RIAA: Someone Else Is Pirating Through Our IP Addresses - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-someone-else-is-pirating-through-out-ip-addresses-111221/

<comment><USER2> I can believe that it wasn't RIAA staff that did the downloading; it certainly seems plausible that people at the ISP abused these IPs (which seem to be assigned to servers) for downloading torrents.

The most interesting part from my point of view is that IP addresses are what the RIAA use to point to two things:

1) Identity. 2) Accountability.

Now they are trying to use one of these things to shrug off the other as a defence, whilst using the same two points for offence on the other side of the battlefield.

Furthermore, the fact that they appear to be succeeding points to a not exactly balanced legal system.

<comment><USER3> They probably did the wrong thing too. If they just "identified" and fired a random person for it and made it public, they could continue with their tactic. Now they can't do that anymore - the next well known "downloader" lawsuit will use the same line they did...

<comment><USER4> This will not stop their use of this tactic.

1\. Greater than 50% of people are "guilty" of copyright infringement.

2\. It is cheaper to pay several thousand dollars in shake down fees than engage a lawyer (even if you are not part of the guilty set above).

The RIAA will continue to spray and prey (spelling intentional) as it is a winning technique. The judicial system in the US is broken in this respect, and something big needs to change for this to get fixed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I hope they realize the irony of this, although going by how completely ignorant they've been about anything that doesn't promote their own agenda, they probably don't.

<comment><USER6> It makes no sense thinking that they just need to understand their lack of rationality. Like Apple and North Korea, they do, say and claim whatever they want because they get away with it.

<comment><USER7> Try talking some shame into a mafia member who just sold some insurance to a corner store as he is hauling a bag of gold back to his apartment.

When the mafia member does something ironic while hauling his gold, is it helpful for a passer by to say "aha!" and point it out?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Oh, an IP address does not match one-to-one with an identity? That's curious.

</comment><comment><USER9> Good. Refund to the others then please.

</comment><comment><USER10> No problem, as long as they get the same treatment that other people who've used the same defense get. Maybe the RIAA should take a lesson from the Matt Cutts/Google Chrome smackdown a week or two ago.

</comment><comment><USER11> Is it possible that they were seeding bait content in a torrent swarm to collect IP addresses to sue?

Or is it more likely that their employees were just torrenting at work?

<comment><USER12> If I remember correctly the first time it was revealed that RIAA owned IP's had been torrenting, the article was careful to only name torrents which RIAA has no rights to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is distracting us from the real point, that the RIAA is trying to acquire an ability to use IP addresses to resolve internet downloads into automatic lawsuits that fly through court.

Lawsuits are a huge source of revenue. Step 1. Get lots of people to download stuff for free they would never in a million years pay $16 dollars for.. Step 2: sue them as if the free download was a lost sale.

This profit model isn't going away until it is forcefully taken down.

<comment><USER13> While I don't think that we can prove that any particular person was the infringer based on this, I find it interesting to compare this data to the public rhetoric that everyone else isn't "doing enough" to stop piracy.

Maybe they should, you know, clean up their own networks first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This article was published on December 21, 2011.

Here's a previous submission: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3377641></comment>


Maslow's list of Metaneeds - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamotivation#Metaneeds_and_metapathology <comment><USER2> Interesting. Seems as though the metaneeds exist in parallel, rather than in a hierarchy. I'm not sure what, if anything, that implies.</comment>


What happens when you leave marijuana up your nose for 18 years - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/marijuana-smuggled-in-mans-nose-and-forgotten-for-18-years-turned-to-stone/ <comment><USER2> There's nothing marijuana-specific in the article which answers the question. Another clickbaity title.</comment>


Show HN: Turn Google Sheets into a live data workbench for CRM data - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> Hey all -- I'm cofounder at Demand Sage and I'm excited to share our new product with the community and I'd love any feedback!

Demand Sage is a completely free Google Sheets add-on that connects Sheets to HubSpot and then packs sheets full of features like automatically updating data, pre-built reports, dashboards, and flexible data building blocks, including the ability to write SQL queries via sheets formulas.

We're live on ProductHunt today, check it out if you'd like to read a bit more: [https://www.producthunt.com/posts/demand-sage-for- hubspot](https://www.producthunt.com/posts/demand-sage-for-hubspot)

</comment><comment><USER2> I use this with the Google Analytics Sheets plug-in to build full-funnel views that update automatically (well, the GA plugin updates when I run it, but that's so simple it might as well be auto)

</comment><comment><USER3> This makes so much sense. With Salesforce or HubSpot, I usually end up pulling data into Google Sheets to get the answers I need. Demand Sage feels like the right level of flexibility and automation.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is cool, I like the practicality and flexibility of being able to work with the data in Google Sheets without having to do any manual syncing.

</comment><comment><USER5> it's been so much fun talking to old friends in the @HubSpot universe about this launch this week - right away they "get it" on how much time this would save them. a pleasure to work on this project.

</comment><comment><USER6> google-sheets-as-an-app seems to make a ton of sense given you could write other scripts on top of all this + easily connect to apps ... really neat!</comment>


AI Baby Sings to Her 'Godmother' - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/allsongs/2018/12/04/672758884/holly-herndons-ai-baby-sings-to-her-godmother <comment><AUTHOR> Herndon's press release mentioned, but not linked, in the article: [http://www.hollyherndon.com/godmother-holly-herndon-and- jlin...](http://www.hollyherndon.com/godmother-holly-herndon-and-jlin-feat- spawn)

Direct link to track: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc9OjL6Mjqo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc9OjL6Mjqo)

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find more technical implementation details. We can speculate until they surface.</comment>


Ultra-light insect robots take flight - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/03/flying-robot-insects/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd be interested to see the potential military and espionage applications of this sort of research.</comment>


Big Ideas for Making Fusion Power a Reality - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/5-big-ideas-for-making-fusion-power-a-reality <comment><USER2> "helium as the only lasting by-product."

It is not the only lasting by product if neutrons are part of the deal.

A tokamak would go beyond breakeven if they had ever more rediculous magnetic field strengths.

If the plasma touches anything heat gets sucked out fast.

If there was some new understanding to plasma maybe it could be practical. Add neural nets. or something.</comment>


Rob Pike on Systems Software Research (2000) - <AUTHOR> http://herpolhode.com/rob/utah2000.pdf

<comment><USER2> You probably should add a (2000) to the title.

I would really like to see Rob Pike's updated version of this.

He's right about the 'meat' of it though.

I thought that by now we'd be using some kind of ultra stable micro kernel based operating system, using message passing as the primary interface between components.

Instead, all we got was endless API calls.

<comment><USER3> I assume the complaint is that there's not sufficient processor-assisted memory protection? In your opinion, which modules tend to interfere with other modules in today's OSs in a way that would be improved by this?

<comment><USER2> Which ones do you'll never know, but potentially all of them.

Having a driver segfault is very convenient, it allows you to partition 'blame' in a way that you actually get somewhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd love to build a non-trivial operating system, but all I've made thus far has been written in assembler and extremely minimal.

If one wanted to bootstrap and get an OS running quickly, I wonder what the best approach or language would be?

Renraku is interesting just for the sake of the horror of building something on Mono/.NET.

I just wonder what kind of OS would result if you applied new-age MVC and rapid dev principles to the design of a new OS. Would the concept of a kernel even be totally relevant?

<comment><USER2> I've built a small OS, multitasking, window manager, the works.

It took me two years of my life but I learned more than I ever would have doing something else. It's good to have supportive people around you when you attempt something like this, and it also helps to have an old guitar push button wired up to your reset switch until you get it booting properly. You'll be resetting your machine lots of times.

I used the minix filesystem because it was very simple and I could fit the code to load the configuration and boot files in to a small boot loader.

I used an old 16 bit compiler for that part, PCs do not generally boot up in 'protected mode', so your first stage is spent on moving stuff from one side of the line to the other, then finally make the switch and continue from there.

The stages, iirc were:

      - master boot loader

      - partition boot loader

      - file system boot loader (16 bit)

      - system tasks (fs, idle, task (the scheduler) and a console driver running a shell)

Because the OS used message passing it was relatively easy to build and test the bits outside of the working os, after all as long as the messages were having the desired side-effects it was all good.

I used borland turboc for the 16 bit file system aware boot loader, and DJGPP for the boot strapping to a self-contained os. As soon as that worked and I was able to get GCC running on the other side I focused on recompiling everything from scratch until the binaries matched exactly with the ones I had been making in cross development mode, after that things went a lot faster.

That first stage took several months, I don't remember cursing so much in my whole life.

I wouldn't trade that time for anything though, it was better than any other programming experience before or after.

The OS I wrote was a functional equivalent of QnX, at the time only available for the 286, and I very much wanted a 386 version.

Several others had a hand in there, Marcel Wouters completely re-wrote the console driver, and a large part of the window manager was based on a list package that was written by another friend.

