kind of news to a family. He took me aside and told me to come in the room 3 minutes after he went in and say that he was needed elsewhere. Apparently this was used quite often and the staff there called it a "save". Dealing with this sort of thing day after day the staff becomes numb to a lot of things.

Later in the week I was with someone who knew she was gonna die soon. I was talking to her and was trying to be with her. It was very difficult and I could feel part of myself slipping elsewhere. I was messed up the rest of the day. My preceptor had come into the room and left quickly, he didn't want to go there.

Anyway it does go both ways. Hospital staff need to do things to protect themselves so they can keep functioning. Ideally someone needs to be empathetic but they are also human. I don't feel delivering this sort of news via a video screen is appropriate though.

<comment><USER10> Every now and then there's a scandal where doctors are caught saying mean shit about a patient, behind closed doors or during surgery. (As if surgical awareness wasn't horrible enough.) There's always a lot of talk about whether such heartless people can be trusted to do their best and not cut corners.

Something I heard years ago, and have never heard mentioned since, is that doctors are _trained_ to do that, to talk shit about their patients in private, to give them emotional distance. If they let themselves care deeply about every suffering, dying person, they'd crack under the stress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think this article deserves visibility on HN because it's such a vivid example of technology without ethics. The technology is incredible. It can reduce costs and improve access to specialists. These tools should be a part of our medical system.

But this man and his family are flesh and blood people. And the doctor too. They have feelings. They have mental health and spiritual health needs. In the rush to deploy the technology, the human dimension was ignored.

So this might have been just another fleck of clickbait if it weren't for the fact that it's another example of a deep problem we technologists have. When we create the tool, we are also responsible for its ethical use and the impact, positive or negative, it has on the world. Don't dissociate from the impact of your work. Own it.

</comment><comment><USER12> Maybe it's just me, but I'd vastly prefer to be alone, in privacy when I get the news, thanks so much. Text, mail, even a skybanner pulled by a small plane would suit me more than someone seeming to stare me down while telling me I'm dead.

Not to mention that I have no wish to put another human being through the tough experience of breaking the news. Why would I want to cause them distress? It's gonna be a bad enough day as it is.

It might be a favor to both doctors and patients to have patients register their preferences in this event in advance; as we register our preferences re organ donation in many jurisdictions; or perhaps better allow people to register a preference.

<comment><USER13> Mhm, here, when you take part in an experiment than involves an MRI (especially of the head), there is a checkbox on the form that asks whether you want to informed about any funny things in the images at all just in case.

<comment><USER12> Interesting, but then the question remains, just how you want that message delivered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As it is a Doctor's time is scarce, which is why systems like this exist in the first place I imagine. One wonders if expecting them to be comforting when delivering bad news, or taking the time to explain things properly to a patient, is realistic. After all, even though this is one of the most important events in the patient's life, to the doctor it's tuesday.

I sometimes wonder if the patient demand for "bedside manner" has led to having doctors with less actual medical skill. I mean, I wouldn't choose my mechanic based on how comforting they could be. I wouldn't even choose my veterinarian on that criteria. One could argue that doctors are all roughly equal in diagnosis and prescription I suppose, making bedside manner the only real differentiation, but my personal experience is that that isn't true.

Maybe a different person should be handling the role of interacting with the patient in these ways, Someone who can take the time to do it properly? I don't know. I just think it is worth reconsidering how this works in today's world.

<comment><USER15> I'd say a mechanic's manner is almost off topic... anything mechanical ranks far far below life and death notifications. But I do get why you included them in the comparison.

I would want my vet (and so far HAVE had my vets) be even more compassionate than my own doctor. I know enough to talk at least basic jargon with my PCP and specialists as needed.

None of my animals has been able to communicate about their trouble, and have relied on that extra bit of comfort and care when they are terminal, or even just very ill.

Again, personal preference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm reminded of the NYT piece _How to Tell a Mother Her Child Is Dead_ by Naomi Rosenberg, an ER doctor in Philadelphia. Highly recommend reading it for insight into the relationship between doctors, death, and patients.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/opinion/sunday/how-to- tel...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/opinion/sunday/how-to-tell-a- mother-her-child-is-dead.html)

<comment><USER17> That is, indeed, a beautiful piece of writing, but this bit here got me to thinking:

> You are here for her. She is his mother.

Does it really make sense that the person whose job is operating on physical trauma victims is _also_ the person who deals with emotional trauma victims? Seems to me that those are two entirely different skill sets, and even mindsets.

