The Gilectomy – How's It Going [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLqv11ScGsQ <comment><USER2> If you're the type that prefers to read text, here's LWN's writeup of the linked talk:

[https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/723514/f674d4a807264ba1/](https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/723514/f674d4a807264ba1/)

<comment><USER3> I've enjoyed LWN articles in the past, but found this particular writeup very tedious to follow, compared to watching the video.

A direct transcript, perhaps with some light editing, would have been more useful, IMO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If any Python devs are out there reading: my understanding is that removing the GIL itself isn't the hard part so much as removing the GIL _while satisfying certain constraints_ deemed necessary by GvR and/or the rest of the community. I know some of those constraints relate to compatibility with existing C extensions -- but there must be others too?

The reason I ask is Larry's attempt buffered ref counting surely has implications for single-threaded code that maybe relies on the existing semantics -- e.g. a program like this may no longer reliably print "Deallocated!":

      Python 2.7.13 (default, Mar  5 2017, 00:33:10)
      [GCC 6.3.0 20170205] on linux2
      Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
      >>> class Foo(object):
      ...     def __del__(self):
      ...             print 'Deallocated!'
      ...
      >>> foo = Foo()
      >>> foo = None
      Deallocated!
      >>>

A bad example in some ways since in this particular case we could wait for all ref counting operations to be processed before letting the interpreter exit, but hopefully my point is still clear.

Similarly, what about multi-threaded Python code that isn't written to operate in a GIL-free environment -- absent locks, atomic reads/writes, etc.? At best, you might expect some bad results. At worst, segfaults.

Are these all bridges that need to be crossed once a realistic solution to the core GIL removal issue is proposed? As glad as I am that folks are still thinking hard about this problem, I'm personally sort of pessimistic that the GIL can be killed off without a policy change wrt backward compatibility. Still, I do sort of wonder if some rules of engagement wrt departures from existing semantics might help drive a solution.

<comment><USER5> If I'm understanding you, some or all of these questions are explicitly addressed in the Q&A. My apologies if you got that far and I simply didn't understand you.

For example, your first question seems to be asking about whether there's a semantic change coming from a lack of immediacy in when __del__ will run. And the answer is explicitly "yes, and the docs already told you not to count on that".

As for multi-threaded Python code... and perhaps also multi-threaded C code in extensions... I think the clear answer is "yes, our whole goal is to remove some guarantees that were previously provided, so if you counted on those guarantees you're in trouble". Again, c.f. the Q&A in case that helps.

From the talk, it doesn't look to me like Larry Hastings has a plan for the policy change in question; so maybe "bridges that need to be crossed once [the technical issues are smaller]" is correct?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's funny, I've written a lot of python in quite a few domains and haven't really struggled directly because of the GIL before. Is this more of a 'data scientist' problem? I feel like if I had a huge pile of data to crunch, python wouldn't be my first choice really.

<comment><USER7> Servers are where the problem is. The GIL makes python functionally single- threaded, which is a bummer for your server at any kind of scale. So you end up having to have n cores' worth of server processes behind a load balancer, even if you only need one server machine, which is a bummer if a you have a stateful server (such as a game server), as you now have to manage communicating state between processes by storing it in another process (frequently Redis).

But python is easy and fun to write code in, and "developer time is expensive, servers are cheap," so there are a lot of python servers which could benefit from a lack of GIL. Never mind that it's fast to write, but difficult to maintain since it is a dynamically typed language and one typo creates runtime errors that any statically typed language will catch at compile time. Or that it is slow. Or that a python process never really releases memory back to the system, just within itself, so the process slowly grows over the course of a few weeks. Or that the Twisted framework you're using for cooperative multitasking because of the GIL is really easy to block on a database query by accident, leading to uncooperative multitasking (= large lags), resulting to forced server restarts, and loss of players (= loss of revenue). So yeah, "developer time is cheap" but it's sort of an expensive cheap. I came to the conclusion that python is unsuitable for servers, but until Go came out, there wasn't a realistic alternative, since C++ and Java are too heavyweight, and Ruby suffers from similar problems (don't know about a GIL).

<comment><USER4> > Servers are where the problem is. The GIL makes python functionally single- > threaded, which is a bummer for your server at any kind of scale.

Right, agreed. I can imagine some of the frustration you might experience using CPython for high throughput systems: kind of like NodeJS without the benefits of a standard library written with async/non-blocking I/O in mind.

A bit curious about a few things you mention here, though:

> Or that a python process never really releases memory back to the system, > just within itself, so the process slowly grows over the course of a few > weeks.

I'm not sure this is true in general, is it? Can you elaborate? It's been a while since I've dug around in Python innards, but if Py_DECREF(x) leads to a refcount of zero IIRC free(x) is ultimately called -- albeit in an indirect manner via a layer or six of tp_dealloc calls and tp_free. :) I suppose calling free(x) may only return the memory associated with x to (g)libc's free list and not necessarily back to the OS [0]. No different to C/C++ in that regard, I guess.

> I came to the conclusion that python is unsuitable for servers, but until Go > came out, there wasn't a realistic alternative, since C++ and Java are too > heavyweight, and Ruby suffers from similar problems (don't know about a > GIL).

"Too heavyweight" in that they're relatively difficult to write in comparison? Maybe true of Java-the-language, but the JVM itself is an absolute workhorse when it comes to high performance. Plenty of languages to choose from there, typically without a GIL. Jython, for example, has no GIL [1].

And yep, Ruby/MRI has a GIL (but JRuby does not).

[0] [https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Freeing-a...](https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Freeing- after-Malloc.html) [1] [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1120354/does- jython-have...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1120354/does-jython-have- the-gil/1147548#1147548)

<comment><USER8> Common Lisp implementations generally do multithread really well and give you lovely syntactic abstraction capabilities while also running significantly faster than comparably high-level languages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Gilectomy project: the removal of Python's Global Interpreter Lock, or "GIL".

</comment><comment><USER10> Is he being serious when he says he only has one test case? That really doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to do. Furthermore, would a recursive implementation of Fibonacci even benefit from multithreading?

<comment><USER11> The goal should be, and is kind of what Larry Hastings is looking for, is that _any_ program should run 8 times faster on a 8-core CPU compared to a 1-core. And as said above Python can basically only use one core b/c of GIL. Actually Python 2.7 multithreading runs _much_ slower on a multicore CPU than on a single core due to locking congestion on the GIL.

<comment><USER12> What? No! Multithreaded programs should run faster on 8 cores than on one core. That's not very realistic for single-threaded programs, in any language.

I could be wrong, but I think Py2.7 is about the same speed on multicore vs 1 core. Where did you get that idea?

<comment><USER13> Python 2.7 has terrible thrashing in the way the GIL is acquired that is exacerbated as more threads are used. Dave Beazley has given great talks with the technical details: [http://www.dabeaz.com/GIL/](http://www.dabeaz.com/GIL/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Can Python copy how other languages like golang or java operate without a Gil? Why or why not?

<comment><USER15> Python has different semantics to those languages. I don't think it's formally specified, but people program in Python expecting the semantics that reference counting provides, and that unsychrnoised concurrent access to data structures will not cause errors. Despite ongoing research, it appears to be hard to continue to provide these semantics without a GIL.

Golang (informally I think) and Java (more formally) are not specified to provide reference counting semantics and not specified to guarantee that unsychrnoised concurrent access to data structures will not cause errors.

So the languages have different semantics - that's why you can't copy-and- paste the solution from one to another.

Some alternative implementations of Python don't follow the above semantics, like Jython, but then some people aren't happy with that. It may not be acceptable to the community to drop those semantics, even if they were never formally given.

<comment><USER16> > and that unsychrnoised concurrent access to data structures will not cause > errors

Python doesn't ensure that unsynchornized concurrent access to data structures won't cause errors. As I understand and experience Python multithreading, all the GIL ensures is that of the "load - inc - store" stages running amonst N threads, each separate stage will be locked, but not the overall sequence. So you'll still have data races, even with the GIL, and you still need to use mutexes etc in your Python program, which is why they are there.

<comment><USER15> I mean it won't cause errors within the basic data structure access operations. I'm not talking about composition. In Java a hash table write can fail with an exception if there is a concurrent write that conflicts. A Python dict write is atomic, because it happens within a single instruction as you say and so will not be interrupted and will never fail. That's what you aren't getting in Java. That expectation is very hard to provide without a GIL. Jython does it with blunt fine grained locking, but that's slow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Can't they use the GC techniques used in other languages? I've heard that Golang has a very efficient concurrent garbage collector.

<comment><USER18> Implementing a tracing gc was covered in the video.

<comment><USER17> Well, I didn't see the video yet, but I noticed they are referencing "The Garbage Collector Handbook", which is from 2011. The people from Golang have had some more recent successes with their concurrent garbage collector, which, as I've heard, is really efficient.

<comment><USER19> >The people from Golang have had some more recent successes with their concurrent garbage collector, which, as I've heard, is really efficient.