For networking I used the ne2000 driver from the freebsd project with a bunch of tweaks to get it to work as a user process.

The hardest part of the whole thing was to get a hard-realtime response on interrupts in user processes.

<comment><USER4> It took me about ~2 months to get to an OS that could boot from an MBR, get into a raw kernel that only used memory space (no filesystem or persistence, this was intentional), and had a basic prompt running in kernel mode.

What I really want to return to is what I call dual-mode programming. Taking the older Apple computers and the Commodore 64 as an example, they were comparatively speaking an absolutely joy to program on. You started with BASIC and then eventually progressed towards manipulating memory locations in asm to draw graphics and make whatever you wanted.

Wasn't because the programming languages used were anymore powerful (asm and BASIC? Come on...), it was because they were frankly better designed as far as "whole systems" go.

Functionality isn't exposed the way it used to be. It's difficult to put anything functional together on a computer these days if you're a rank beginner.

Sure, I can slap something together in Python, but that's because they're walking right around the system's complexity by living in their own little world (the interpreter and the .py libraries).

I guess I'm hoping for what no one really cares about anymore. They just want to add more layers of abstraction to compensate for their own short- sightedness and poor discipline.

<comment><USER2> I so agree with you, it's hard to put it in to better words so I'll leave it at that.

thanks!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Unexpected places you can and can't use null bytes - <AUTHOR> https://eklitzke.org/unexpected-places-you-can-and-cant-use-null-bytes <comment><USER2> It seems a bit odd to call it "unexpected" when any C API that accepts a char* and doesn't include a length parameter is commonly understood to expect a null terminated string, and any API that has a length parameter likely won't have this restriction.

<comment><USER3> you missed the point. it's not that this specific api call can't take embedded \0; it's that there is no alternative api that allows embedded null. there's no way to open a file by using a string containing \0, no matter what api you pick, but you can write data to a file which contains null if you pick the right function. there's no apriori way to know which apis have this duplication and which don't.

<comment><USER2> I don't follow what you're getting at. If there's no length field, it's going to stop scanning on the first null. If there is a length field, it will keep reading until the length is reached. That's the general contract with C APIs.

If you actually NEED strings with nulls in them (although I couldn't think of a reason why), you'll need to use/find/create APIs with length fields.

<comment><USER4> > If there is a length field, it will keep reading until the length is > reached.

Well, it _might_. If it ever uses that string internally with some function that expects a null termination then it'll probably still get truncated.

<comment><USER2> Possibly, depending on the API. But then again, strings should not have embedded NUL characters. There's no good reason for it. You have 32 other control characters to choose from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Pedantic nit: the ASCII '\0' character is called NUL, not null or NULL. C strings are NUL-terminated or zero-terminated, not null-terminated.

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

<comment><USER6> IMO, you're being a bit _too_ pedantic here; it's perfectly reasonable to refer to a "null byte" or "null character". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_character](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_character)

It's true that "NUL" is the usual abbreviation for this value in character code charts/standards.

<comment><USER7> I am disappointed this URL does not redirect to that page:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%00](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%00)

But what the hell does it do??? In Safari and Firefox, I get an nginx 400 Bad Request page from en.wikipedia.org. But in Chrome, it seems to be redirecting to a google search for the same url, when I type it into the address bar. Well, that's meta. Chrome won't even let me drag-and-drop that icky %00 terminated url from one page into another page to navigate there -- it angrily rejects it and sadly animates the evil url back to where it came from (though dragging it into an existing or new tab mysteriously works). But actually clicking on that link immediately goes to a blank purgatory page with the url "about:blank#blocked". Those are Chrome's stories, and it's sticking with them.

At least this works:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%01](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%01)

>Special Page

>Bad title

>The requested page title contains an invalid UTF-8 sequence.

>Return to Main Page.

Oh, yeah -- PHP:

[https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/84008/url- enc...](https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/84008/url-encoded- query-string-with-embedded-null-00-breaks-on-some-servers)

If not the actual NUL character, then at least the Unicode Symbol for NUL redirects to the page on the Null character.

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

>Null character

>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

>(Redirected from ␀)

>For other uses, see Null symbol.

...But then again, shouldn't the Null symbol ␀ redirect to the page on the Null symbol, which it actually is, not the page on the Null character, which it only symbolizes?

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

<comment><USER8> > But what the hell does it do??? In Safari and Firefox, I get an nginx 400 > Bad Request page from en.wikipedia.org. But in Chrome, it seems to be > redirecting to a google search for the same url, when I type it into the > address bar.

Firefox makes a GET request to "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%00"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%00"), the server returns an HTTP/2 400 Bad Request. Presumably because the web-server considered the URL invalid.

Chrome decides the string isn't a valid URL up front. So it does what it normally does when you enter random junk in the address bar; it searches for it.

The dirty secret of URLs is that no one can quite agree on which ones are valid or how they should be canonicalized.

We can take WHATWG's spec as a modern way to handle URLs [1]. If I'm reading it right (50/50 chance!) the URL would be considered valid by that spec.

See also this article from the developer of curl: [https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/05/11/my-url-isnt-your- url/](https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/05/11/my-url-isnt-your-url/)

[1] [https://url.spec.whatwg.org/](https://url.spec.whatwg.org/)

<comment><USER9> > The dirty secret of URLs is that no one can quite agree on which ones are > valid or how they should be canonicalized.

Fun story. An engineer was working to migrate an old system from Python 2 to 3 before the Python 2 EOL deadline. The engineer decided to use the str type to represent URLs. Chaos ensued when suddenly non-UTF-8 URLs don't work any more. Turns out back when that system was designed, people were directly URL- encoding binary data into URLs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Unexpected places where you _can_ use null bytes: gets, fgets and scanf("%s"). All three will read and store null bytes into your string from the input, and keep going: gets and fgets only terminate at a newline character and scanf only terminates at whitespace (which doesn't include the null byte).

gets and scanf("%s") are also horrifically unsafe. gets is well-known to be unsafe (to the point where you'll almost certainly get a compiler warning for using it). However, scanf("%s") is unsafe for exactly the same reason (no bound on the buffer length) yet will not produce a compiler warning. Add to the fact that these functions will accept null bytes, and you have a very dangerous buffer overflow waiting to happen.

<comment><USER11> This is why you _always_ write:

        if (*s && *s != '\n' ...)

and never:

        if (*s != '\n' ...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> One unexpected place where null bytes are acceptable: Wi-Fi SSIDs. That's one way to keep people off your network, I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER13> > While we're on the topic, it's worth noting that the only other restriction > on filenames is that that they cannot contain a /, which is the character > used to denote directories. Filenames can contain arbitrary other binary > data, including spaces and newlines, and there's no defined character > encoding.

I've seen this _byte_ people when junk gets written to a filename (either accidentally or maliciously). Especially in shells but also in other programming languages. Issues that aren't always handled well include file names that:

* include a newline or some other control characters

* start with a `-`

* aren't valid UTF-8

<comment><USER14> I have recently accidentally created a folder named "~". Then I tried deleting it through shell.

<comment><USER15> I did similar, once. I had a script where I misquoted and ended up with a directory starting with ~

It was the only directory starting that way, so I typed "rm -rf ~<TAB><ENTER>"

Hit control-C a half second later, but the damage was done. Fortunately most of my important files are backed up.

Lesson: when deleting files with tricky names, write the command without flags first, then add "-rf" after the path is confirmed correct.

<comment><USER14> I've got lucky with some directory that is called .asound or similar. It was the first one in the home directory and it didn't manage to go beyond that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Neat article, but the author doesn't provide an actual reason you'd _need_ to pass a NUL byte into something like a socket address, or command arg.

Is there an (perhaps obvious, or not) common usage of NUL byte literals being passed around, not for the purpose of terminating strings? Just terrible ye- olde file formats?

<comment><USER17> All kinds of binary data might have a NUL byte. E.g. if you want to write a NUL byte to a file in the shell, you might try something like

        echo -n $'\0' > nul

This doesn't work for the reason stated in the article. The argument is instead interpreted as a string ended at the NUL byte and the file will be empty. BTW you can get around this with printf since it processes escape sequences internally.

        printf '\0' > nul

<comment><USER10> There's also `echo -ne '\0'`, which works similarly (it tells echo to interpret the escape sequences).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> You can printf a null byte just fine, you just need to provide the length, just like with fwrite:

printf("%.*s", (int) nbytes, str);

</comment><comment><USER19> PostgreSQL TEXT fields</comment>


Revisited: Watership Down - <AUTHOR> https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/11/06/watership-down/ <comment><USER2> Richard Adams's passing was not too long ago, just December of last year: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13265256](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13265256)

Another great article: [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/04/richard- adams-...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/04/richard-adams- watership-down-interview)

Was blown away to discover that Adams had written WD, his first attempt at a book, at the age of 52, and that it all came from an impromptu story he made up during a car ride: [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/04/richard- adams-...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/04/richard-adams- watership-down-interview)

</comment><comment><USER3> My favorite book of all time, bar none. Adventure, bravery, friendship, loyalty, love, life, and death. Written with a vividness and tenderness that brought me to tears. It sounds trite, but it's so true. If you haven't read it, do yourself a favor and do so.