On a human level, yes I'd want to hear the news from the surgeon who operated on my loved one. But on a practical level, I think I'd rather my loved one be operated on by the surgical equivalent of House than by someone less talented at surgery but with a greater capacity for empathy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> For some of these tele-specialists their main specialty is that they live in another country and are willing to work for a small fraction of what an on site doctor charges.

For some time, many xrays have had their initial reading done by a radiologist overseas. Tele-doctors bedside via a robot screen is just a continuation of this.

It's a pity the journalist didn't follow up by asking Kaiser where the specialist was physically located.

<comment><USER19> The article includes the full statement from KP's PR department. No where do they try to claim that the specialist's physical location, or other logistical consideration, was the reason for the use of telemedicine.

Furthermore, the family themselves said they didn't realize what was going on until afterwards. Which strongly suggests the doctor, for whatever reason, decided at no point to tell them, "I'm a specialist at Kaiser's radiological department in Boston...", if that were actually the case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I worked at Kaiser IT, and there are definitely some well intentioned IT folk there trying to make revolutionary changes to healthcare. However, the company's internal infrastructure (inventory, expenses etc) is a giant cluster running on deprecated versions of XYZ. At one point we heard the metric that almost half of the inventory they have in hospitals was just lost in the system so they have no idea where it could be. Gets off the truck, scanned in, the inventory system craps out and it's lost forever. I don't know if that was accurate or just the remarks of a crusty manager, but I left after a short time because they definitely made me believe it.

<comment><USER21> Most hospitals are running on woefully outdated and/or inadequate technology. I've had a few different friends in healthcare IT and every story has been a nightmare. I'm not sure why it's this way.

<comment><USER22> In hospitals, most back end IT improvements don't directly drive revenue or care quality. So funding tends to be diverted to other things like new surgery centers, higher resolution MRI machines, nicer patient rooms, free care for the indigent, etc.

<comment><USER20> This. Backend IT was most definitely a cost center and even more so one that was very poorly run and incentivized to not change. They have a pension program there and there are soo many people who made it and are pensioned that the only incentive they have is to ensure things do not change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I had thought maybe this was needed because of the patient being treated remotely, but the article says it was at the ICU and the family was told "the doctor was going to make rounds". Was this particular doctor actually at the facility?He didn't look he was dressed to work at the ICU that day.

<comment><USER23> I haven't had a chance to talk to him about this, but an acquaintance of mine is an ER doctor for Kaiser and he showed me training material for this system at home last year he was required to learn, he groaned when he talked about. Not sure if he could use it from home. Possibly Kaiser is trying to cover more hospitals with less doctors.

<comment><USER24> Kaiser bought my healthcare co-op a couple years ago. They promised that prices wouldn't increase, and that they could provide better service for everyone under a unified system. Each year since then, my personal premiums (on the cheapest plan they offer) have gone up by 20%, with no improvement in service, and with no cheaper options added.

I don't know how low-income people are supposed to be able to afford this. I've never even used my plan, except for flu shots and dental checkups, but I'm involved in dangerous work and play so I can't exactly cancel.

I assume Kaiser today is just a generic big company run by bean-counters. This doesn't surprise me in the least.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It didn't matter who gave them the news, that's a helluva impact. A doctor could be in the room and give the same message in a cold manner as many do each day and the family would have felt the same. The blame on reading the screen is more technophobic and sensationalized.

<comment><USER26> Is "technophobic" really a bad word now? If so, I'm an outright technophobe. If you're going to break hard news to anyone (whether it be a breakup, telling someone their loved one has died, or telling someone they are dying) you might as well give them the benefit of being there in person. You can hug a person, you can't hug a screen.

<comment><USER27> People are in general have a very bad handle on fundamental parts of life, like death. (And personal finances, metacognition and so on.) And sure, doctors can play the emergency psychologist while delivering the news, but people don't just go to the hospital and get a random death sentence. They knew there was a very significant chance that the news will be bad. Yes, when the uncertainty evaporates together with the favorable outcome, that's fucking harsh, and there's a process for dealing with that (the good old Kübler-Ross stages come to mind). People should be better prepared for these eventualities. (And I'm not saying it's easy, and people must be perfect stoics, but these theatrics we assign to conveying a few bits of information coupled with the human touch is just a psychology theater.)

<comment><USER28> "these theatrics we assign to conveying a few bits of information..."

Really? You really are of the opinion that news about death is just "a few bits of information?" And you are capable of describing the ways humans attempt to be empathic with each other as "these theatrics?"