Haven't they just sacrificed throughout for pause time though? Not a GC expert at all, but that's what Ive got the gist of from speaking to people.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to Cope with Ageism? - <AUTHOR> For the fourth or fifth time now, I've made it through an interview gauntlet (this time for a well-known, largely remote company) and got the dreaded "the team was looking for someone at an earlier stage in their career" euphemism in a (somewhat late) reply.
I breezed through all the technical discussions (I am not a worldwide expert in the particular niche they were hiring for, but knew all the internals, actually contributed to or dealt with issues in the internals and fulfilled all the requirements), and was interviewed by peers (around half my age), my prospective manager (closer, but easily 10-15 years younger) and moved up the chain until I came across two managers (probably 5 years younger than me) who were visibly uncomfortable with the notion that I would "downgrade" to a senior SE role after having years of management and consulting experience (including being a department head).
I needed that job. Not in the sense of being unemployed, but in the sense of being able to do something I loved again (my current role is... a challenge, in more ways than one), of being there for my kids again, and, to be quite frank, to build something useful.
How do you cope?
What else is there but trying to do consulting on my own? (I'm not in a very big market, and most of it is outsourced corporate IT, zero custom development, etc.). <comment><USER2> The options are quite limited.The paradox is explained in this video; [http://longnow.org/seminars/02019/mar/13/modern-elder-and- in...](http://longnow.org/seminars/02019/mar/13/modern-elder-and- intergenerational-workplace/)

The corporate culture, instead of embracing mature workers who have plenty to offer, chooses the 'cancel culture' to eliminate senior citizen hiring.

The latest technique being employed uses large foreign consulting firms to filter out older workers so that the target firm can not be accused of discrimination - in other words, discrimination by proxy [e.g. insurance companies like Cigna].

The best way to 'cope' is to contact your State Human Rights and Opportunities office and report any and all instances of this activity. Its a free way to begin understanding what your rights are and it shines a bright light on offending enterprises.

This is a large subject that not only includes hiring discrimination but job elimination devices such as performance review abuse and other subtle maneuvers.</comment>


F# One Liners to impress your friends - <AUTHOR> http://willwhim.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/fsharp-one-liners-to-impress-your-friends/

<comment> Apple-Guy I like turtles!!! Oh wait, wrong line. =p</comment>


The Night Watch – online interactive docu about Rembrandt's master piece - <AUTHOR> https://nightwatchexperience.com/en/thema/geschiedenis <comment><AUTHOR> Launched using this JS platform. Using custom markers, tours, camera controls. All done very greatly, much respect to the content people.</comment>


SSD Awesome (AKA a great marketing campaign) - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs&fmt=22

<comment><USER2> Nice: you can defrag a Windows drive in 5 seconds.

Sad: in 2009 you still have to defrag your Windows drives.</comment>


Special Report: The Pentagon's doctored ledgers conceal epic waste - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/18/us-usa-pentagon-waste-specialreport-idUSBRE9AH0LQ20131118

<comment><AUTHOR> I've posted this primarily as one of the chief sources of waste is the inability to accurately account for spending and inventory due to an abundance of incompatible data silos. The efforts to rectify the situation usually make it worse or simply cost a ton of money.

If anyone feels like losing their mind, making a good bit of coin and (potentially) saving US taxpayers a lot of money, try to win one of these contracts and apply a team in the tens rather than thousands of developers and testers to the task.</comment>


Mint-lang: a language for the front-end web - <AUTHOR> https://www.mint-lang.com/ <comment><USER2> What I would really like is for JS to have a good macro system so I don't have to subscribe to the two caste hierarchy of language creator and language user.

Sweet.js [1] did it for me initially as cspjs[2] had async, await and more years before ... but I never found the time to ramp up to the updated version sadly so I can't comment on its state now.

[1] [https://www.sweetjs.org/](https://www.sweetjs.org/)

[2] [https://gitHub.com/srikumarks/cspjs](https://gitHub.com/srikumarks/cspjs)

<comment><USER3> The two caste hierarchy is my biggest issue with Golang. Macro capability exists in Golang, but only for the upper caste of language creators. It makes me feel like the language creators of Golang purposefully decide that users of the language aren't smart.

<comment><USER4> Rob Pike, in his own words, claims that programmers at google are "not capable of understanding a brilliant language", and that this is the reason why Go is designed the way it is.

The full quote:

> The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they're not researchers. > They're typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, > maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They're not capable of > understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good > software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to > understand and easy to adopt.

\-- Rob Pike, 2014, at ~20m50s of [https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang- NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2014/Fr...](https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang- NEXT-2014/From-Parallel-to-Concurrent)

<comment><USER5> That's been my experience at Microsoft. I'd love to start a new project there in F#. And I think the kids there would eventually grasp it and create better code. They're certainly smart enough. But it would take a while to unlearn OOP. My first year or two of F# code was complete crap. So given average tenure of a fresh grad bigcorp employee is a couple of years, it would not be worth it. I think this is a good decision though an unfortunate reality by Rob Pike.

<comment><USER6> A solution might be to change the hiring process to test FP concepts instead of OO, or to use a lisp- so users do not need to learn a complex type system in addition to FP.

<comment><USER7> If they are using C# (I'm making that assumption - I could be mistaken), the type system in F# isn't a huge leap in terms of learnability. It wasn't that way in my experience, anyways.

The learning curve seems to be with other aspects - like where the hell do I put my I/O? Error handling? How do I trace (or write) all these functions that are piped or composed together? Questions like those are what I tend to see. Both personally and when pointing other people to F#.

<comment><USER8> As an ML, F# isn't a pure FP, so I/O and error handling shouldn't be that hard.

But ya, functional oragami will make debugging harder even in C#.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For the ones who want to get (a similar) developer experience while coding actual JS(X): you can use `react` together with `mobx` to the same effect. Additionally, take a look at `mobx-state-tree` to get more structured code.

And of course, there's Elm if you want to get a completely different thing.

<comment><USER10> mobx-state-tree is really neat and feels like the next step beyond redux. Not having to create explicit event names and 'action dispatchers' is a real boon to DRY. The only issue I've had is more to do with typescript and using mobx- state-tree plus react router... the type definitions and type error messages can get rather confusing to debug.

<comment><USER11> > Not having to create explicit event names and 'action dispatchers' is a real > boon to DRY.

What about an action creator / reducer isn't dry?

<comment><USER12> You have the name of the action and the name of the action creator which essentially represent the same thing. I've never seen a project which had multiple creators for the same action name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I can see why they colour coded blocks. I think that project would have been unreadable otherwise. Which is ironic because even the worst of HTML with inlined CSS and JavaScript is more readable (albeit less maintainable).

</comment><comment><USER14> Cool to see that this is written in Crystal.

</comment><comment><USER15> Author here, please keep in mind that Mint is still very young and I'm still working to get things in order for a first stable-ish release (there are a lot of documentation to write and lot of cleanup work)

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm glad that this project was written on Crystal. But does it tries to be like Elm?

<comment><USER15> The author here, I was using Elm for a while invested a lot of time in it so there are parts of it that I like and that are parts that I don't.

In a sense it tries to be like Elm:

\- good developer experience with nice error messages

\- single binary that have all the tools

\- enforcing types

\- no runtime exceptions is you don't use JS interop

In an other sense it tries not to be like Elm:

\- JSX syntax with easy compose-ability

\- Straightforward JS interop

\- Decentralized and open package management

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't think I can make up my mind over small example. I don't think it is bad it is using patterns from React or Mobx as they are well known and it can help us think about development.

Syntax is not such that I am immediately sold, but also not put off. What I didn't see is some performance promise like Elm, or simplicity, where it make sense to use this over anything else.

I think it is good that a lot of people are thinking about languages and how to improve development, not everything has to be ground breaking. I will keep an eye for future work and how it develops.

<comment><USER15> Thank you for this comment! It really helps a lot to get decent feedback.

> What I didn't see is some performance promise like Elm, or simplicity, where > it make sense to use this over anything else.

I was focusing on the example, it seems I should really put up more information about this on the website, but to answer for this is basically:

\- it uses React under the hood meaning you have the same performance, the devtools works the same, it is possible (with some work) to use components from Mint in React and vice versa.

\- the error messages are really nice (there 281 unique error messages overall) both for syntax errors and type errors

\- easy JS interop using backticks

\- no import statements

\- fast compile times (the website compiles around 1 second)

\- single binary with all the tools included (development server, production builder, favicon generator, test runner)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> >The else branch must be present, if it's missing you will get a syntax error this is to make sure that all of the possibilities are covered

Is there itsokay statement to pacify the compiler more?

<comment><USER19> If if/else is an expression, what would be the return type of `if (true) { 42 }`?

<comment><USER20>
        int option

which is basically a variant/union like this:

        Result of 'a | Void

You could also have a `discard` or `ignore` function/operator, which can swallow every type, so it doesn't matter what it was. Some languages actually require you to use such operators, for example, Nim and F#.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Web languages seem to be the new web frameworks for JavaScript - in the sense that there seem to be more and more of them coming out all the time.