<comment><USER4> Like the author of the article, I also don't think of WD as an allegory but a story about rabbits. It is one of the first books I read that really pulled me into another world. Later I read 'Plague Dogs' which is a different animal and a bit perplexing.

<comment><USER5> Like Watership Down, Plague Dogs was made into an animated film, which can be found available on the intertubes.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084509/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084509/)

<comment><USER6> Warning: The Plague Dogs film is so viscerally traumatic that even if you're an adult the imagery can travel back in time and ruin your own childhood.

<comment><USER7> Man, I had nightmares from the Watership Down movie as a kid. Now I feel like I have to watch Plague Dogs just to balance things out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Casual Trivia: Watership Down inspired one of the earliest role playing games, Bunnies and Burrows.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunnies_%26_Burrows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunnies_%26_Burrows)

<comment><USER8> Yes I always wished that I had had a chance to play that - Mouse Guard is a more modern RPG with similar theams

<comment><USER9> My impression was that Mouse Guard was a lot more _Redwall_ -esque - is that wrong?

<comment><USER10> Mouse Guard is basically the rangers from the Lord of the Rings in mouse form, with cats and owls as monsters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "My younger siblings had seen the animated adaptation and had told me there was a lot of blood."

I too always associated this story with violence before I read it. The violence in the adaptation has really shaped the reputation of the story.

The story has some intense moments, but there are far more memorable bits, like the language and the puzzles and the relationships.

The movie feels like Miike or Tarantino in comparison.

<comment><USER12> The 1978 movie adaptation is superb and deeply memorable. Voices actors include the great John Hurt and Richard Briers. Here's a taste:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGyQmH9NZcw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGyQmH9NZcw)

There's at least one thing about the film, though, that I find mysterious. It was given a 'U' rating in the UK (which means universal, i.e. suitable for all ages). Yet many people find it scarily unwatchable -- why?

 _SPOILERS._ True, there's blood, which is unusual for a children's animation. The enemy warren, savagely run by General Woundwort, is terrifying. But I think the real objection seems to be the perception that vulnerable little rabbits are being picked off one by one as our group journeys across the countryside. Yet, if you look closely, you notice that only one member of the group, a minor character, is actually killed (Violet; by a bird of prey). Bigwig escapes from the snare, Hazel recovers from being shot, and so on.

 _UPDATE_. I think I've figured it out. Because of the beautiful song 'Bright Eyes' (sung by Art Garfunkel), we have mourned Hazel even though he was only wounded. So it _feels_ as if he has died, even though he hasn't.

<comment><USER13> Don't forget the scene where the rabbit warren is gassed. Imagine you are ~five and you see that for the first time:)

What really hit me was the haunting, archetypal imagery surrounding the rabbit mythology and the Black Rabbit of Inle. When you are a kid just figuring out that you and your loved ones will die and you see that kind thing it has an impact.

Honestly, the emotional music and expressionist death imagery combine to create almost an initiation-like experience for the unsuspecting kids who sit down to watch a cartoon about bunnies!

<comment><USER12> _> Don't forget the scene where the rabbit warren is gassed._

Good point and you're not the first to point this out to me today. I may have to amend my thesis...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I read the book in second grade and the following paragraph has made a great impression on me and still does

"One day the farmer thought, 'I could increase those rabbits: make them part of my farm--their meat, their skins. Why should I bother to keep rabbits in hutches? They'll do very well where they are.' He began to shoot all elil-- lendri, homba, stoat, owl. He put out food for the rabbits, but not too near the warren. For his purpose they had to become accustomed to going about in the fields and the wood. And then he snared them--not too many: as many as he wanted and not as many as would frighten them all away or destroy the warren. They grew big and strong and healthy, for he saw to it that they had all of the best, particularly in winter, and nothing to fear--except the running knot in the hedge gap and the wood path. So they lived as he wanted them to live and all the time there were a few who disappeared. The rabbits became strange in many ways, different from other rabbits. They knew well enough what was happening. But even to themselves they pretended that all was well, for the food was good, they were protected, they had nothing to fear but the one fear; and that struck here and there, never enough at a time to drive them away. They forgot the ways of wild rabbits. They forgot El-ahrairah, for what use had they for tricks and cunning, living in the enemy's warren and paying his price? "

</comment><comment><USER15> Such a wonderful book, I read it every single year for about twenty years, until I misplaced my copy. There's a beautiful walk that takes one by Watership Down and Nuthanger Farm. Recommended: [https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2009/jun/07/watership- dow...](https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2009/jun/07/watership-down- hampshire-walking-guides)

<comment><USER16> You can also find the "bridge under the iron road" using the map from the original book, though there isn't a public right of way to it. It looks a lot like the one in the film though with trees grown bigger.

Trivia: much of the actual watership down is owned by Andrew Lloyd Webber.

<comment><USER15> Do you have a maps link?

Edit: never mind, look what I found - all the locations :) [https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=13rvLA-0vQ5pfBiRjzb...](https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=13rvLA-0vQ5pfBiRjzbRWO2NjCFY&hl=en_US&ll=51.30762181431128%2C-1.3115679999999657&z=12)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If you like Watership Down I don't think I can recommend enough H is for Hawk by Helen Macdonald. While the books are very different, one is a novel the other is a memoir they both touch on nature, death, life in beautifully similar ways.

</comment><comment><USER18> A seriously traumatising bit of literature, and I'm on the fence over whether it was a positive influence in my life or a negative one - and whether I want my own kids to now read it/experience it, or not.

On the one hand, it most definitely highlights the fragility of the human condition. On the other hand, it definitely highlights the fragility of the human condition.

In my case, back in 1978 as an 8-year old kid, the movie was definitely a major cause of upset and trauma. Would I now receive cathartic relief by introducing it to my own ~8 year old kids? I'm wondering if I'm going to gain anything by inducing my own children to confront the reality of the mob at such an age - even if I, myself, went through it and seem to have come out okay. The conundrum is, perhaps I've become Watership Down, all the while resisting it ..

</comment><comment><USER19> This book was my first introduction to dystopian societies and I've had a fascination with them ever since.

</comment><comment><USER20> What do folks think about this?

"She felt comforted by the rabbits' straightforward approach to their emotions and said that reading the novel might actually help neurotypical people understand autism in a new way."

</comment><comment><USER21> I felt there was a strong allegory to entrepreneurship in WD. I read it as the story of a founding team: one visionary who saw things differently, the other who was able to lead. They escape from their rigid community, and build a specialized team.

Very deep stuff in there, so well told.

I finally read this as an adult recently, and it is amazing. I'd love more recommendations for books like it (with non-humans as protagonists).

</comment><comment><USER22> Great book. Named my Manx cat (with a 'bunny tail') Hazel-Rah. She's never forgiven me... ;)

<comment><USER23> When I was in my late teens and doing security things on the internet (1992/93) I used the handle Silverweed and everyone assumed it was a pot reference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Try Shardik too, his next work.

<comment><USER8> the Follow up Maia is quite different in tone definatly X rated

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> A great novel. I'm glad I was reminded of it. I think I will read it to the kids.

<comment><USER26> I can't quite remember it in detail. What age kids would it be appropriate for?

<comment><USER27> It is (or was) on the official recommended leisure reading list for 7-10 year olds in England. More recent lists seem to put it for 11-12 year olds. ("Key Stage reading list watership down" is what I searched for, and sometimes it's stage 2, otherwise 3.)

I think I was 7 or 8 when my mother / English teacher gave it to me.

<comment><USER28> Somehow I'd more or less forgotten about it (even though I'd read it twice myself by age 9). So what we thinking, it'd be ok for a 6yo? How about a 4yo?

<comment><USER29> There is explicit violence, bloodshed, and death. Make your own judgement.

<comment><USER28> Haha, yeah it doesn't sound great. It's hard though with these things. Ideally you need to see a snippet of the sort of it to judge yourself.

<comment><USER29> I would just read it yourself, its quite an enjoyable read for adults.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I've long had a desire to get "Prince With a Thousand Enemies" tattooed from elbow to elbow across upper back. Also have had various online handles based on that phrase over the last 20 years.

</comment><comment><USER31> Watership Down index (work in progress):

[https://johngtait.github.io/](https://johngtait.github.io/)</comment>


Giving Up on the Current MacBook Pro Keyboard - <AUTHOR> https://theoutline.com/post/4277/dont-buy-the-new-macbook-pros-even-on-sale-in-my-opinion <comment><USER2> The keyboard/trackpad combination of the last decade of Macbooks (Air/Pro) were basically perfect. I like the OS, and I've never found a PC laptop to come remotely close to the sweet ergonomics of those Macbooks.