I'm not sure I want to live in this world. :(

<comment><USER27> Yes. You already have an expected lifespan. Getting sick, makes you reevaluate that, and getting a concrete diagnosis with an expert opinion should not be a big change.

Of course, we can do the be positive, be optimistic, you can fight it, you can do it mantra, and then watch as their heart breaks when they get the diagnosis. Empathy shouldn't mean helping people to delay facing the hard problems and truths.

This is the same world that largely considers suicide a crime, and denies a dignified and conscious end of life to a lot of suffering people. I watched as a family member went through the stages of physiological and mental decline, dementia, muscle atrophy, and eventually even breathing was a full time job, and it became too much. And it was a relatively painless end. (And there were others with different, faster ends. Recently one with cancer.) And taking it for what it is seemed the healthier mindset and approach.

Accepting the inevitable led to those last days and months better spent. And preparing for it is just as important.

We already drag doctors into enough futile quarrels of our own. At least that's my opinion.

<comment><USER28> Sorry for the long delay, I just saw your reply. I agree with you more than I disagree. That is -- facing truths is important. Suicide should not be a crime. A dignified death is often about knowing when to go, and that choice is the final sentence of the long book that is a life.

I don't want to drag doctors into "futile quarrels." I just think that the occasion of death is special, and deserves to be communicated face to face, not with robots (oh sorry, with iRobots).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm not sure what definition of appropriate Kaiser is using when they describe it as being appropriate to tell a 79 year old that he is dying via a robot

<comment><USER30> Assuming no other doctors were available (hence the robot) the alternative would be to not the patient. Which is worse?

<comment><USER31> If it was me: The doctors tells _literally_ ANY OTHER human there first, and THAT human tells me. Robodoc can be in the room, I don't care, but robodoc does not tell me I am about to die, I would be livid.

<comment><USER32> I wouldnt really mind either way. Why do you need the doctor to be there? How would that change anything? You're still going to die, why waste the doctors time by forcing them to drive over and deliver the news personally?

<comment><USER33> Maybe you haven't been in a position where you're days away from death, but most people would probably want to have that devastating news delivered to them by a real person who is present with them.

It's not a rational thing. Of course it changes nothing, apart from the fact they might feel better having the doctor there instead of receiving it through a crappy matte screen with tinny speakers. If you still can't understand that, perhaps you can't empathize with most people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I remember the day the doctors told us my daughter wasn't going to live. My wife didn't even want to be in the room, she knew what was coming. It was something we were prepared for so frankly it doesn't matter if it would have come through a video conference. So long as the doctors are respectful I'm not sure what someone expects. Death is coming. It's horrible news. We talk about so much through glass these days anyway I feel like this won't be a concern for long. Death is coming. There's no good way to spin this or make it go away. Just, prepare.

</comment><comment><USER35> I would prefer this over getting the news even a day later.

</comment><comment><USER36> >> _" Devastated. I was going to lose my grandfather. We knew that this was coming and that he was very sick. But I don't think somebody should get the news delivered that way. It should have been a human being come in," Wilharm said._

Well, when you are ready to clock out at a certain age, people should celebrate the life you lived and make peace with the fact that this is part of life. Now a 15 year old boy /girl is very different for obvious reasons.

If his life was measured in minutes ("might not make it home") maybe they had no other choice by Skype? Maybe another doctor at the hospital but he isn't his doctor

</comment><comment><USER37> I have a relative who recently passed away after a short battle with cancer. In the weeks and months following her surprising diagnosis, she didn't want to know the details of her prognosis, which I've come to respect and understand. While her physicians also understood and respected that, during an emergency room visit due to her cancer, she was quite coldly and clinically told what her prognosis was. I've come to recognize how important proper communication - communication that respects the parties most deeply affected - really is.

</comment><comment><USER38> I've and some family members have been going to that particular hospital. Generally had good experience especially if getting admitted. Most of the nurses are so compassionate. However its been getting more and more busy. These days their entire parking lot is filled during daytime. I sometimes have to drive around for 10-15 minutes to find a spot. Its quite the change from even 2 years ago.

</comment><comment><USER39> > "We offer our sincere condolences," said Kaiser Permanente Senior Vice- > President Michelle Gaskill-Hames in a written statement, "We use video > technology as an appropriate enhancement to the care team, and a way to > bring additional consultative expertise to the bedside."

You keep using that word, "appropriate". I do not think it means what you think it means.

</comment><comment><USER40> there are plenty of terrible doctor's out there... Why should we expect doctor's to be any better than the avg population? Same goes for other jobs that we put on a pedestal, like police etc..

should a personality qualifier be required for certain jobs?