</comment><comment><USER22> This is really cool, and I did something very similar (more hackish) ten years ago. This is a very powerful technique, and I wish the mint team the best. The downside is really a combination of building a community and educating people about it; this is where I failed along with SEO.

<comment><USER15> > The downside is really a combination of building a community and educating > people about it

Yes, this is what I'm worried about.

I'm still tweaking a lot of things and I wanted to share it with HN when I thought it was ready, but on the other hand it's a nice that it got some attention already.

I hope there will be enough interest over time to actually build up a community.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Just a empty white page on my phone.

<comment><USER3> You'll need to have Javascript enabled to see the page. Mint's website is written in Mint, which is a compile-to-javascript front-end language that "tries to solve most common issues of Single Page Applications".

<comment><USER23> I have. Using Opera mobile tho.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Blank page with JS disabled.

"Nothing to see here." literally.

</comment><comment><USER25> Awesome!!!

<comment><USER26> Why do you think it's awesome? It's just another zealous implementation of some guys unearned and unfounded ideology. You know you can write the same thing with regular JavaScript and cut out the middle-man.

<comment><USER27> A polyglot is harder to reason about than a single language, due to social concerns. Mostly this is due to the efficiency of singular concern and custodianship as opposed to disjointed languages with their own.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> How about just biting the bullet and writing JavaScript?

If I decided I wanted to use Delphi, but I didn't like Object Pascal, so I implemented a Scheme over the top that gave weird deep backtraces with wrong line numbers whenever an error occurred, compiled to a single-line semicolon- delimited mess of unidiomatic Pascal, and often required me to write some Pascal anyway, you'd think I was nuts. Why do we think it's a good idea just because it's in a browser?

JavaScript has its problems, but it's far from the worst language out there. Just write JavaScript already.

<comment><USER29> I think you just described ES6 compiled by Babel pretty well. Most people have gotten used to this disconnect.

<comment><USER30> Well, with Babel you at least have source maps so you can get the original source locations in your backtraces.

<comment><USER3> There's nothing stopping other compile-to-javascript languages from having source maps too

<comment><USER30> Yes, it's a pretty standard feature which is why it works so well. You can Typescript->ES->bundled ES->bundled minified ES and Chrome will point you directly at the original source in the debugger (once you give it permission).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Working on a project in Angular right now I'm really questioning if the layers of abstraction on front end code are worth the cost. The compile times and performance costs over writing standard JS are real.

<comment><USER32> The complexity and maintenance costs of developing a real-world application in standard JS are also real.

<comment><USER33> Or you could design your application to not need all the bells and whistles and complicated shit that modern front-end web UIs throw in. 90% of pages _could_ be static HTML. Probably 95% of "web applications" could be a set of forms with post-backs.

If I'm trying to make a thick-client, I'd rather build it in a language and platform that I don't have to fight quite so much.

<comment><USER32> Have you actually done it? I have, a team of 10 to 15 programmers building it for over an year (SPA, deployed on web, iOS and Android), and now I lead a team of 5 programmers maintaining it and developing new features. I will gladly pay the cost of a good abstraction for lower complexity.

<comment><USER33> Yes, I actually have. A plain old-school Razor view UI with post-backs was infinitely easier to maintain than the cobbled together mess of javascript that we've ended up with trying to move away from that old, unsexy technology. And almost everything is an order of magnitude harder to do, or to make changes to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Do we really need yet another language for the web?

<comment><USER35> Every alternative I know is based on Ecmascript, what other alternatives are?

<comment><USER36> Nim. I just finished developing a forum using the Karax SPA framework and it's been a great experience: [https://github.com/nim- lang/nimforum](https://github.com/nim-lang/nimforum).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This stinks as a masked React</comment>


Symantec explores selling web certificates business - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-symantec-divestiture-idUSKBN19W2WI <comment><USER2> Hmm. Whilst sale of this business is certainly a possibility, one thing to keep in mind is that the anonymous sources could have been confused by activity that isn't actually a sale at all.

Symantec's current deal with Mozilla/ Google implies that they need a third party to actually do most of the technical work while they build new capabilities not tainted by previous problems. So that means Symantec executives having discussions with other CAs that could easily _look_ like they're thinking of selling the business even if they aren't, they'd be talking about sales volumes, sharing financial data, which operational people could be transferred and who needs to stay where they are... all stuff that _looks_ like a sale but would be necessary for Symantec to obey the plan they've shown Google.

Also sale of the CA business with the current shadow over it would be problematic, the major trust stores have reacted to the StartCom/ WoSign fiasco by instituting more rules about transfer, which came up for Google recently because they bought a CA. If an existing CA buys the Symantec (Verisign/ Thawte/ GlobalSign branding) business, they also buy Symantec's problems with the trust stores. If a _new_ CA buys the business there will be arguments from a lot of quarters that they're unqualified and forget Symantec's problems the whole thing needs to go away immediately. It's like buying a burning tyre fire, where's the upside ?

<comment><USER3> I'm inclined to agree just from my own reading of this. I just don't see how sale could do anything but harm trust in the brands further, which makes sale only appealing to those who either don't care about trust, or have enough trust on their side to think they can rebuild it. Both of those groups are not going to want to pay much. Why sell a division of your company for peanuts?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Being one of the least trusted, yet large CAs currently in existence this may not be a bad move for the company. However I do wonder what that leaves the company as far as popular assets go, their 'enterprise' antivirus offering was once the best-in-class but since the demise of AV and the companies general reputation declining year on year (citation definitely needed and obviously my opinion through observation) it still makes me wonder how long the company will last. Oh and of course I should remind people that Symantec owns Blue Coat...

<comment><USER5> Of course, even with nothing useful left in the rump company, the sale might still be good from a shareholders point of view. Similar logic as for Yahoo's holding of Alibaba a while ago, when rump-Yahoo added negative value by most calculations.

<comment><USER6> The certificate business is only about 10% of Symantec's revenue. (But probably more of its profits)

They have consumer and corporate anti-virus, Endpoint Protection, and they now own Blue Coat and Lifelock.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for adding facts!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm assuming that Symantec makes money off of selling SSL certs which, again I'm assuming, they will make less of as Let's Encrypt begins to gain "conquest" domains over "greenfield" domains (those that did not and would not have held a cert without ACME and without being free). Of course, that assumes that a substantial number of paid-for SSL users switch to Let's Encrypt. Unless I'm misunderstanding, this may solve two problems for Symantec.

EDIT: I have no idea if LE's impact is of a "rising tide raises all boats" kind or a purely disruptive kind.

<comment><USER8> The DV business is dead but there will be a marketing push towards EV certs for business.

Symantec's problems are that they fucked up too much and have slipped past the "too big to fail" boundary.

<comment><USER9> There's also a niche market for more complex certificate solutions, like the one we saw stackoverflow required: [https://nickcraver.com/blog/2013/04/23/stackoverflow-com- the...](https://nickcraver.com/blog/2013/04/23/stackoverflow-com-the-road-to- ssl/)

It's just that those solutions require actual work and capable customer support, and I don't think that's a business Symantec wants to be in.

Still I would hope that their certificate business is taken over by someone serious about SSL/TLS/certificates. I would have for Let's Encrypt to become a monopoly.

<comment><USER10> Their biggest problems seemed to just stem from their arbitrary choice to use subdomains instead of subdirectories. If they just put everything on the same domain (/sites/stackoverflow, /sites/superuser, etc.) then they would literally just need 1 certificate for everything, no third-level-wildcard nonsense. Not sure what this decision to have a gazillion different domains has gained them honestly. Reddit clearly manages to work that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Of course they do. I've feeling they get corrupted and stepped on a path of quick making money with assigning covert certificates for various agencies/companies whose main initiative was to spy on users. In their case recovering trust is almost impossible.

</comment><comment><USER12> Fun Fact: Symantec sold certificates to Blue Coat all the way back in May 2016 and have been using them in their SSL inspection tool ever since

<comment><USER6> Symantec owns Blue Coat though?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> If there ever was a fire-sale. Thrustworthiness, get it while its red-hot.</comment>


Why No IPv6? - <AUTHOR> https://whynoipv6.com/ <comment><USER2> Is the objection that the web server has no IPv6 address, or that a client on IPv6 can't connect?</comment>


An Unknown Man - <AUTHOR> https://newrepublic.com/article/138068/last-unknown-man <comment><USER2> This brought to mind the case of Peter Bergmann (an alias). He went to the Northwest of Ireland and took his life by walking into the sea. Before he did so, he made strenuous efforts to ensure his real identity would never be discovered. [cf [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Bergmann_Case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Bergmann_Case)]. I also recommend a short Irish documentary called The Last Days of Peter Bergmann [[https://vimeo.com/166977498](https://vimeo.com/166977498)]

<comment><USER3> Also [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamam_Shud_case](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamam_Shud_case) is a hugely interesting case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Good read. Author certainly knows how to write long form.