And then I got a 2017 Macbook Pro at my new job. Never mind that the keys are reported to stick (mine haven't yet), it just feels terrible. Virtually zero throw in the switch. And a personal pet peeve, they made the same mistake Microsoft did with their ergo keyboard for 1 sad iteration (before they fixed it in later models) - they changed the arrow keys from the standard upside- down T layout to a diamond layout. Those designers at Apple wanted symmetry so they made it happen. Too bad it kills the ergonomics.

But the trackpad is where it really goes downhill. It's physically huge for no good reason. Worse (and the reason I'm seriously looking to see if I can swap it for an older model), it routinely (like 20% of the time) mistakes 1- and 2-finger clicks for each other. I never know which it's going to do. I never experienced this at all with any of my older Macbook Pros and Macbook Airs. Good luck giving a presentation - you're awkwardly fumbling with context menus when you don't want them, etc... audience will think you've never used a computer before. And yes, I've disabled all the stupid gesture stuff because it was even worse before I did so.

The "only 2 USB C ports and a headphone jack" is the icing on the cake. I could live with it if it were the only issue, but it just annoys me that I need to bring a docking station with me to stay plugged in while presenting and using any usb peripheral. What's the benefit here - maybe 1/2 mm thinner?

<comment><USER3> I've seen this sentiment echoed over and over on here. I'm always wondering why people continue to order Macs. It's very rare that I see positive comments about the touchbar. The reason can't be because macos is better, since there are tons of complaints on here about that too. The hardware is definitely not the best anymore. So why are people still buying them?

<comment><USER4> It's a UNIXy system, that actually works with the hardware. Closing the lid mostly. In 20 years I haven't seen a single Win/Linux laptop that worked (on decently specced HW).

Oh sure, tons of "I have a perfectly working linux on x" but drilling down it always boils down to fiddling, updating, manually correcting some value somewhere, tweaking.. etc.

I switched to a mac some 8 years ago on the desktop and 6 years ago as my daily driver laptop. I would love to break out of the apple ecosystem for something more free but I just have not been convinced it exists yet.

With all the complaints about macos, rightfully so, quality seems to be degrading somehwat, the HW/SW combination is still unbeaten in my book. I run Fusion on it, with a Windows Server VM and Linux VM w shared homedir so I can run whatever tools best fit for the job. Only real gripe is memory limit of 16GB. Oh and the touchbar. Fuck the touchbar. Could have been nice as an addition above the Fn key row.

Now let's hope my keyboard holds out ;)

<comment><USER5> I have a Dell Inspiron 17r 7720 and a Macbook made in the same year. Spec for spec they are very comparable machines, but if I had to choose I would pick the Dell every time. I've used Ubuntu on it for years with zero "fiddling" required. Windows 10 is on a physical SSD, but with one command it's configured to run on a VM in Ubuntu. Many people have gotten Mac OS to run natively on the Dell, but I decided to spend hundreds on a Macbook instead because to the enormous amount of "fiddling" it would have taken.

TL;DR: I've had the opposite experience as you.

<comment><USER4> Sounds good, a quick scan of the reviews show lots of praise. Wondering about battery life though, and I would still need to see it for myself before I'm convinced.

I am optimistic though, seriously think that when my current macbook is up for replacement there will be a handful of capable machines with proper (HW) linux support.

For me however, lacking that positive first hand experience is what makes me keep ordering macs.. for now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have had no problems with the current Macbook Pro keyboard. Am I in the minority? I also love the feel of it. I really like the low travel and the Touchbar helps a bunch with my RSI. I don't use the Trackpad at all unless I really need to. I also use Emacs which gives you an idea of how much I use the keyboard.

<comment><USER7> Not saying that you are wrong, but I have a couple of questions: do you touch type? which types of keyboards did you use in the past? Laptop, desktop, chiclets? Mechanical?

I think this may have to do with the kinds of keyboards people are used to. Some prefer lighter keys, some prefer a lot of key travel, some like clicky keys, etc.

This is why Cherry makes so many kinds of switches...

<comment><USER6> At home at my Desktop I type in an IBM model M. I used to have a Corsair k70 which I played FPSes and Warframe. I have a Apple Bluetooth keyboard that is a chicklet. I also have a Chicklet keyboard on a Toshiba satellite . I also used the chicklet keyboards on a MacBook Pro 2011 and a MacBook Air 2012.

On my k70 I had red Cherry MX switches . When I was in kindergarten I used Apple II keyboards.

For mobile devices I used an Motorola droid and a Treo. Also a blackberry .

EDIT: Sorry forgot to mention I touch type (I am touch typing on a IBM model M right now).

<comment><USER7> And now my heuristics got completely overwhelmed and I cannot fanthom why someone who types in an IBM Model M would like the Macbook Pro keyboard :)

Although we have both used the apple bluetooth keyboard and Airs, so that may have contributed for the higher tolerance of the new Macbook Pro keyboard.

Right now I'm typing using a Logitech K750 solar keyboard, which feels very similar to Apple's bluetooth keyboard (although I feel that the keys need slightly more pressure to activate). It is dead silent which is great to use around coworkers.

At home I want to get a Kinesis Freestyle Edge for the ergonomics, and I'm debating if Cherry MX Browns or Blues would be better.

<comment><USER6> Oh forgot to mention I have used all of the ergonomic keyboards by Microsoft.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My experience:

Joined a startup, raring to go, and they needed to get me a top-end MacBook Pro (16GB instead of 8GB as I recall). Apple stores in SF refused to stock the top-end, pointing me to their build-to-order options at the store. +5 days minimum.

Went with a mail-order house and next day aired in a top-end MacBook Pro laptop (which they had plenty of in every color). Shift key was DOA. Took it in to the Apple store. They had the gall to tell me that since I didn't buy it directly from Apple, they wouldn't (not couldn't, wouldn't) repair it in store, but would send it to their warranty center in Houston (right after Harvey). Got it back fixed, but so many days wasted.

Apple gets so many really difficult things right. Simple-seeming things like basic customer service and proactive quality control escape them.

<comment><USER9> Apple doesn't repair _anyone 's_ laptop on site, they're all shipped to repair centers.

And if they don't stock your configuration in store, there's no way to just hand you a new one either.

I'm not saying your experience was any less shitty than it was, but there's nothing else they could have done than what they did.

<comment><USER10> This is false, they repaired my Macbook Pro in the store when the enter key started failing.

<comment><USER11> The new one? I was told they would have to send my 1 month old, purchased from an Apple Store late 2016 MBP in for a flakey 'R' key to have the top case replaced. I asked if they could pop off the keycap and clean it and they said that they do not do that on the butterfly design.

<comment><USER10> No, mine is the late 2013 Macbook Pro Retina. The parent poster said "Apple doesn't repair _anyone 's_ laptop on site".

<comment><USER11> I read "anyone" in this context to mean Apple is not discriminating against people who purchased from 3rd parties.

This is in response to the GP's comment "They had the gall to tell me that since I didn't buy it directly from Apple, they wouldn't (not couldn't, wouldn't) repair it in store" \- which isn't the case, this is the policy for the butterfly models.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> They keyboard is bad. It may not be _atrocious_ and I've seen some desktop keyboards with much larger key travel which are even more unpleasant. But good it is not. Which is surprising, because Apple created the best chiclet-style keyboards in the past. The older mabooks and the airs are completely acceptable. The Apple "magic" keyboard is actually pleasant to type on and I bought a third party keyboard which mimics it, although cheaper and 'solar' powered.

They made bad compromises. People who actually needed a macbook pro were not asking for a slimmer package. People focusing on size and weight might.

Case in point: I bought a Macbook (not pro, but with second gen butterfly switches) for my wife, she doesn't seem to mind, even when typing essays. She is not a touch typist however.

I'm typing this in a Macbook Pro at work, but using a bluetooth keyboard, so it is a non issue. At home, same deal, except I'm planning to upgrade to a mechanical keyboard.

If I am on the go, then I'll have to use the integrated keyboard. But this is rare for me. If you only use it on the go occasionally, then the keyboard may not be a deal breaker.

Still, my Dell Chromebook has a MUCH better keyboard, and it only cost me a couple hundred bucks. This is seriously wrong.

<comment><USER11> The OP is not making a case that the keyboard feels bad, he's saying it's questionably fragile design - as a tool, it is unreliable.