<comment><USER41> Lots of jobs have personality qualifiers. If you work in a service industry, in a position that involves customer/client interaction, you're going to need some reasonable amount of social skills. The more esteemed your position is, the more your social skill level will matter.

<comment><USER14> Sure, but I guess the question is, is that a doctor's value? Being good at interacting with people? Is that really the primary thing we want from them?

<comment><USER28> What, is healing pure mechanics now? Like, the doctor is a programmer in a room far away and that's a good doctor?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> @turtlegrids - genuinely curious about the secret behind multiple submissions from a new account making it to the top 60, and racking up ~500 karma points in 10 days.

</comment><comment><USER43> Like this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9PyR71Aefk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9PyR71Aefk)

</comment><comment><USER44> Was the doctor local? If he was an outside consultant, specialized in the disease, he may have been the most appropriate to break the news.

Really poor idea, though.

</comment><comment><USER45> I worked for a few years at a company whose exclusive product line was office- oriented telepresence robots, so I probably have a different perspective than most people here. The model in the article is from a company that was medical- oriented. Sort of a competitor to us, but they got the robot certified as a medical device and sold it at a medical-grade price point whereas we did not go for certification and sold it at an enterprise price point to more office- oriented customers.

We had a store in downtown Palo Alto that was a novelty for people visiting. A lot of people were weirded out by the robots at first. Usually they understood a lot better once they drove one around and could understand what they "saw".

Most of our customers were regular remote workers and they loved them because they felt like people respected them more than just being a disembodied voice on a speakerphone. Interactions were much more natural and you could use body language to a certain extent. We had several remote workers ourselves and I felt like I could communicate almost as well as if they were there, and found myself giving the robots 'personal space' like I would a person.

So I personally wouldn't be offended as long as I felt like the doctor was doing everything they could. In fact I'd much rather deal directly with the doctor so I could pick up on if they had misunderstood something about the case history, rather than to play a game of telephone with a human proxy instead and potentially be left wondering what exactly the doctor had said.

So I don't know why the doctor wasn't there that day, but I do understand that he has his own life and other patients to get to. If he's sick, or his kids were sick, or something else came up, I understand that just because he's a doctor who makes life or death decisions doesn't free him from the responsibility of the rest of his life. He may be dealing with a dozen other delicate cases that can't easily be handed off, and it just so happens that mine is the one he can't solve. Pulling another doctor in means that doctor is interrupting that other doctor. He does the triage and sends the nurse in with the robot instead.

I suspect Kaiser will revise their policy based on the publicity this has gotten. But while it might show more _empathy_ to have someone else deliver the news in-person, I'm not convinced that it will overall result in better patient _outcomes_.

(I'm also assuming that since it was Fremont, CA, it's not like the robot was the only way to have a relevant specialist there. If it was a second- or third-world country, by all means send in the robot with a pulmonary oncologist to tell me there's no hope rather than having a GP try to make the call).

</comment><comment><USER46> 1st world problem

I used to live in Romania where hospitals are full of deadly bacteria, doctors are corrupt, nurses are corrupt. There's a shortage of equipment, vaccines, cancer treatment, important medicine, you name it. There is no place in the country to treat a seriously burned man, they all die. Obviously, lifespan here is shorter than in the US by about 4-5 years.

<comment><USER47> > 1st world problem

I suspect it isn't.

You didn't tell us how human are all those corrupt nurses and doctors? Maybe they offer first-rate compassion and spiritual support, once they pocketed their bribe?

People die everywhere, and even in poor countries people not always die because of shortages of equipment and treatments... hope in Romania terminal patients are accompanied to death with all due compassion -- this has no material costs that only 1st world can afford.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The ridiculousness of the society we are building is moving from sad joke to an utter tragedy.

<comment><USER48> Maybe so, but can you please not post unsubstantive comments here? It just makes this place a bit worse each time.

<comment><USER31> Noted. Sorry Dang.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> The headline confused me. I thought it was a doctor telling his patients that he's dying?

<comment><USER50> Yeah it is ambiguous. As Vince McMahon would say "Pronouns, pal"</comment></comment>


Basic Option Strategies, Part 2 - Options Pricing - <AUTHOR> https://www.datanitro.com/blog/2012/11/19/Options2/ <comment><USER2> I really like that you guys are doing this.

Former options guy myself and was thinking about doing some similar writeups on options pricing.

i like the graphs of you drew of the strips with different times to expiraiton. One thing that is generally counterintuitive for people is how there is translation of the graph on the x axis over time (theta and carry rates).

also generally, I think introducing black scholes is good, but doesn't really "stick" for most people for a while. it takes a while to develop an intuition about the components of "C = SN(d1) - KN(d2)" means.