</comment><comment><USER5> Stories like these always remind me about Satoshi Nakamoto, who too, in this digital age has managed to remain unknown and at the same time very prominently be part of the technical community in the early days of bitcoin.

<comment><USER6> Fortunately, it's still possible to retain anonymity online. I wonder for how long.

<comment><USER7> But once you're out there, is it possible to go back into hiding?

<comment><USER8> It is as long as the state/ IPs do not have identity on every connection. It can even then be subverted, if somebody lets another user piggyback on that connection.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One more mildly famous unknown man: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamam_Shud_case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamam_Shud_case)

</comment><comment><USER10> This really is a great piece. Hard to believe that someone could just drop out of the world like that, without anybody noticing for that many years.

</comment><comment><USER11> There's also the Mystery Man from Taured - [http://weekinweird.com/2014/05/20/man-without-country- myster...](http://weekinweird.com/2014/05/20/man-without-country-mystery-man- taured/)

</comment><comment><USER12> Quite an interesting read, it kind of reminds me of this story which I bumped into the other day:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-e8c6cbab- da44-4a3c-8...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-e8c6cbab- da44-4a3c-8f9b-c4fccd53dd24)

</comment><comment><USER13> > It's hard to imagine that he would have been trusted to the degree he was, > or extended the same aid, if he had been a woman or an immigrant or a person > of color.

They just had to throw this irrelevant bit of virtue signaling in, didn't they? Ironically, support for homeless/transient women is _vastly_ superior to that available for men.

<comment><USER14> It's a delightful irony that once people learn the term "virtue signal", they only ever use it to do it.

<comment><USER13> In what way was I virtue signaling? I'm complaining about something the author said, not extolling myself or dropping irrelevant moralisms. If anything, I expected a more negative reaction from the average HN commenter.

Tell me, how would _you_ go about pointing out that someone is engaging in irrelevant virtue signaling without doing it yourself, by whatever definition you're using?

<comment><USER15> First of all, you weren't complaining about what they said (or wrote, but whatever). You were complaining about the motives you imputed to their choice to say that thing. I mean, fair enough. I don't agree with you that it was principally virtue-signalling, but it might well have had an aspect of such. In general, I tend to assume that nearly all journalism, at least that where the journalist selects the topic and the tone, is largely virtue-signalling.

With respect to the factuality of the author's claim, I do _entirely agree with you_ that women are more trusted than men, whether indigent or not, in the sense of "trust" that means "we'll let her stay at our house", and also likelier to be lent aid. They are not, I think, as likely to be _believed_ , which is a sense of "trust", but probably not what the author meant. Mind you, I think the author is correct that a white person is more trusted (in both senses) than an immigrant or a non-white person, especially in America, especially in the American South. Then again, what do I know.

You say that you expected the comment to go over badly with "the average HN commenter". Of course, there is no "average HN commenter", but anyway, so what? Virtue-signalling that appeals to the mean (uniformly-weighted) opinion of society is low-value and ineffective, both game-theoretically and in practice. (Because it is cheap to do, most people do it at a general background level, thus it is a weak signal, and thus only children try very hard at it. But some consider it rude to allocate zero effort to it. Shrug.) Effective virtue-signalling, such as perhaps yours, is that which demonstrates one's bona fides to an in-group by visibly sacrificing something else. A typical sacrifice includes some reputational standing with another group. Game-theoretically, and practically, that's a much more convincing virtue signal.

But you say you didn't intend to signal your virtue. What, then, was the purpose of your top-level comment? I mean, just as you question the author's motives, it seems natural to wonder about yours. When you did it, it seemed like a hijack of the topic, to complain about a minutia of the article. Not very useful, you know? I know this mostly speaks to my lack of imagination, but I just can't see a reason to say what you said, other than to position yourself as being in opposition to the author's foolishness. And worse than foolishness, the author's not just wrong, they're "virtue-signalling", which is to say they're conducting themselves in a way that appears to be about something other than reputation, in order to gain repuation! Attention, do not let this work on you! Actually, that seems like a high-probability explanation of your behaviour, but only a medium-probability explanation of the author's behaviour. (Alternate high-probability explanation of the author's behaviour: the author is just a trite writer, fond of copying others' ideas.)

Anyway, the point of this whole comment is to ask "WHY are you complaining?" So, to answer your question about "how would you go about pointing out X without virtue-signalling"... often the answer is "you don't point it out".

And yes, let me save you a little trouble: like your commenting behaviour, surely virtue-signalling is a factor in my commenting behaviour. At some point after you are introduced to the idea of virtue-signalling, you get around to noticing that most (public) behaviour has some aspect of it. So it's mostly not worth bringing up, as in this case. All in all, personally I think your comment would have been much better if you'd left off the first sentence and the word "ironically". Especially if your goal was not virtue-signalling.

That reminds me: Could you help me to understand what sense of "ironic" you were using when you said that it's "ironic" that "support for homeless/transient women is vastly superior to that available for men"?

<comment><USER13> Thank you, that is a more in-depth and useful definition of virtue signaling than I was working with before.

> You were complaining about the motives you imputed to their choice to say > that thing.

I was complaining about the content, as you can tell from the fact that I immediately said "this is wrong" after making fun of their (presumed) motivation for making the false claim.

> WHY are you complaining?

A sense of civic obligation to object to misinformation.

> Could you help me to understand what sense of "ironic" you were using

The irony is that the truth is precisely opposite to the author's claim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Gripping story.

<comment><USER17> All the more so when my phone died 2/3 through.</comment></comment>


Tech Has a Depression Problem - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/tech-has-a-depression-problem/380004/?single_page=true

<comment><USER2> Fact is "depression" is among the most prevalent illness among humans, and a leading cause of disability world-wide. It affects people in all regions though incidence is higher in industrialized countries for unknown reasons.

Part of the problem in talking about the condition is that the word "depression" may refer to a variety of feelings or behavioral states--in everyday usage it's not a precise term at all.

But in the context of the article, I infer the issue is "clinical depression", a very serious illness that has specific diagnostic meaning.

Distinguishing depression-as-illness from a passing mood, or transient discouragement is important. It's normal to have these moods at times of loss, high stress, etc., but _not_ normal when it becomes persistent and affects thinking, energy, motivation, interests, or physiological rhythms.

As the article points out, suicidal thinking and action can be associated with depression. The mortality rate of severe depression is high, on the order of 15%, a decidedly non-trivial matter.

One more statistic to point out is the cost burden of depression. A very recent study estimated depression costs the US nearly $200 billion per year, more than cancer ($131 billion) or diabetes ($171 billion) annually. Considering that a minority of patients with depression receive adequate treatment, we can surmise much of the high cost of depression could be reduced by earlier intervention.

Depression is a treatable disease, the majority of sufferers respond at least moderately well to medication and non-medication therapies. Treatment doesn't always work as well as we'd like, but the problem is not being neglected. Since there's so much at stake, it's an extremely active field of research; our treatment tools will get better.

The important message is depression is a real illness that can be and should be vigorously treated. Ignoring reality does not make it go away. No one is immune, not entrepreneurs, programmers, engineers, doctors, janitors, or the fabulously wealthy.

Let's not continue to let a treatable illness turn into tragedy.

<comment><USER3> Treating depression like an illness makes it into a medical problem, and medical treatment is simply not the best recourse for a large number of people with even 'clinical depression'. The huge variety of causes and its transience makes it much less like other medical diseases, and so trying to treat it like a medical disease often won't work.

While I agree that medication is for many people an appropriate way to treat some forms of depression, it's certainly not a panacea. You don't treat diabetes by just taking medicine; you also don't eat crap that fucks with your blood sugar. If you have scoliosis, you don't just wear a back brace during childhood; you also avoid trying out for the football team. If your family has a history of melanomas, you stay out of the sun and put on sun lotion.

It's important to note that some of these treatments are not strictly 'medical treatments' \- they're ways of living your life that reduce the impact of the disease. Just talking about disease is incredibly morbid. So to my mind, thinking of yourself as having a disease is actually the _opposite_ of what you want to treat depression. Sure, it's comforting to have a way to define oneself in order to understand what's going wrong. But a negative focus on yourself is really the wrong way to go about reducing the impact of depression.

Yes, studies and medications and non-medication therapies and prescribed treatments are all useful in 'combating the disease', until you realize that it isn't one single disease. It's a human condition that varies in cause from chemical imbalances to unexpected life changes, and is incredibly difficult to diagnose the root cause of, not to mention find a workable treatment for. Relating the emotional state of humans to the working of their organs is a bit like relating an Indy 500 race's lap stats to the engines in the cars on the track.

So until we establish an actual field of science that focuses on every conceivable treatment of every form of depression, could we all please stop being so clinical about the whole thing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article focuses on founders, and I've wondered if depression in founders is actually less "Founders get depressed" and more "Depressed people become founders".