I can concur, have had sometimes flakey keys going on 1.5 years now. I'm fairly adept at removing the keycaps but have several that trigger double- presses from time to time. It's frustrating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here's the direct link to Casey Johnston's article:

[https://theoutline.com/post/4277/dont-buy-the-new-macbook- pr...](https://theoutline.com/post/4277/dont-buy-the-new-macbook-pros-even-on- sale-in-my-opinion)

</comment><comment><USER13> In an office of 20+ developers on Macs, over half have had to get their keyboards replaced, and a few more just live with broken keys. This keyboard is truly awful.

After 10 years on the Mac, I'll be switching to ThinkPad / Linux / Hackintosh if the next MBP doesn't fix the keyboard issue.

<comment><USER14> I spent 8 years writing Linux software on a Mac, with various configurations including SSH, VMWare and Docker development environments.

For a while I was happy about this state of affairs, but over time I became increasingly dissatisfied.

Late last year I started a new job and essentially demanded that I be allowed to choose my own hardware. I ended up getting a high-spec X1 Carbon and running a Fedora variant on it.

It works very, very well. And the keyboard is great. I won't be going back to a mac any time soon.

<comment><USER15> Have you run into any issues with Wayland? I've been running Mint for the past few years, but the lack of fractional DPI scaling is frustrating so I've been considering switching to Fedora.

<comment><USER14> I'm using Gnome with Wayland and I haven't had any issues. However, I'm not using fractional scaling either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Big /r/apple thread about MBP keyboard issues:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/83frmc/macbook_pro_2...](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/83frmc/macbook_pro_2016_3rd_butterfly_keyboard/)

The subreddit is mostly rabid diehard Apple fans, so the amount of discussion there on this is telling.

I'm on my 7 year old MacBook Air and I've never had keyboard issues. Looks like I'll be waiting for the 2018 MBP to upgrade.

<comment><USER17> I have a 4 year old macbook air, and if they just upgrade the screen, I will definitely buy one more today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Adding my gripe to the cacophony: I upgraded my 2012 MacBook Pro to the 2017 model because I wanted a bigger SSD and one more monitor than the old machine supported.

Much of the time it's fine because I have it docked, giving me access to a regular external keyboard. But when I travel or use my treadmill desk, forcing me to use the built-in keyboard...ugh. The key travel distance provides poor tactile feedback, making it feel like I haven't pressed hard enough. And my typo rate goes through the roof. I didn't have those problems with my 2012. And Apple's decision to go with only USB-C is a constant source of inconvenience; I wrongly expected it would pass over time. All this, and no noticeable performance improvement.

I still have the 2012, I haven't had time to prep it to sell. I'm seriously considering finding other ways to deal with its limitations so I can ditch this awful 2017 instead. What an expensive mistake.

</comment><comment><USER19> I moved to a Surface (and absolutely love it!) after going through 2 12" Retina Macbooks and being fed up with having to take the laptop to Apple as they're the only ones able to safely remove the keys and put them back on.

It was a nuisance when a laptop designed for portability cant be carried around easily. I found when its vertical/in a backpack it lets dust move around and settle under the keys. Every time I carry it around previously unlocked keys end up 'sticky' & it constantly needs cleaning.

With the Surface and WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux) its quite refreshing with Windows 10. On occasion I do still use the mac for Xcode but that's about it. Not to mention the alcantara keyboard is an absolute pleasure to use.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm on this model and have now had to replace four keys from the QWERTY row (E, R, T, and O).

The issue is that the pinchers at the top of the key no longer hold after a while, so the keys fall off. I do like having four E keys, though. (Rather than try to guess which key would fail next I just bought a bunch of E keys).

When I took it to an Apple store they told me they couldn't just replace the keys and wanted to do a whole top case, leaving me without my computer for a week. I think they guessed (correctly) that if you have one key come up that the rest will follow. My "I" key is feeling loose and will probably go in the next week or two.

<comment><USER21> The "S" and "Command" keys kept falling off on my '16 MBP. Replaced them at $12/piece a few days ago from an online store.

My issue appears to have been the brackets on the keys themselves perhaps broke or wore down over time due to how impressively fast and heroically accurate I type.

<comment><USER22> Apple Stores CAN get the keycaps for these models. I think they default to replacing the top case because replacing the keycaps themselves don't always resolve the issue, but if you ask nicely at the apple store they may be willing to give you a few extra key caps if you're willing to install them yourself!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm still using/programming and typing on my 2010 17 inches MacBook Pro.

The keyboard still works perfectly whereas my acquaintances that have bought newer models have had the keys falling, failing, discolour and whatnot.

That and the ineffable mate screen and screen size.

I've changed the memory, the hard drive and the battery to keep going and it's still going, albeit with more fan noise.

I'm really afraid/don't want to switch to a new/lesser MacBook Pro.

<comment><USER24> I'm in exactly the same situation. I just wish it had coffee lake, 32gb of ddr4 and a modern gpu - e.g. an upgrade. Who cares if it's marginally thinner and lighter?

With Ubuntu 18.04, Linux is more usable than ever... already runs my desktop and I'll be switching my laptop to Linux as well unless Apple releases something more suitable for power users this summer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Literally today, my wife took her Macbook (bought last year) to the Genius bar to get the Enter key fixed - you had to press really hard to get it to take. The repair person just cleaned off the underside of the key. They said they didn't even see any debris. I think there is a real design flaw here.

</comment><comment><USER26> The new MacBook Pro (2016 to current) is a mess on multiple levels, the entire thing should be scrapped and redesigned.

The 2015 model and before remains the best Mac laptop, it's too bad they couldn't just update that to have 32GB RAM and a modern CPU. The keyboard is already great, it already has many ports that are widely used, it has a hardware escape key and function keys, it does not have an annoying touch bar, it's an upgrade in every possible way compared to the newer mess for what a "pro" user actually cares about.

<comment><USER27> This. I bought a 2015 from the Apple refurb store rather than a new 2016 model for just the reasons you cite.

<comment><USER28> Likewise. Don't regret the decision.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I absolutely hate that keyboard. It just does not feel right and I can't write more than a few paragraphs without getting very frustrated.

<comment><USER30> Funny how personal this is - I literally loved the keyboard on the first click. It feels strange when I have to occasionally type on my 2014 MacBook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Developers should just buy a ThinkPad and run Linux. A much more dependable machine and a far superior keyboard.

<comment><USER32> Until they have to build and test iOS apps...

<comment><USER33> Buy a used Mac Mini. They haven't been updated in like 5.5 years at this point. You can just remote into it.

Or just build a hackintosh.

<comment><USER34> Neither is a good option for an established company — in that situation your app is likely too large/complex to compile quickly on a mini and the legal grayness associated with hackintoshing makes that a no go.

At work I just use an external KB while I'm working at my desk (98% of the time), rendering the macbook's internal KB almost entirely moot.

<comment><USER35> I agree. The Mac Mini is enticing as a build server because of its price and form factor, but goddamn does it feel slow. I suppose a Mac Pro would be a better choice but they are so much more expensive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I definitely prefer my 2015 MBP over the TouchBar models. The 1 thing I DO like about the new models is universal USB-C charging.

I have an Anker USB-A/USB-C charger for my phone and it charges my TouchBar MBP just fine. Beats having to buy an expensive Apple charger to have one at home and one at the office.

Other than that, the 2015 has USB-A, HDMI, better keyboard, smaller touchpad, and actual Fn keys.

<comment><USER37> no way would i give up magsafe for usb-c

<comment><USER38> USB-C has been better than MagSafe for me for 3 reasons: 1) Can charge off either side, which has solved most of the cases MagSafe helped me with 2) I can replace just the cable with a cheap third-party one instead of replacing the whole expensive Apple charger when their crap cable falls apart 3) Can extend my battery life off a regular USB power bank

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I took mine in and the Apple Genius just tried to clean it to no avail. So, I have a broken "b" key and need to send it in to get it fixed. The "guy who could take the keycaps off wasn't there" despite the pre-questions Apple asks before the appointment scheduling.

I'm going to wait a bit. I was one of the people who took their iPhone 6 in and paid full price for the battery (3 times because 3 of the 4 phones we bought had the same problem). I plug it into thunderbolt 3 docks at home and work, so I guess I can hold out until Apple admits it sucks and has an actual fix. I'm under AppleCare but I just don't see the gain in sending it in to get replaced by another keyboard that will break again.

</comment><comment><USER40> When I was at RailsConf last week I realized (during a session while I was typing) how loud the keyboard is compared to the last gen

</comment><comment><USER41> Lots of trouble with mine as well. Key presses getting doubled or more. Especially on the "b" key. Had to replace the entire key and membrane and clean underneath the glued membrane to get it working again. (was 2 months out of warranty)

Also had the left command key just fall off. I know I rest my finger on it, but it shouldn't just fall off.

I like the low travel that some complain about, but any keyboard is useless if it doesn't work consistently.

<comment><USER22> Just FYI, some credit cards extend manufacturer warranties to two years, so may be worth looking into it. Also, which model do you have? Some non-TB 2016-2017 13" MBP are eligible for a free topcase replacement for battery issues.