I think teaching these intuitions would really sit well for the HN crowd. Also explaining option pricing as the value of the cash flows of the hedge portfolio with constant or regular hedging (like physics, start with assumptions like GBM, zero transaction cost, no bid-ask spread -- then if you ever feel like it later, address how hedge strategies can dramatically change option pricing). Natenberg does a simplied version of this.

Also, Cox Ross Rubenstein is a great way to teach euro AND american options -- just change the rules at each node to get different rules and you can demonstate convergence to Black Scholes with the right parameters.

<comment><USER3> Do you think there is a market for teaching this? I've taught a couple of courses on this stuff "professionally" and have been debating for a while if I should create some nice online course on the topic.

<comment><USER2> I suspect there is some interest, but I don't know is the market is big enough to justify creating the materials solely for profit.

As other comments have noted, there are already exhaustive guides on the subject and they are very good. I think the key would be to have a very different approach to it specifically, teach intuitions, not technical details.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Imagine a drunk man walking down a dark, rainy road one night after his car breaks down. He gets out, and begins a "random" walk along the road, looking for help. Neither you (the trader), nor he (the stock), can see anything - it's raining, and it's dark. The man stumbles along the road and your job is to predict his future path, and in return, you get paid money.

A lot of money.

Here's the problem: the guy is both drunk and blind (and probably just a little stupid) - he can't see anything and hence his movements are erratic. How in the hell can you predict where this idiot is going to end up? You have bills to pay, derivatives to price and insurance to sell. So you latch onto the closest thing that'll work - volatility (anchoring bias).

You use his volatility and assume that, dependant upon his past movements, and in turn his apparent level of drunkenness, you can, more or less, predict the possible range of his future random walk. This is a very useful model for predicting where he will be within the next 30 seconds. It works very well, and you make a lot of money.

It feels good.

Now you become confident. You start projecting it out just that little bit further, putting on more precise predictions with tighter spreads, and levering up your bets - because, of course, everyone else is competing with you and driving down your alpha. You have now mistaken past movement for the actual risk of movement - they are not the same thing.

Unfortunately for you, of course, the man has broken down on the edge of a steep cliff. He continues his random walk, blissfully unaware of his impending doom. You continue your bets on his volatility. I mean, why wouldn't you? You're king of the fucking world after all - in fact, not only are you rich, but you also have a Nobel Prize in Economics from a Swedish Bank!

Oops - too late. Your man has just fallen off the cliff, and you, and your savings, along with him. You yell inefficient markets, beta sucks balls, VAR is a trap, the CAPM is a lie and modern portfolio theory is fucking stupid. The last thing we hear, before that final, brutal, resounding thud is the faint line: "It was all a fucking lie."

You have just met real risk. It has not been a pleasant experience. Welcome to the real world.

<comment><USER5> This doesn't really make sense, or have much to do with options trading, pricing, or theory. Kind of a cool narrative, though.

<comment><USER4> I disagree with your first two points.

It has everything to do with it. It also makes sense.

<comment><USER5> Professional options traders prey on ineffiecent markets, never curse them. Beta and CAPM literally have nothing to do with options trading, pricing, or theory. VAR, like all models, is a trap. Options traders would know this; they are ingrained with a deep distrust of models since they forced to use them all day every day and understand their appropriate uses and limitations. It would be unreasonable to expect any serious options trader to blame her model or worse, "all of it", for failure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Suggestion: In practice, for stock-options, volatility is strike-dependent ie implied volatility has a skew (lower strikes have higher implied volatility - the leverage effect). Also, the volatility is dependent on time to expiry of the option.

Also, as I've mentioned in the HN thread for your previous article, single- name stock options which are exchange-traded have an American exercise type. The valuation of these cannot be done using Black-Scholes if they are (a) long-dated (ie time to expiry is quite long) or (b) they are deeply in the money/out of money or (c) have an underlying which has a significant dividend yield (in which case you'd want to own the stock rather than the option).

Puts behave different than calls if the exercise-style is American (puts have a limited upside - so you wouldn't wait too long if the underlying stock has fallen far enough - your payoff is not likely to be larger).

You may want to discuss this and option greeks the next time.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're getting there - implied volatility and greeks will be in the next post.