My theory is this: being regularly depressed causes folks to regularly fix their depression. They say "What is going to make me happy?", and then they push their lives farther. Extreme amounts of money represent freedom to do what one pleases when one pleases - and how do you get that money? By founding a successful company. And its not just the money - its the satisfaction that you've done something with your life.

I've often wondered why humans get depressed, and I've seen articles on depression being an evolutionary advantage. If its the case that depression drives people to work harder (as is the case for me), then it may be true that it is an evolutionary advantage (I certainly inherited it from my family). This may then also mean that there are a significant number of founders who are just going to be depressed, solitude/stress/success or not. I'd be interested to see how many founders have a family history of depression.

<comment><USER5> >>If its the case that depression drives people to work harder (as is the case for me), then it may be true that it is an evolutionary advantage (I certainly inherited it from my family).

Depression can also cause people to commit suicide, which makes it somewhat difficult to frame it as an evolutionary advantage.

<comment><USER6> It depends on how this averages out. If _on average_ the benefits (increased productivity leading to increased mating) outweight the drawbacks (people committing suicide), then it still might be an advantage. Evolution doesn't care about individuals, it's a statistical process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here is what I consider to be a more accurate portrayal: Depression is an issue that plagues pretty much all of the educated America, which significantly overlaps with tech these days.

<comment><USER8> Why just educated America? People who are uneducated may still be depressed, but less educated about mental illness to try and address it.

<comment><USER9> As they say, ignorance is bliss. If you never educate yourself about how other people in the world live and how your lifestyle impacts them, or how the food you eat is made, or the actions that governments take on your behalf, you won't feel empathy or anger about all the injustices and abuses that occur. Once you realize how much pain exists, and how much of it is a result of your action or inaction, then the real depression starts.

<comment><USER10> Actually my impression is that poorer people are more likely to be depressed. Consider the high rate of suicide among poor Indian farmers, or the high number of homeless with mental illness.

A quick google search for studies of the correlation between wealth and suicide seem to confirm my view, eg "a 2009 Gallup survey [shows] the rate of depression is nearly twice as high for Americans making less than $24,000 a year than it is for those with annual incomes above $60,000." Of course, the real story is more complicated: It seems the correlation is much less clear for poor _regions_ than for poor _individuals_ , and I saw some suggestions that poor people living next to wealthy people were more likely to commit suicide.

<comment><USER11> That might be confusing cause and effect. It's not that homeless people are more likely to be mentally ill, it's that the mentally ill are often homeless.

And that's by choice - we've decided that we'd rather not give a shit about mentally ill people, because it might cost money. (Cf. the killing of the Mental Health Systems Act)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Not mentioned in the article: those young people in the tech industry with a stable, boring job working for a conglomerate company and depressed by constantly observing our adventurous peers trying to change the world in hip start-ups, wondering if we made the wrong decision.

Grass is always greener, I suppose. Or depression is just infectious.

<comment><USER13> I've slowly felt my soul being crushed after five years at a small, Office Space-esque mechanical engineering firm in an LA suburb. Our perks include two 10-minute breaks per day where we can make personal calls, walk around the parking lot, or close our office doors. Actual methods of analysis draw heavily from '70s to early '90s engineering. I sound horribly millennial (which I am) to complain about these things while I'm making six figures at age 29, but it feels stifling and inhumane to work like this.

<comment> atom-morgan I know exactly what you mean. I felt the same way with my first job as a developer out of college. I'd always considered myself a mentally stable person until _that job_. Like you, I had the feeling that my complaints were those of "millennials" but I couldn't keep myself there. I eventually left and I'm glad I did.

<comment><USER13> I'm leaving in ten months. I have $60k in disposable savings (i.e. this excludes retirement) and a pickup truck. I will travel the world for at least a year, then do who knows what. Maybe I'll become a programmer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There is a discussion forum specifically for this: [http://devpressed.com/](http://devpressed.com/) Please check it out, and also any of the talks [1] by its founder, Greg Baugues. It's from a ruby conference, but is applicable to all developers.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFIa- Mc2KSk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFIa-Mc2KSk))

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm very worried about the destruction of our environment. Not one to be into spiritual things like 'Spiritual Ecology' but I think there is some truth to it: we all have some connection to the earth and nature. What we eat is our most profound expression of our connection to the physical world. But it goes further of course, to how we treat nature, wildlife, etc. As the environment becomes more polluted with toxins, light, noise -- as it becomes more scarce - I think many of us will realize the hard way how important it is to our psychological well being.

The following has worked very well for me, I hope others benefit also:

* running 45min-1hour each day high intensity (80% HRM) (on the trails of course, away from concrete and civilization) * playing in the dirt (1) * being around animals / Farm Therapy * make sure you treat your microbiota well * if depression has neuroinflammation as a cause, consider Tumeric, possibly one that will cross the blood brain barrier (2) * getting good sleep

(1) [http://modernfarmer.com/2014/08/dirt-make-us-happy- getting-h...](http://modernfarmer.com/2014/08/dirt-make-us-happy-getting- hands-ground-better-prozac/) (2) [http://truttmd.com/curcumin-caveat-emptor- not-all-brands-are...](http://truttmd.com/curcumin-caveat-emptor-not-all- brands-are-created-equal/)

<comment><USER16> Just a warning about running that much: [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-much- running-tied-to-shorter...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-much-running-tied- to-shorter-lifespan-studies-find/)

They say it's the first five minutes per day that give the most benefits: [http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-five- min...](http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-five-minutes- running-per-day-extends-life-20140728-story.html)

Maybe you should consider trading some of that running for walking instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's surprising that one would be depressed working 10hr+ days for little to no pay chasing what, as time goes on, seems to be a dubious dream to make someone else very rich.

</comment><comment><USER18> Greg Baugues from Twilio gave a powerful talk titled "Devs and Depression" at Laracon this year. He talks about his personal experience, and about breaking out from the underneath the stigma of mental health issues for developers.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6x9wmlFz_c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6x9wmlFz_c)

</comment><comment><USER19> Seems to me like there's plenty of help around if you're a founder, but not very much if you're just a programmer, especially a relatively new one. I don't have many contacts for career advice and frequently have to kick myself to maintain my drive - it seems to ask for help would be to invite a bunch of people to tell me my skills are shit.

</comment><comment><USER20> Certainly depression in tech is real and people suffering deserve help (and can hopefully get it given their station in life).

But when you strive for hyper-ambitious outcomes, whether it be selling your company for $2B, trying to change the world, or training to become a world champion fighter, you're likely going to suffer some injuries that you might not fully recover from.

I feel for all the people who are depressed AND struggling to find their next meal--working in fast food or in factories, being treated as if they were less-than-human.

I find it super-hard to get worked up when we founders and startup employees get to have health insurance, good salaries, free food and education, and a chance to win the lottery.

<comment><USER21> You have _perspective_

People who are suffering from clinical depression may not have. The pain will be the same irrespective of their position in society.

I know what you mean, many of my (adult) students are doing a couple of minimum wage jobs, looking after children and/or parents and trying to study. Not easy.

<comment><USER22> > You have perspective. People who are suffering from clinical depression may > not have.

You're using "perspective" in an unclear way here, as though it means optimism or a long view. In fact, studies show that depressed people often have better, more accurate, perceptions of reality than non-depressed people. This state of being even has an associated theory or school of thought:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism)

Quote: "Although depressed individuals are thought to have a negative cognitive bias that results in recurrent, negative automatic thoughts, maladaptive behaviors, and dysfunctional world beliefs,[2][3][4] depressive realism argues not only that this negativity may reflect a more accurate appraisal of the world but also that non-depressed individuals' appraisals are positively biased."

If this idea turns out to have scientific merit (which it doesn't at the moment), I would find that depressing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Warren Buffett's partner Charles Munger says it best in this interview (time linked). He's talking about wall street executives, and the envy they have over one anothers' successes, but the same applies to tech founders.

"If somebody makes a lot of money, or reports a lot of money... Let them!"

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6RS_PqudxU#t=1460](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6RS_PqudxU#t=1460)

</comment><comment><USER24> Are there any good online or real world assessment tools out there to identify people who may be suffering from depression / more predisposed to be depressed?

</comment><comment><USER25> There's also a strong positive correlation between incidence of depression and intelligence.

<comment><USER26> True. Also depression seems to be an illness human beings may inherit.

Physical exercises are known to help depression. Sitting in front of a computer screen all day long without much social interaction seems to make it worse (at least for me).

<comment><USER25> Of the serious mental illnesses, they're almost always inherited.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> "Tech circles" == "startups"?

</comment><comment><USER28> A fair number of VCs perform back-channel references (references the candidate didn't provide) and the main reason for that is to filter out anyone who's ever suffered from depression or anxiety.

Large firms are in on this discrimination, too. It's illegal to ask about these disorders when hiring, but if you acqui-hire from investors who legally can probe into those questions, it's a nice little loop-hole.