<comment><USER41> It's the TB 15". I thought about seeing if I could go into an Apple store and see if I could get them to do it, but I am currently 2 hours away from the closest real one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I just this week purchased a 2015 refurb MacBook Pro (the last model year before the keyboard redesign) because of all the compromises one makes when choosing a Mac, an unreliable keyboard is where I draw the line.

</comment><comment><USER43> > This keyboard has to be one of the biggest design screwups in Apple history.

I feel like this is a bit overstated. What about "Just avoid holding it in that way", or Apple Maps v1, or the Magic Mouse 2 that requires you to stop using it to charge it?

<comment><USER44> Having chronically defective keyboards on your computers is much worse than the examples you provided.

> Just avoid holding it in that way

Pretty minor defect when honestly compared with other options on the market at the time, blown out of proportion by the media.

> Apple Maps v1

Forced move for business reasons, recognized by most Apple employees as shitty but inevitable.

> Magic Mouse 2

A few minutes of downtime every month is annoying and maybe a mistake, but less critical than a non-functioning non-replaceable keyboard.

<comment><USER43> Yeah it's all arguable but seriously "minor defect"? Holding a phone has to be a mandatory design requirement wouldn't you agree? Compare this to a faulty keyboard I'd say holding a phone causing it to be useless trumps that.

Maps was bad. Real bad.

> The police department stated that the error was potentially life- > threatening, as national park temperatures could rise to 114 °F (46 °C) and > those traveling would be without water supplies

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Maps#Early_inaccuracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Maps#Early_inaccuracy)

Just because they made updates over the last 7 years doesn't take away from the fact that the initial release was a big "design screwup".

Magic Mouse v2 yeah I get the charge time doesn't last long but it's still a stupid design. Less critical sure I agree.

<comment><USER44> Apple Maps was really bad, but that doesn't necessarily make it a mistake. IIRC, Google was demanding that Apple share a lot more user data for further use of their data in Maps, which would probably have been worse for Apple long-term (particularly given how well their privacy angle is serving them now in 2018). If they picked the better of two bad options, that's not a screwup, it's just unfortunate. The quality was understandable for the amount of time they had to produce it. There are limits on how fast you can effectively scale up to compete with Google's thousands of Maps staff.

The antenna problem may have been worse than I remember. I'd still say that at least that has cheap and easy user fixes once you become aware of the issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I write for a living. Jumped on the new MacBok Pro without test driving it. ouldd not type with out making lots of errors. Gave it to my daughter and went with an Airbook. She bought a separate keyboard to use with the Macbook.

</comment><comment> King-Aaron My 2015 MBP's keyboard AND trackpad died about six months into owning the machine. I treat my computers very carefully, and this current one rarely leaves my office.

However, Apple's Genius people told me that they wouldn't offer a warranty repair, because I had apparently damaged it. They wanted several hundred dollars to replace parts, of which needed to be ordered in and would have seen me without the machine for about a week, which wasn't really ideal. At a guess, the ribbon to the motherboard had broken. But honestly this is the first computer I've ever owned that I haven't just ripped apart and fixed myself, due to the perceived complexity of the operation to do so. (I don't need the magic smoke escaping from my primary workhorse).

So since then, I've just had my mechanical keyboard and mouse plugged in, effectively making my laptop an expensive desktop. Coworkers love mechanical keyboards @ 120words/min

</comment><comment><USER46> If the Mac books are so bad, why does HN keep buying them? Do you guys just like writing these blog posts about how much it sucks?

Didn't we know it would be worse before it ever even hit the store? Why subject yourself to that inconvenience, especially if you're a developer. You got shit to do, don't let your tools be one of your obstacles.

</comment><comment><USER47> I had many problems with my MBP, and it came out so long after the last model, that I completely abandoned Apple after I'd say 8 years.

I think there should've been a massive recall. I don't know why people put up with spending a fortune on a laptop and you can't even type on it...

</comment><comment><USER22> For anyone suffering from this problem on a 13" MBP non-touchbar with an elapsed warranty: you may be eligible for a free topcase replacement (the part that houses the keyboard) as Apple has identified some models that have defective batteries (and a battery repair == new topcase == new keyboard).

Info here and serial number checker here: [https://www.apple.com/ca/support/13inch-macbookpro- battery-r...](https://www.apple.com/ca/support/13inch-macbookpro-battery- replacement/)

</comment><comment><USER48> I'm on my third now and just booking to take it back with more failing keys. Useless compared to the old ones.

</comment><comment><USER49> I always considered Apple's keyboard superior but after using Macbooks (pre-2015), Apple Wired Keyboard and Magic Trackpad II for about 3 years I got severe case of RSI, I'm basically unable to write using their keyboards, never tried post 2015 ones in Macbooks though (and they're supposedly even worse?).

My symptoms are non-existent while touch typing on cheap keyboard with Cherry MX Red switches.

Using Apple feels like hitting concrete with my fingertips.

I think they're doing something REALLY wrong here and have been for some time now...

</comment><comment><USER50> My B and J occasionally stuff up. J sporadically doesn't work and then JJ happens. Sigh.

I admit it's a pleasure to type on this keyboard all day long though.

I was toroughly disappointed when I bought the $179 'magic keyboard' from Apple (the dark one from the mac pro), and found out the tech is the outdated keyboards, with 2.5x price tag!

No single key problem on this keyboard can overshadow its biggest problem: the useless arrow keys.

<comment><USER51> I had to have my keyboard replaced twice due to BB repeat issues. Same key both times even though they supposedly replaced the entire top of the keyboard.

I still prefer working on an external keyboard, but when it's working fine I don't mind it so much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Have a company-provided MacBook Pro 2017 here.

Aside from being much better to develop in than Windows (iTerm2 is a dream, even compared to CygWin/ConEmu) a few things seem really shitty;

1) The keyboard. It's bad. Really bad. The space key on mine is starting to stick already and its only been a few months. I'm using a cheap Logitech wireless mouse and keyboard with the keys remapped to OS X defaults.

2) Mouse handling. I have no idea what is going on over at Apple but mouse code has been awful for as long as I can remember and the Magic Mouse we were given with these laptops are probably the most unergonomic device I've ever used. They are really terrible.

I'm using a wireless Logitech mouse which is much better, but there are crasy OS issues with sensitivity/acceleration that no matter how much configuring and tweakingf I do, never feels right.

3) The last OS X update seems to have caused a LOT of issues for people using certain models of external display adapters. I've basically lost a 1/3 of my screen space because I can only get one external monitor to work at a time since the machine updated to 10.13.4.

</comment><comment><USER53> I had a key fail on a less than one year old touchbar MBP, corp had to swap out the whole laptop, with the old one going back to apple for repair. Ridiculous that you can't pop off the keys and fix them. 2015 was the last good year for MBP so far. My 2012 era machines are still running perfectly.

</comment><comment><USER54> Suffering the same issue on my 3 months old mbp. Never had any keyboard issues on my previous one from 2012.

</comment><comment><USER55> I've had this problem and when I got an even newer mac I solved with a cheap plastic keyboard cover. It has completely solved the problem, but i'm dumbfounded as to why Apple hasn't simply fixed this by preventing stuff from getting under the keys using a similar method.

</comment><comment><USER56> I had to use a new Macbook pro for a while and didn't for one (willing) second use the keyboard. I've also used Windows and Linux laptops of various configurations and really never used the keyboards. I mean, a laptop keyboard is something you use on the airplane or at a meeting. But for real work? Never. Why do people torture themselves?

But the Mac keyboards have been broken for a while. A pointless function key where the control key belongs? No one has explained that one to me yet. So, just keep the stupid thing shut and problem solved.

</comment><comment><USER57> The worst part: As a 2016 MBP 13" owner, I cannot rely on my keyboard. The 1 and the n key fail or trigger twice sporadically. So I always carry an USB keyboard (plus adapter of course) in order to be able to really use it when I need to. Password entries with fuzzy functioning keyboards are a mess. It's a really bad experience.

</comment><comment><USER58> Discussed twice earlier:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16924975](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16924975)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16922476](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16922476)

</comment><comment><USER59> I wonder what actually changed in the new design that causes this problem? The travel is obviously shorter butsomething else is fundamentally causing the problem. Does it have a smaller surface area/pad, different pad material, different coating etc...

<comment><USER60> For mine, it's basically any speck of debris that get's lodged, it fails to register the press until that debris moves to another spot.

I think the tolerances for "pressed" are too small for "real world" use. Any crumb will "lock up" the key.

<comment><USER59> Maybe previous versions had a better "dust keepout" or the contact pad is larger so more resistant to dust.