Thanks for the suggestions!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The bible on this subject, fyi:

[http://www.amazon.com/Options-Futures-Other-Derivatives- Edit...](http://www.amazon.com/Options-Futures-Other-Derivatives- Edition/dp/0131499084/ref=pd_vtp_b_3)

<comment><USER8> Options Volatility by Natenberg is much better:

[http://www.amazon.com/Option-Volatility-Pricing- Strategies-T...](http://www.amazon.com/Option-Volatility-Pricing-Strategies- Techniques/dp/155738486X)

<comment><USER5> This one is the best:

[http://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Hedging-Managing-Vanilla- Optio...](http://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Hedging-Managing-Vanilla- Options/dp/0471152803)

The first thirty or so pages offer the most intuitive introduction to vanillas I've read. The middle is must read, and the end gets into exotics if that's your fancy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The math looks off on the 50% vol 30 day option. No way a $50-strike option on a stock at $25 would be pricing at $20. Unless you mean 50% non-annualized vol, which would not be very conventional.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, the numbers were off. They're fixed now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I really like this series of posts--it's a great introduction to options.

The little aside in one of the notes made me curious: what _is_ the logic behind trading options on their expiry date? I can't think of any obvious reason to do that, but I'm not terribly experienced with finance. That's why I'm curious about it, I suppose.

<comment><USER2> good q, tikhonj.

a lot of people DON'T trade options on their expiration day. Even marketmakers, whose job is to provide liquidity in the name often shy away from it or demand high premia.

historically, retail investors sometimes closed out their positions on expiration day instead of exercising. this might sound weird, but some people have weird portfolio restrictions so its occasionally sensible.

also, for some equities, there are big events that happen to coincide with expirations. If you have an opinion on a big event (lets say AAPL options are expiring and you think there's going to be a huge announcement), it lets you buy expiring options for virtually no volatility premium.

also: people like gambling. buying cheapie out-of-the-money options is kind of like buying a lottery ticket. I've seen them hit (saw a guy take home a 5million dollar win one wednesday morning for a $6k lottery ticket he bought on the close on tuesday)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think the author of the article hasn't really grasped the concept of option pricing. You are not calculating an 'expected value'.

The whole point of the theory is there is a correspondence between a 'no- arbitrage argument' and calculating an expectation under the 'risk-free' measure. The mathematical operation of expectation E is only a tool. This link between no-arbitrage and martingale theory is called the 'Fundamental Theorem of Asset Pricing'.

There is a nice (basic) explanation of this idea in the book by Baxter and Rennie "Financial Calculus" where they compare the 'expected value' approach of a bookmaker and the 'no-arbitrage' approach.

For a more advanced explanation, you can have a look at the book by Delbaen and Schachermayer (2006).

<comment><AUTHOR> Of course you're calculating an expected value. If the expected value of an option isn't its price, what is it?

The no-arbitrage argument is another way of looking at it, but the two methods are equivalent. In particular, if the expected value of an option is higher than its price, you should buy the option - and if it's lower, you should sell it.

With just one transaction this would be statistical arbitrage rather than pure arbitrage, but if option prices regularly differed from the option's expected value, stat arb would be a fine strategy.

<comment><USER3> The key point you are glossing over is: under what probability measure?

You are calculating an expected value in the sense of 'mathematical operation E' under some measure not in the sense of 'I expect the price to be...'

I don't want to pick a fight or anything, your product datanitro looks nice and it's cool you are writing articles on the topic.

Where did you learn this stuff from?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry if my comment came across harshly, I didn't intend it to.

By expected value, I mean the price as you'd calculate it with a risk-neutral valuation based on some model of the underlying security.

For example, if you have a model that says an option is worth $4, and it's selling for $2, you should buy it if you're confident in your model. If you can do this repeatedly on a bunch of independent options you'll make money in the long run (assuming your model is correct and you're placing a large enough number of bets relative to the probability of making money on an individual option).

I learned this with a combination of practical experience, self-study, and coursework.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I feel like this could have been longer. Volatility is really the only way options make money, no matter what your position is. Is volatility going to be covered in later parts as well?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll talk about implied volatility in the next part. What parts do you think need more explanation?

<comment><USER11> I think a discussion of measuring and predicting volatility, and how volatility varies based on the class of asset would be useful. Someone who invests but doesn't know a lot about options probably doesn't have the respect for volatility that an options trader does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm going to get flamed for this, but promulgating Black-Scholes as the "standard way" to price options is a little misleading. A better choice of word would be "conventional", but that's also inexact because the BSM is broken, since BSM makes a lot of unrealistic assumptions for the model to work. The point is that there is no One True Pricing Model... the price is what the market thinks the value is. Too many people who should know better get it all mixed up, with disastrous effects.