I don't think it really does any good, because all else being equal, I'd want to a person of good character who fought a mental disability and beat it. That's not easy to do. Beating depression or bipolar or panic disorder is _way_ harder (and says more about a person's fortitude) than building Snapchat. The truth is that many people with mental illnesses are far above normal in functionality when not affected.

Still, this is just another thing that is changing in Silicon Valley. The old Silicon Valley (HP, not Snapchat) driven forward by passionate, creative people and many had these illnesses. The new one (Snapchat, Clinkle) is all about image management and favors low-variance, reliable mediocrities.

<comment><USER29> You assume the VCs are good at spotting depression and anxiety. It doesn't seem obvious to me that this is the case.

<comment><USER28> I don't assume that they're good at it. I _know_ that they try to do it, and what their methods are. I think their methods are, at best, modestly effective and, even with that, it's not clear that selecting against low-level (and usually manageable with age) mental health issues has any value, and it just might be counterproductive (antifragility argument here).</comment></comment></comment>


SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/spacex-cant-broadcast-earth-images-because-of-a-murky-license/ <comment><USER2> It's a bit of a farce to classify these cameras stuck on the side of a rocket with horrible resolution and which are clearly not designed to effectively image the surface of the earth as "remote sensing systems."

The definition in the law even specifically excludes "Small, hand-held cameras shall not be considered remote sensing space system," i guess so that astronauts don't have to get a license 12 months before every mission. SpaceX cameras providing the video for the webcasts are certainly small and could be "handheld," so it seems to come down to the fact that no human is up there with them.

Remote sensing systems are a thing, and there are good reasons to regulate them. Tiny cameras stuck to the side of SpaceX rockets should not be classified as "remote sensing systems." When I think of remote sensing satellites, Landsat series and friends come to mind, not an off the shelf camera stuck on the side of a rocket.

<comment><USER3> It's a farce that you need a license to take pictures at all. I'm sure Russian and Chinese satellites already take photos of the US military bases regularly.

<comment><USER4> They're not under the jurisdiction of a US agency.

<comment><USER5> Which makes it even more dumb, the people we don't want taking pictures do so at will while the people we don't mind taking pictures are banned.

<comment><USER6> Speak for yourself - i dont want companies taking pictures.

<comment><USER5> But they do, commercial satellite imagery is a big business (anyone who has used Google Earth knows this). It's just not the business SpaceX is in so it's not worth going through the hassle.

<comment><USER6> That wasnt the main idea of my statement.

I contend that my desire differs from parent comments claim

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This makes me wince. Is broad interpretation of that rule really the best use of an "extremely small" office that probably has a really good reason for existing otherwise? These sorts of regulatory foot faults have a very real cost to innovation. Think of what these videos have done for public interest in space travel and the imaginations of millions. Unless there's some overwhelming reason for this rule to apply in these circumstances, it's time to rewrite or reinterpret.

<comment><USER8> "Extremely small office" is a typical public sector reply in the PIIGS in order to get a bribe to 'make things move faster'.

Or a piece of bureacracy in order to harass anyone we want, anytime we want.

Also.. an "Act" on what to do in Space? Seriously? So when that thing flies over (e.g.) Japan should it follow Japan's laws? Or we only count the base location? In which case movie it to (e.g.) Greenland and problem solved!

All these years of watching Star Trek universe (series & movies) taught me nothing!!!

<comment><USER9> Your narrow-minded anger is ill-informed.

First, there are quite a few very obvious reasons why it's in humanity's interest to regulate space missions. You want to minimise space debris, for example, because it could result in a series of collisions making near-earth orbits a wasteland you can't cross.

That's why there are rules on the size, structure, orbits, data sharing, disposal mechanisms and other features of space missions. These are set out in international agreements and enforced by the operator's country of origin. Greenland is a territory of Denmark, and your proposed "pirate launches" would be regulated by the European Space Agency. Problem (really) solved!

There's also stuff like the Outer Space Treaty, a valiant (and mostly effective) effort of international cooperation preventing a wasteful and dangerous arms race in space. Yeah, Trump seems to be reneging on that as well, go figure.

"Extremely small office" is simply a fact. There are three people working on this subject. Since most people will agree that SpaceX's videos really isn't much of a problem, nobody is actually complaining about past non-enforcement. Therefore, the lack of enforcement really isn't a very strong argument for increased funding, is it?

Providing a potentially understaffed office with the resources it needs isn't a "bribe". These people would not personally get any money. They are not asking for money from SpaceX or any other interested party.

Regarding this specific licensing requirement, a good read is [https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/files/15%20CFR%20Part%2096...](https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/files/15%20CFR%20Part%20960%20Regs%202006.pdf). It's the result of a public deliberation and shows the different goals, stakeholders, and experiences underlying the regulation, and how they have to be balanced.

> All these years of watching Star Trek universe (series & movies) taught me > nothing!!!

indeed...

<comment><USER10> >First, there are quite a few very obvious reasons why it's in humanity's interest to regulate space missions. You want to minimise space debris, for example, because it could result in a series of collisions making near-earth orbits a wasteland you can't cross.

Preventing space debris is not related to this topic in the least. Neither is preventing a "space arms race".

>Providing a potentially understaffed office with the resources it needs isn't a "bribe".

It seems to me that the best way to solve this problem is to get rid of this useless office.

>Regarding this specific licensing requirement, a good read is [https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/files/15%20CFR%20Part%2096...](https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/files/15%20CFR%20Part%20960%20Regs%202006.pdf)

I don't think it's good discussion etiquette to link to an unreadable wall of bureaucratic text and not give any context. I.e. at least state one good reason for this regulation.

<comment><USER9> > Preventing space debris is not related to this topic in the least. Neither > is preventing a "space arms race".

The relation is OP's complete and naive refusal to entertain the possibility and usefulness of regulating private activity in space.

> It seems to me that the best way to solve this problem is to get rid of this > useless office. > I don't think it's good discussion etiquette to link to an > unreadable wall of bureaucratic text and not give any context. I.e. at least > state one good reason for this regulation.

See: it's this attitude that keeps the level of such discussions at a kindergarten level. The linked document contains text, yes. But it's perfectly readable English. The first paragraph is headlined "SUMMARY" and contains this justification for the regulation and the office implementing it:

 _They are intended to facilitate the development of the U.S. commercial remote sensing industry and promote the collection and widespread availability of Earth remote sensing data, while preserving essential U.S. national security interests, foreign policy and international obligations._

You can easily find a later section entitled "Purpose" that expands on it:

 _(1) Preserve the national security of the United States;

(2) Observe the foreign policies and international obligations of the United States;

(3) Advance and protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by maintaining U.S. leadership in remote sensing space activities, and by sustaining and enhancing the U.S. remote sensing industry;

(4) Promote the broad use of remote sensing data, their information products and applications;

(5) Ensure that unenhanced data collected by licensed private remote sensing space systems concerning the territory of any country are made available to the government of that country upon its request, as soon as such data are available and on reasonable commercial terms and conditions as appropriate;

(6) Ensure that remotely sensed data are widely available for civil and scientific research, particularly environmental and global change research; and

(7) Maintain a permanent comprehensive U.S. government archive of global land remote sensing data for long-term monitoring and study of the changing global environment._

Those seem to be seven good reasons. If you want to argue their merit, you should start with a good-faith effort to understand them.

<comment><USER11> I really don't see any of those reasons as being sufficient to cover SpaceX launch videos other than in the most narrow bureaucratic sense.

(1) Is dubious at best in this context, given that they _do_ permit the first couple of 10's of KM up and only _after that_ does this office's authority come into play. By then any imagery at HD video resolution of the United States has zero implication for national security. (2) and (3) are neutrals by my interpretation. And it actually flat out contradicts (4), (5), (6) and (7), since it isn't promoting it but actively tries to reduce it and blocks the public dissemination of the live streams they were already making available.

GGGPs arguments made no sense, yours are more verbose and seemingly better founded but they _also_ make no sense.

This is just a nice example of a bunch of people with no actual stake in the outcome flexing their bureaucratic muscle, the equivalent of the little people behind government institutions little windows in places of 'public service' whose only role in life seems to be to ruin yours and to send you to another colleague behind another window.

> If you want to argue their merit, you should start with a good-faith effort > to understand them.

That goes for you too, in particular for stuff you quote.

<comment><USER12> In reading through the document linked, NOAA is not going off on their own in order to demand this license. US congress made public laws relating to what commercial industry can and cannot do for space sensing. NOAA is the organization in charge of ensuring that the law is actually followed. They do not (and should not) have the ability to decide which companies/people can and cannot follow the law. From the text:

"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issues regulations revising the agency's requirements for the licensing, monitoring and compliance of operators of private Earth remote sensing space systems under Title II of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (the Act). These regulations implement the provisions of the Act, as amended by the 1998 Commercial Space Act, and the 2003 U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Policy."

<comment><USER11> Yes, but for the past three decades this wasn't a problem during space launches and now that SpaceX comes along on their 50th+ launch it suddenly is a problem.