<comment><USER2> Previous versions were of a different design such that you could shove a small sandwich under the keys and they'd still work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> I went from a Thinkpad to the 2017 13 inch MBP w/touch bar. I'm a light typist, and I actually like the keyboard. No issues for 6 months, good actuation force. Of course, sometimes I plug in the Das just to be loud. :-)

<comment><USER62> Come on mate at least read the article - it's about a manufacturing/QA issue; not ergonomics.

<comment><USER61> I did. No issues. I like it, it works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> I sometimes travel with my magic keyboard, which fits exactly over the regular keyboard. Especially helpful when you need the F-keys or ESC, like when using your favorite IDE or VI (and you didn't learn the CapsLock trick).

</comment><comment><USER64> Any Australians here? With our excellent consumer laws I'd love to hear stories of these being taken back.

13" TB owner here with a double-responding \\. Haven't done anything about it because 95% of the time I'm using an external Filco.

<comment><USER65> I've read that we're entitled to free warranty repair/replacement, even outside the stated warranty period, if a product could reasonably be expected to work for x years and breaks before then.

Since even cheap laptop keyboards work basically forever it seems likely to be eligible?

<comment><USER66> Hmm.

(Massive) Australia Tax notwithstanding, I wonder if people could buy things "via" Australia in order to be able to send them back and benefit from the country's consumer replacement laws and such.

Would be fiddly, but I wonder if it would be worth it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> I use an external keyboard, but I can empathize with people using it as you normally would. I've experienced the dead spacebar and rarely use the built in keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER68> I guess Ive been lucky. I have avoided any keyboard issues with my rMBP w/TB. I love the keyboard. I wish it worked well for everyone else.

</comment><comment><USER69> Loved my pre Lenovo ThinkPad kB. Replaced because I hammered the etched keycap letters out by hand. Made to replace.

</comment><comment><USER70> I bought one of these things last year around September. I had the 12 inch 2016 MacBook before it.

tl;dr buy a keyboard cover if you have this machine, or just contend with cleaning under the key with alcohol.

I've had a fairly good experience with the keyboard on these machines. The 12 inch MacBook had a perfect keyboard. I love the low travel keyboard and they really got it right.

But then on the MacBook Pro, it seems like the butterfly mechanism was changed to make it more susceptible to foreign matter causing key malfunctions. Admittedly I eat at the computer, so this is probably my fault, but the 12 inch MacBook didn't do this.

Either way, every time oddities like double characters or non-responsive keys happened, I'd carefully pry up the key, use a q-tip soaked in 70% isopropyl alcohol and just clean out the area. You have to get a LITTLE bit of alcohol into the actual switch dome. Basically, you take the q tip with alcohol on it and dab the middle of the little dome madly for a while. Then you stick the key back on and it usually works.

I got really unhappy about how often this started happening, especially since some keys' retention clips broke after so many removal cycles, so I just bought a silicone keyboard cover (the MoKo) one off Amazon. It held the keys in place.

No more problems. That's what it took. It works great now. And the cover doesn't even make it terrible to type on, due to the low travel.

<comment><USER71> The downvotes are probably because you can't pop the keys on these newer keyboards anymore, so the alcohol method doesn't apply here.

A keyboard cover does seem necessary.

<comment> james-mcelwain Apple support literally tells you not to use a keyboard cover, which I find kind of amusing given how prone to breakage the new keyboard is without one: [https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203671](https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT203671)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Many laptop keyboards I have had, have had failed keys, or trouble with crumbs.

</comment><comment><USER73> just laid my 2013 MBP to rest after full 12 oz water spill onto keyboard. Have no doubt it would have lasted much longer were it not for my fumble.

Have a new MBP with old-stool keyboard (yes I have and esc key), and it feels good so far, but oh boy will I be pissed if it shits the bed.

these things are too expensive to fail that easily. "design" is one thing but, fragiltiy not ok.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, this one is kind of a dupe of my other post [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16922476](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16922476) \- it disappeared off the front page so quickly that I thought I'd see if a Daring Fireball link fared better. Apparently this is just some kind of anti- spam for Apple related posts though so moderators please feel free to handle as appropriate!

<comment><USER74> We'll change the URL back to the original article (from [https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/04/25/johnston-mbp- ke...](https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/04/25/johnston-mbp-keyboard)). That seems fairer, as well as in keeping with the site guidelines' call for original sources ([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)).</comment></comment>


Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44952710 <comment><USER2> Why don't we send a rover to some of these interesting places? It seems like we're constantly making fascinating finds on Mars, then send rovers to the middle of a random rocky desert.

<comment><USER3> For any exploratory drilling, or covering any real amount of ground, you need humans. For reference, Opportunity Rover has only traveled 45 km/28 mi in 14 years.

A human can collect more specimens in a day than ALL of the rovers have to date.

If we remove this year's launch window, you have 10 minimum-energy launch windows in the next 21 years.

2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2029, 2031, 2033, 2035, 2037, 2039.

If we could get the top 5 GDP nations to contribute 1% of their GDP to a proper global space program we'd have 400+ billion dollars a year (NASA has has a budget of around 18 billion lately). We could probably start sending unmanned missions in 2020 with test hardware for in situ resource production, develop a decent vehicle for travelling, then land 3-4 manned missions by 2022 with overlapping areas of operation as Zubrin (and others) have proposed that way if something goes wrong with one you can travel in 1-2 days, without exiting your vehicle, to another one of the missions.

You could have extra ships there waiting just to return specimens (and to offer a backup return vehicle for each team to get back up to orbit to return on an ISS-sized ship for the travel to and from Mars, not unlike in The Martian, which you could then park in Orbit around Earth or even the Moon and use as a slightly-used international space station or use it again for another trip out). You could return literal tons of specimens to earth for study, you could have human beings processing the stuff there "no this looks like a waste of time, this one is interesting, that's interesting, that's a weird feature let's drill a few samples here" not to mention just cover more area with various instruments getting all sorts of readings.

 _sigh_

If only. If we could just get 5 countries to agree to contribute 1% for 2-3 years we could establish a permanent moon base and do a hardcore Mars human- exploration mission. Obviously it would take 10-20 years to pull off but an international committee could be selected (representatives from all 5 nations as well as other nations that say want to help with supporting the missions, wouldn't need to pony up nearly as much money). Call it Starfleet 0.5 and make all of the science that results from the missions 100% public, give every country the UN recognizes a certain allotment of specimens as well for display in government-sponsored museums and to allow their own citizens to study.

Alas, I dream too much.

<comment><USER4> I was talking to an oncologist yesterday. Her biggest frustration is that Silicon Valley billionaires are spending billions upon billions to send things to space, when there are serious problems on Earth that could be fought, most importantly cancer.

It's hard to argue with her. $400B/yr would fund a lot of research that would benefit humanity a lot better than a coordinated mission to Mars, even though it would be very exciting to see in my lifetime.

<comment><USER5> An oncologist wishing more money was spent on cancer? In other news, water is wet.

First of all, the optimal place for me to spend my money is not necessarily the optimal place for someone else to spend theirs. We can't know for sure, of course, but who were would have preferred Elon Musk start a cancer research firm instead of SpaceX? Secondly, there is no universal "cancer" that we can fight. There are hundreds of different types, just as distinct as different diseases. You could turn pancreatic cancer into a chronic condition tomorrow and no make any progress at all toward curing oropharyngeal cancer.

There's a great exchange in the West Wing episode "Galileo" about just this type of narrow minded viewpoint.

Sam Seaborn: There are a lot of hungry people in the world, Mal, and none of them are hungry because we went to the moon. None of them are colder and certainly none of them are dumber because we went to the moon.

Mallory O'Brian: And we went to the moon. Do we really have to go to Mars?

SS: Yes.

MO: Why?

SS: Because it's next. Because we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next.

No to mention the fact that all the cancer drugs in the world will not save us from an asteroid. If we don't get people living and populating on other planets, the human species is doomed.

<comment><USER6> I think the dialogue quoted here demonstrates the underlying issue that is lost in futurist thought.

No one "pioneered the west". Various groups of people with powerful technology traveled west and stole land from other groups of people. They also traveled south and east and used that technical and economic power to enslave other humans and forced them to develop the west. Development and progress for progress' sake alone leaves a lot to be desired, namely, ethics.

Also, It's clear that much like economics, technology doesn't _inherently_ trickle down. It certainly has the _potential_ to have positive downstream effects, but without having a priority of pushing those positive impacts downstream I would argue that we're left with a larger gulf between the marvels of modern science and technology and those and the bottom. That is to say, without prioritizing equalizing the gains of science and exploration and those gains actively stratify society further.

There are many, many people in the world who don't know that we went to the moon, there are people who don't have access to electricity and plumbing. I'm not arguing here for not exploring other planets, but I am trying to make a case for focusing out scientific efforts of improving the lives of _everyone_ on the planet. Without spreading the achievements of science and technology to everyone on the planet, humanity is doomed.