<comment><USER13> It's not really flame-worthy because you're mostly right. I do however, think Black-Scholes is an appropriate starting point for options theory, even if it's not used a ton in practice. Without some sort of framework, you're effectively lost. I doubt many people could realistically develop any sort of options based strategy (besides simple leveraged long / short of the underlying) without a deep inside-and-out understanding of the BSE. The reason being not that you need to use it to calculate anything, but because it lays out a straightforward conceptual model of how various greeks interact with each other.

Of course, understanding the shortfalls of it are equally important. But the same could be said of DCF, P/E or any other valuation method.

<comment><USER3> Yes, Black-Scholes is a good benchmark model, i.e., something to compare other models to. For example, through the implied volatility surface.</comment></comment></comment>


OVH increases pricing with the rise of their next generation DDoS Protection - <AUTHOR> https://sinfulforums.net/t/ovh-increases-pricing-with-the-rise-of-their-next-generation-ddos-protection/90 <comment><USER2> OVH is one of the few hosting providers that used to offer DDoS protection for free to everyone - and a good one.

The issue is that it became a refugee for sites that could not stay online on other providers due to DDoS - so they were getting hit often.

The price change is not too bad considering how cheap they are. Still use and recommend them.

<comment><USER3> >The issue is that it became a refugee for sites that could not stay online on other providers due to DDoS - so they were getting hit often.

Eh...not really. OVH has and will just blackhole your IP(s) in BGP and terminate your service......But not before logging into your server with the OVH root key they install by default and seeing what you're up to of course (yay backdoored by default)

OVH has a lot going for them, but reasonableness and consistency in business are not one of them. They have no problems dumping larger BW clients even if they're following the FUP/TOS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> OVH already put up a mandatory DDOS protection in 2013, with about the same price (article about the feature states 0.5 to 10€ per server : [https://www.nextinpact.com/news/81703-ovh-protection-ddos- ca...](https://www.nextinpact.com/news/81703-ovh-protection-ddos-capable-d- encaisser-nimporte-quelle-attaque.htm)).

Before that, sites that were the target of a DDOS often were simply disabled and their subscriptions cancelled.

At the time the practice raised a lot of criticism, since that was presented as an "option" that you could not refuse to pay for, which seemed a bit forceful. Now they're being more honest, the need to protect from DDOS has a cost, especially considering that a DDOS makes a lot of collateral damage and it is needed to protect innocent bystanders. Everyone pays a little bit, and those who actually need protection don't have to pay anything more. Maybe they've taken some inspiration from the French socialized health system :)

<comment><USER5> Hetzner used to have a bad rep for simply disabling accounts of people getting DDoSd. The have recently claimed to have improved on this [https://www.hetzner.com/unternehmen/ddos- schutz](https://www.hetzner.com/unternehmen/ddos-schutz)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> That email was really bad, "New: Anti-DDOS Next Gen" is not a suitable subject line for what boils down to a 20% price bump in my case. They don't even state the new prices in the email, and the linked page ([https://www.kimsufi.com/en/servers.xml](https://www.kimsufi.com/en/servers.xml)) has a different product listing than when I ordered my server, and lists the same model number with different prices because the model number doesn't appear to specify the model anymore, there are different versions with different amounts of disk space. OVH handled the whole thing really terribly.

<comment><AUTHOR> And not just for kimsufi, also for the main brand. To figure out the price difference you have to consult a PDF which splits prices differently than the main page. They stated in the email that new orders will see the new price but that's definitely not the case. The blog article talks about increases in the range of 1-10€ while in reality, increases in public cloud are much higher (20-30%). Selling that as a DDOS investment is questionable, I guess they just miscalculated prices.

<comment><USER6> Well at least they're consistent in communicating it badly!

At least for the kimsufi line, you still get the old price if you renew in November. Guess who just renewed for another year ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Their blogspot where they talk more about the decision: [https://www.ovh.ie/a2536.anti-ddos-protection-why-ovh- must-k...](https://www.ovh.ie/a2536.anti-ddos-protection-why-ovh-must-keep- investing)

The increase in price is €1 to €10 ex. VAT/month. It's pretty reasonable given the anti-DDoS service they offer.

<comment><USER8> FS-48T appears to be going from $355/mo to $395.99/mo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hah, I received this email and read about half of the first paragraph before concluding it was a sales pitch to purchase something and deleting it. Talk about burying the lede.

That said, the servers are so inexpensive that it's pretty hard to argue with this "request".