To me that looks like a trumped up reason, if there was any real concern then it would have been noted at launch #1.

<comment><USER12> > Yes, but for the past three decades this wasn't a problem during space > launches

More than likely, that's because the commercial companies who needed the license got the license.

> now that SpaceX comes along on their 50th+ launch it suddenly is a problem.

Probably because the technology on this payload fall under the requirements of the law to need it, and the company who owns the payload didn't get the license. Or, NOAA was unaware of the satellites until now and realize they need to follow up. Since they are a small shop and are not omniscient, that can happen.

EDIT: I misread the article, I meant the launches, not the payloads.

<comment><USER11> > More than likely, that's because the commercial companies who needed the > license got the license.

More likely: they just woke up to the possibility of showing the world they exist.

> Probably because the technology on this payload fall under the requirements > of the law to need it, and the company who owns the payload didn't get the > license.

I don't see what it has to do with payloads.

> Or, NOAA was unaware of the satellites until now and realize they need to > follow up.

It's not about the satellites, it is about the _launches_ , specifically video from orbit.

<comment><USER13> > More likely: they just woke up to the possibility of showing the world they > exist.

I mean, the only evidence we've got is an article which quite clearly states that (i) SpaceX were the ones who contacted NOAA (ii) NOAA did not contact SpaceX regarding other launches, say it was SpaceX's responsibility to contact them and they don't think they have the resources to go chasing unlicensed remote sensing companies anyway (iii) Cameras on launches SpaceX carries out for government don't actually need permits anyway, which probably applies to a lot of SpaceX launches

So I'm not sure what gives you the confidence to confidently assert that it's "more likely" the precise opposite happened?

<comment><USER11> You are conveniently leaving out the bit from TFA that states that NOAA only recently started to enforce this particular part of their charter.

That is why SpaceX contacted them. If they had not and they had launched without obtaining permission and streamed the footage there would have been a nice 'gotcha' moment and they tried to avoid that.

> Cameras on launches SpaceX carries out for government don't actually need > permits anyway.

So what's the point on restricting them on other launches? That proves this whole thing is high grade bullshit.

<comment><USER13> I am "conveniently" leaving it out because it is a vaguely worded "appears..." piece of journalese which contradicts the rest of the article and established fact. Nobody has disputed that SpaceX contacted NOAA first, there's no dispute that they process 40-odd applications every year, no dispute that the policy of licensing remote sensing has been in effect for a long time, amended more than once and that recent moves in the legislature (recent as in _a couple of years ago, so SpaceX really had time to notice_ ) have been proposals to _relax_ it rather than to strengthen it.

And yeah, also no dispute that the government grants missions planned by its own agencies a remote sensing license - can't imagine why you would expect it to be otherwise tbh? But agreed, enough indents :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Good grief this whole thing is stupid.

1) The idea that an NOAA regulation is going to stop somebody from acting militarily against the US. (A Chinese military command somewhere: "Sir! We cannot point our spy satellites at the earth yet because the US NOAA hasn't issued us a license yet!" "DRATS!")

2) The idea that somebody doing something nefarious would even be _sharing_ this information with anybody.

3) The idea that any of this should be covering what is clearly a utility meant to display the effectiveness of a stage seperation.

This whole thing sounds like an April fool's joke to me.

<comment><USER15> I think the idea is more that the regulation will stop private U.S. companies from acting militarily against other countries. E.g., the U.S. has a treaty with Israel that forbids publishing high-resolution satellite imagery of Israel, and one of the functions of the licensing system is to implement that treaty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> No entity should be able to license or control broadcasting of the Earth. Whoever said it made them wince, I am also in a state of wincing.

<comment><USER17> We should attack the problem from the other direction, and for entities without special exemptions, require proof of consent from any identifiable people and organizations whose activity can be discerned in the recordings they retain or make commercial use of.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The public interest would appear to outweigh the narrow rights of the licensing office here.

And it's not as if we don't have hours of footage from those places at the same resolution already so whatever horse they're trying to keep in the barn has already bolted.

<comment><USER18> > The public interest would appear to outweigh the narrow rights of the ....

If only that was ever used to make regulation. We might have a decent copyright law by now in the US. I still blame Micky Mouse and Disney for all bad copy right law.

<comment><USER11> I think that that is better explained by the power of money in American politics than anything else. On another note, copyright laws in the rest of the world aren't that much better which means that even that is only a partial explanation at best.

But I take your point that public interest is rarely the thing foremost on politicians minds when they create their laws.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't understand all the "Let's assume this law is very good in most cases" sentiment here. You can assume anything you want about government, but I will not assume competence or good intent, and I think if you did more historical research you wouldn't either.

</comment><comment><USER20> Come on, this is the kind of crap that fuels flat earthers.

<comment><USER21> Which is another way of saying "this is some evidence in favour of the theory that the earth is actually flat and the government is trying to hide it".

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Seems to me the quick solution would be to grant a blanket exemption based on the resolution of surface features.

</comment><comment><USER23> The US owns the earth now? What a croc of shit.

<comment><USER13> No, the US regulates US-based companies, just like in any other field. This includes making the ability to conduct large scale surveillance of the earth's surface subject to license.

<comment><USER24> > No, the US regulates US-based companies, just like in any other field. This > includes making the ability to conduct large scale surveillance of the > earth's surface subject to license.

I wonder how that comports with this limitation on the U.S.: 'Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …' Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me that if they launched the camera, they have a right to publish the photos.

<comment><USER25> Why don't you try your theory about it being impossible to prohibit photos/videos by wandering into a military facility with a camera and explaining to the angry men with guns that they can't legally interfere with you?

I'll wait for you to report back on how that goes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Government over-regulation at its finest. I can certainly understand the FCC being involved here to manage bandwidth allocations, but a license to send pictures is ridiculous and is walking into murky water with First Amendment rights.

</comment><comment><USER27> I bet this law exists because the military asked for it. Spy satellites have military importance, so they want control over anything that looks even slightly like a spy satellite.

<comment><USER28> Maybe, but I don't think so. This seems like a silly regulation someone at this "extremely small" office (or the NOAA I suppose) came up with that slipped its way onto the books one way or another.

<comment><USER29> Whatever it "seems" like to you, it is a law passed by congress and signed by the president.

<comment><USER30> That doesn't necessarily mean the president or anyone in congress actually read it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Sigh, the flatearthers are going to love this one.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is really, really dumb.

</comment><comment><USER33> I find the suggestion that the Government was pissed off at Elon for launching his roadster to Mars oddly compelling. SpaceX does make a lot of the "entrenched" space capability look bad in comparison.

That said, I think a simple lawsuit would settle this issue and help give clarity to the powers granted the NOAA. I expect a number of Cubesat experiments might get caught up in this escalation of power as well. And while you're more likely to get someone to say that a cubesat with a re-purposed 10MP cell phone camera is a "remote sensing" camera I think it would be difficult to convince a judge and jury such cameras were a threat to the national security, regardless of where they were pointed.

</comment><comment><USER34> TFW you blew your entire CGI budget on a car commercial

</comment><comment><USER35> But why does the license exist?

<comment><USER36> The NOAA statement on the issue seems to imply that the rule exists because the government wants a measure of control over images of the Earth's surface for "national security" reasons.

[0] [http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-statement-on- todays-b...](http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-statement-on-todays- broadcast-of-spacex-iridium-5-launch)

<comment><USER37> What's the point? Doesn't China, Russia, and EU have a lot of sats and what if they decide to broadcast like SpaceX? US will threaten them?

<comment><USER38> The whole point is to prevent giving away information to other countries who don't have it already, not some conspiracy to prevent Americans from seeing the earth. Other countries are free to broadcast their data to the world if they like. The US will probably learn nothing new about the Earth but would learn of at least some chacteristics of other country's satellite tech

<comment><USER39> > prevent giving away information to other countries who don't have it already

Pretty easy for a nation-state to launch a surveillance satellite with much better optics, I imagine.

<comment><USER28> I suppose nation-states aren't the only ones who'd like information on US military bases/infrastructure/"nationalsecurityinterests", but I honestly think it's irrelevant. If we were discussing serious imaging systems then sure, but it's pretty clear that a webcam isn't going to give anyone any meaningful information.

<comment><USER29> The point is that you don't hand out the license trivially. Yes, spacex is just discussing this in the context of a glorified webcam, but webcasts aren't their only business. Such a license needs to consider the whole business. Now the NOAA perhaps should consider a type of limited license, but they can't assume the only imagery technology spacex is interested in is webcams.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Functionally, these all seem very similar:

SpaceX broadcasting from a camera attached to a Rocket

Boeing broadcasting from a camera attached to a Plane

Toyota broadcasting from a camera attached to a SUV

James Cameron broadcasting from a camera attached to a Submarine

<comment><USER41> Toyota would have a hard time driving their SUV to Area 51

It would probably not go over well if James Cameron broadcasted from directly under an American aircraft carrier, or next to a nuclear submarine

SpaceX put a camera up in orbit against the law. I suspect that NOAA was willing to look the other way when they did something borderline (2nd stage cameras), but now that they've pushed it too far they're not willing to cut them as much slack

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> This license is probably in place to cover situations where high resolution cameras in commercial satellites could compete with military surveillance ones.

</comment><comment> pi-squared Sounds like they needed an excuse to cover up something.

</comment><comment><USER43> Couldn't they just get someone in the office with a ham license to become the "broadcaster" and do without all the NOAA license shenanigans?

</comment><comment><USER44> let me guess, ULA filed a complaint?

</comment><comment> a-fried-egg It's because SpaceX is becoming "too successful" at what it does.

</comment><comment><USER45> Elon on the final level of Flat Earth Adventures.

</comment><comment><USER15> This kindof puts that law requiring a copyright license for taking photos of the Eiffel tower into perspective. You now need a license for taking photos of... the Earth?

</comment><comment><USER46> So SpaceX either knew about the regulation and ignored it (without clarifying with the regulatory body if it applied to them), or didn't know about the regulation. I'm not sure which is worse but both are bad.

I think SpaceX is doing cool, groundbreaking stuff, but they should be following the rules.

<comment><USER47> It's such a nonsense application of the rule that the people _doing_ the regulation didn't even think about it for at least 8 years ([https://youtu.be/fshVNOJ-Wtg?t=296](https://youtu.be/fshVNOJ-Wtg?t=296)) so it's hard to fault SpaceX.

It's also an extremely good bet that NOAA also recently got an application from ULA. ([https://youtu.be/FUJ9Dtyiclw?t=213](https://youtu.be/FUJ9Dtyiclw?t=213))

<comment><USER48> Unless there's a licensing process that makes the agency money or shows up in the numbers they show their bosses (like in this case), no regulatory agency in my experience is ever willing to clarify if something is legal or not. Their only response is to hire legal advice, and they'll take legal action against you if you're wrong. It's stupid that just knowing if the government will let you do something often requires paying money to a private business licensed by that same government for an educated prediction that you could very well still end up being responsible for if it's wrong.</comment></comment></comment>


Deploying TLS 1.3 at scale with Fizz, a performant open source TLS library - <AUTHOR> https://code.fb.com/networking-traffic/deploying-tls-1-3-at-scale-with-fizz-a-performant-open-source-tls-library/ <comment><USER2> AWS s2n will only add TLS 1.3 once it is finalized . Most likely this is why Facebook implemented its own.

[https://github.com/awslabs/s2n/issues/388](https://github.com/awslabs/s2n/issues/388)

<comment><USER3> AWS s2n lead here! I don't think that's the case ... after all it'd be less work to maintain a branch than to build a whole new implementation. My understanding from meeting the FB TLS folks over the years is that they have their own implementation, with their own coding guidelines, and priorities that "fit in" and suit Facebook. It's great to see more implementations too! I'm excited to finally pore over the code. Companies like Facebook, and Amazon, should all have deep ownership here. You'd be amazed how thick into the weeds we have to get to solve customer problems and it's invaluable to have a team of expert implementors on staff.

As for TLS1.3, we've been merging TLS1.3 dependencies into s2n already (like HKDF) and proving them formally, and we contributed to the TLS1.3 process with some design/security reviews and more. We're big TLS1.3 fans, and it's coming! As a low-level infrastructure provider with security and availability as our top priorities, after talking to our more TLS-savvy customers, we did choose to be a little more conservative, not running experimental branches in production and so on.

I'm also looking forward to this ... [https://www.blackhat.com/us-18/briefings/schedule/#playback-...](https://www.blackhat.com/us-18/briefings/schedule/#playback- a-tls-13-story-10192) ... and seeing it relates to any of our own research in the same area!

<comment><USER4> TIL there are companies which have they own implementation and "priorities" for common internet protocols. How can a certain implmentation "fit in" better with FB ? They don't make the OS, browser or even the web servers. What exactly they have to gain by maintaing a separate implementation ?

<comment><USER3> I can't speak for Facebook, only for why we at Amazon have s2n. TLS/SSL is a critical piece of internet infrastructure and it involves some reasonable complexity: cryptography, networking, and state machines. When you have billions of users and trillions of connections, the weight and importance of solving security, performance, and compatibility issues is pretty high.

Some examples: s2n is about 2% more efficient than OpenSSL for what we do, that might seem small, but even if I just measure what means for Amazon S3 cost savings, it's more than worth our development time! Another is extreme compatibility, for example we go out of our way to fingerprint the hello messages that come from certain Java versions, so that we can work around performance issues for those clients.

When we do make backwards incompatible changes, like retiring insecure cipher- suites we can do it in painstakingly tedious ways, like making it the least preferred and instrumenting clients so that we can figure out exactly what's left and why. This isn't always easy or obvious; retiring RC4 wasn't just flipping a flag but also chasing down how to prevent playback from stuttering on underpowered third-party Amazon Video clients that suddenly had to do the extra work of AES as well as rendering MP4 in real time. That's just one example to give you an idea.

TLS1.3 is itself a good example of where the priorities are different. TLS1.3 0-RTT has some real safety/security issues around replays. For us, we have to take those issues very seriously because AWS vends protocols over HTTPS that actually implement transactions, and sensitivity to replay has to be very precise. Internally AWS is also a lightning fast network and response times tend to be dominated by application latency, not network round trips. Facebook on the other hand has a lot of mobile clients over distant, awful, networks, and wants to improve that experience a lot. They also have full control over the requests being issued.

<comment><USER5> I'm curious about the rationale for supporting different cryptography implementations. Is it mostly for Apple devices?

<comment><USER3> It's more important for the low-powered clients where native implementations tend to pay a lot of attention to conserving battery life, which is often the biggest consideration.

<comment><USER5> That's what I figured - the whole s2n tangent's been pretty interesting, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It depends both on openssl and on libsodium, I searched the GitHub repo [1] and it uses 3 things from libsodium: constant time memory compare, random number generator and x25519 key exchange.

Does anyone know or can guess why it uses curve25519 key exchange code from libsodium and not from openssl? It uses ecc sign and verify and aead code from openssl.

1 - [https://github.com/facebookincubator/fizz/search?q=<sodium&u...](https://github.com/facebookincubator/fizz/search?q=<sodium&unscoped_q=<sodium)

</comment><comment><USER7> Fizz buzz worth reading about.</comment>


Embarrassed to Wear an Apple Watch - <AUTHOR> http://medium.com/@alariccole/i-have-an-apple-watch-and-i-m-ashamed-to-wear-it-872f5d87e9b3

<comment><USER2> I'd like to get a watch.

Not an apple watch - just a watch. Extra credit if it's the kind I'd have to wind by turning a little knob.

My ex gave me a really nice one the day we were wed. I still have it but the wristband broke, it wound up in storage back in Canada. I'll get it back eventually and have it repaired, but for now I'd like to get a less-expensive watch.

Maybe something from a pawnshop.

Perhaps I'll wear it to the Portland Apple Store. To make a statement, you know.

</comment><comment><USER3> I saw one in public on Saturday morning and was amazed how large it was.

As in: the wearer's sleeve wouldn't naturally drape back down over it. The shirt was snagged on the watch. It just doesn't look right.</comment>


Are You Peeing Enough? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.davejafari.com/are-you-peeing-enough

<comment><USER2> This article cites very little evidence: a link to a single article which itself cites no published research results.

And this article on Snopes.com says that there's no compelling evidence for the claim that people require even eight cups of water a day:

<http://www.snopes.com/medical/myths/8glasses.asp>

Also, if you're pissing constantly, wouldn't that be evidence that you're trying to over-hydrate yourself? If you were actually dehydrated, wouldn't your body absorb the additional water you drank rather than excreting it?

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting. 3l is about 12 cups.

I remember back in the 80's and 90's Dr. Dean Edell on his talk show routinely tried to bash this "8 cups of water a day" rule of thumb as an urban legend.

He says in this 2002 post that your body weight * 0.08 is the approximate number of cups of water you should get, but I think that includes all that you normally get from food too.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's really hard to tell what the right number is since there are so many variables involved. And you're right, water comes from other places too. The one thing that is certain is the 8 cups is definitely on the short side.</comment></comment>


Directus – Open-source headless CMS and API built with PHP - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/directus/directus <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN. I was taking a break from a work project and continued some research on open-source CMS solutions that we may use for a nonprofit that I'm working with.

While doing that, I came across Directus when reading the comments section from a submission about the Strapi CMS[0].

After reading through their documentation[1] and Github the solution looks pretty nice (personally, it appears to fulfill our requirements for our nonprofit!).

I figured I'd submit this since it doesn't appear to have been discussed much previously on HN[2].

Anyhow, check it out!

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23458770](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23458770)

[1]: [https://docs.directus.io/getting- started/introduction.html](https://docs.directus.io/getting- started/introduction.html)

[2]: [https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22directus%22&sort=byPopularity&type=all)</comment>