</comment><comment><USER10> I'd like to see OVH take a stronger stance on actioning abuse requests for hosts serving malware before hearing about some paid protection offering. For those not fortunate enough to deal with OVH, if you report abuse, your information and report often find their way directly to those committing the malicious actions - the "customer". This results in the actor simply removing their content to appease OVH and then continuing business as usual. In the face of clear evidence, OVH will often cite privacy issues for why they can't or won't take action. At this point, anytime I see their infrastructure in an investigation, I know it's a waste of time.

<comment><USER11> I think this is one of the strongest pros for using OVH;

 _YOU_ get the abuse letters and as someone operating a internet service it is _YOUR_ responsibility, legal and otherwise, to deal with them.

This means if the abuse letters are ignored, the next step is the legal one instead of having OVH deal with it. It's business between you and the hoster, not between you and OVH.

<comment><USER10> Unfortunately, the legal process has not caught up with the speed in which malicious actors can conduct their attacks. In some cases, infrastructure is used for merely a few hours before swapping to something new. It's a constant game of wack-a-mole and without the provider's help, there's no way to stop it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> incidentally, i found that ovh offers a kvm vps with 2gb ram and unlimited traffic for a bit over $3.

2gb ram at digital ocean is $20, with limited traffic (3tb seems like a decent amount, though). a ri on aws runs slightly over $10, but traffic costs are an absurd tragedy.

i was pretty hyped when i found this, but sadly ovh didn't offer private/internal networking for their vps last i checked. so if i want a web vps to talk to a db vps, i have to give the db an internet-facing ip; this increases risks and possibly latency if there isn't some router config preventing public-ip packets from leaving the datacenter.

<comment><USER13> OVHs networks are pretty terrible.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why? I always found them to be quite reliable. Both latency and bandwidth is pretty good to almost anywhere in the world, considering data centre locations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's about time that hosting companies raise the prices a little bit. The industry has undergone so much consolidation, and service quality has suffered as a consequence. Paying an extra euro per month to make sure that the provider is properly funded to provide a good quality of service makes a lot of sense to me.

</comment><comment><USER15> I got a VPS at OVH which claims to have "triple data replication". One day it crashed at root password reset (they forced me to reset the root password). I contacted them but they said I have to reinstall the VPS. wtf? I told them that they have the data replicated. They replied with "Yes, the data is replicated but the data is corrupted. So you still have to reinstall the OS". Never trust marketing quotes, do regular backups and never choose the lowest price :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Data replication only protects against hardware failure. For everything else you need backups.

Raid increases uptime but don't rely on that as your only protection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Great. This is a good thing. You want them to mitigate your DDoS instead of black holing your site every time a 15 year old gets pissed off. Why is this framed negatively? This is awesome news.

Have they started supporting recurring billing yet? I actually left because they didn't let me do recurring billing. Everything else worked just fine. Not having the ability to have a credit card billed automatically however is just insane. WTF, seriously.

<comment><USER16> Just an update here for future travelers that OVH will start doing recurring billing after Dec 4th 2017. Great news.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> So what about those folks that use other DDOS protection services like Cloudflare?

Do we still need to be charged more if we have other measures in place? Seems a bit odd.

Hey, if you just want to raise your prices a bit, just do it (I understand that) but doing it under the guise of needing to "fight the collective fight of DDOS", (not so much).

</comment><comment><USER18> From the email I got:

      For dedicated servers, the extra cost for Anti-DDoS will be applied to:
      * OVH servers w/ 1 Gbit/s network
      * OVH servers with either 10, 25, or 40 Gbit/s network

So it seems like the older, lower-network-speed Kimsufi dedi boxes will stay at the same price?

</comment><comment><USER19> Surely there is some better source for this than an almost empty web forum...

<comment><USER20> [https://www.ovh.ie/news/articles/a2536.anti-ddos- protection-...](https://www.ovh.ie/news/articles/a2536.anti-ddos-protection- why-ovh-must-keep-investing)

See the last paragraph of this post

> This is why OVH has decided to request a contribution from customers, via a > €1 to €10 ex. VAT/month increase in the price of VPS, Public Cloud instances > and dedicated servers (except Game). This increase will be visible on the > OVH websites by the end of October and it will apply to new orders of > dedicated servers and VPS. The same will be rolled out for Public Cloud at > the start of December. Existing customers whose services are implicated in > the price increase, will receive personal email notification of the revised > pricing due to take effect on the 1st of December.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Show HN: VPS Comparison – Automated tests to compare VPS by yourself | [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14245538](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14245538) (2017May:146comments)

This changes the landscape quite a bit!</comment>