<comment><USER7> Some modern thinking has confused self-loathing and careful introspection. There were a great many things that could have, or arguably should have, been done differently in the past, but many of those things were done in the context and to the standards of the day. The transgressions of the past resulted in a technologically advanced society. Introspection considers this and asks, "what should we do differently in the future?" Self loathing says, "we shouldn't exist and should spend our future doing nothing."

> _There are many, many people in the world who don 't know that we went to > the moon, there are people who don't have access to electricity and > plumbing. I'm not arguing here for not exploring other planets, but I am > trying to make a case for focusing out scientific efforts of improving the > lives of everyone on the planet._

Your second statement contradicts your first. Either you want to ensure that everyone has access to electricity and plumbing before science spends any effort on exploration, or you don't.

The natural conclusion of this argument is that no money should be spent on exploration, and all money should be redistributed evenly to everyone so that everyone maintains an identical standard of living. I don't want to assume that's what you meant, but if it isn't, I can't figure out what your ideal world looks like.

<comment><USER8> Certainly we ought to solve global hunger and access to water before spending trillions of dollars to go find water on mars.

<comment><USER9> Hunger and access to water are political problems not scientific ones.

<comment><USER10> I think the simple answer is 'hedging'.

Cancer, hunger and the like are unlikely to kill the entire human race in one go. A climate event or asteroid could, which would render all other efforts redundant. Mars exploration means hedging the survival of our species.

A diverse portfolio is where the smart money is.

<comment><USER8> This is a nobel reason, however I imagine the real answer is closer to sex appeal and money.

Also, who should determine how the resources of humanity are deployed?

People who arbitrarily have gained control of the resources?

For a tiny fraction of what is spent on space, we could solve world hunger and water.

It also seems a well fed and hydrated global population would be much happier, healthier, creative and productive.

Another question for folks who make the hedging argument — at what point do we say "ok, we have X% of the population living off world, so now we are going to divert funds to make sure people have access to basic human needs on earth."

<comment><USER11> > For a tiny fraction of what is spent on space, we could solve world hunger > and water.

No we realistically can't. How exactly do you propose doing that? Keep in mind that there is _a ton_ of precedents where local governments withheld foreign aid (which was supposed to "solve hunger" at least at that part of the world) to enrich themselves and/or to control their citizens. How do you solve _that_ with any amount of money? Bomb the "bad governments" into submission? Just keep the money in some account waiting for those governments to become more civilized? Might as well colonize Mars in the meantime

<comment><USER8> I think Scott Harrison has done well with Charity Water -- I believe he has singlehandedly solved 1-2% of the global water problem in the last decade.

Surely, if a NYC nightclub promoter can stop doing blow and start drilling wells, we can scale what he is doing.

<comment><USER11> No, not really. Two reasons:

\- water access is a source for income in quite a few places (e.g. [1]). Drilling a few wells in remote villages might fly under the radar, but "solving clean water" means cutting people very much capable of violence from their income. That can't be solved by NYC nightclub promoter, unless they are willing to wage urban warfare.

\- it's not enough to drill the wells as they will dry out eventually if there are no regulations and water distribution infrastructure. It's just not sustainable. And to solve the water problem sustainably requires a lot of infrastructure, water treatment, pipes, pumps, maybe some desalination plants. Even US itself is too gridlocked to solve its own problem of water supply, allocation, and aging infrastructure (e.g. Flint or CA's almond orchards), despite having all the money in the world. Why do you assume it's somehow enough to throw a few trillions at a few dozen countries with wildly different political and cultural climates?

[1]: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-25/thirsty-v...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-25/thirsty- venezuelans-forced-to-pay-for-water-as-army-takes-over)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A note slightly related: Mars reaches perihelic opposition with the sun on July 27, 2018, which means observers on Earth will have their closest view of the planet since 2003. Great time to borrow a telescope.

<comment><USER13> Being able to see the red of Mars at night is strange.

Since I (and probably most of us on HN) live in the worst area for light pollution it's not too often you can see other planets like this unaided.

<comment><USER14> Jupiter and Venus are incredibly bright, you'll be able to see them with the naked eye at night even if you're in a city.

<comment><USER13> I should clarify: I have seen the planets before, but I can't remember being able to see this much detail without a telescope or binoculars.

Jupiter and Venus look like regular, although very bright, stars. Mars is currently a very visible red circle that is unmistakably a planet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> For those, like me, wondering how this is even possible:

 _In order to remain liquid in such cold conditions (the research team estimate between -10 and -30 Celsius where it meets the ice above), the water likely has a great many salts dissolved in it._

<comment><USER16> It seems like, being under ground, it would also be subject a higher than normal pressure, which would also help

<comment><USER17> (not a scientist, but was skeptical of this statement given the general "incompressibility of water")

From looking at the phase change chart[0], you don't really get into the "interesting" stuff as far as pressure goes until pretty deep (something like 9-10km, from looking at some sample number of pressure at various depths [1]). Given that they indicated in the article that this is under 1.5km of ice, I don't think that's deep enough to have pressure significantly change it, but would be happy to learn that I'm not correct in my reading of this :)

0 - [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60170/freezing-p...](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60170/freezing- point-of-water-with-respect-to-pressure) 1 - [https://www.earthlearningidea.com/PDF/189_Pressure_rock.pdf](https://www.earthlearningidea.com/PDF/189_Pressure_rock.pdf) \- table on page 2

<comment><USER18> A few considerations that may influence this question:

Pressure != compression, and water is otherwise sensitive to pressure. The boiling point of water varies by ambient air pressure, and in fact, the ambient air pressure on the surface of Mars is too low for liquid water, AFAIK; it boils away.

Also, see gmueckl's helpful comment: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17610197](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17610197)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Per the Great Filter[0], this is really bad news, right?

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

<comment><USER20> Everything about the Drake Equation, the Great Filter, and the Fermi "paradox" strike me as extremely sloppy logic, from which nothing but unfounded conclusions can be drawn.

We have essentially zero data on the prevalence of life in the universe. There is no "absence of life" to explain, because we don't actually know whether life is absent. We more or less completely lack the scientific capability to detect extrasolar life entirely, and have only limited data about life within the solar system-- we have not checked deep in Mars' crust, which will be a comfortable 72F at some depth (and has a good probability of being wet there, too); nor have we checked the oceans of Europa or Enceladus; nor have we checked the methane seas of Titan. We have no datapoints. There is nothing to extrapolate. There is nothing to say. _We don 't know anything_. Anything but the null hypothesis here is bad science.

I also don't think the absence of life on Mars (if it is indeed absent of life, and there are no microbes in deep aquifers) would present trouble, because the surface of Mars is uninhabitable even by Earth standards-- it is far worse than even the most hostile parts of Earth, which are nearly devoid of life despite there being about 4.5 billion years for complex life to evolve into those niches, with the leg-up of a more hospitable start. If there were forests at the top of Everest, I might have an easier time wondering why the bone-dry, -200F, 0.006 atm surface of Mars appears sterile, but given where life has a hard time reaching here on Earth, really no one should be surprised at all.

<comment><USER21> To my mind, the Fermi Paradox isn't so much about explaining an absence of life. It's the simple observation that, if life were abundant in the universe, the naïve expectation is that we'd see it everywhere, but we don't, so what gives?

Intuitively, I see it like a bunch of homemade pickles. Say we have 100 jars of homemade pickles but are not sure whether they actually picked nicely or spoiled. If we try a jar and it's bad, we'd probably expect that a lot of the jars have gone bad.

That said, the anthropic principle complicates this intuition. Our sun isn't a random star that happens to harbor life; since we're sapiently asking this question, it's guaranteed to harbor life.

It's almost as if someome tested our pickle jars for us and then just told us that at least one of them was spoiled. In this case, "what is the likely number of bad pickle jars?"

Anyway, the discussion gets even more nuanced and interesting once we start thinking about the likely futures of human civilization, and factoring that into the mix, but I'll stop here.

<comment><USER20> > if life were abundant in the universe, the naïve expectation is that we'd > see it everywhere, but we don't

No, that's my point: We don't see it because we _can 't_; we don't have the technology. The fact that we see no aliens has nothing to do with the number of aliens, and everything to do with the fact that are more or less incapable of looking.

It would be like saying, "if butterflies were abundant in my garden, I'd see them everywhere, but I don't, so what gives?" when you are blind, and also stuck inside your house. There is nothing to explain. We can talk about seeing (or not seeing) butterflies when you are able to see at all.

<comment><USER22> You do realize that what you're proposing isn't in direct contradiction to the Fermi paradox, but is one of the most popular solutions to it?

The Fermi paradox is the observation that, based on the size of the universe, we'd naïvely expect to observe several alien lifeforms. That's it. It doesn't imply a "Great Filter", or any other solution. It's just the observation.

The "Great Filter" theory is a commonly mentioned one, because it's pretty easy to imagine humanity, our only reference to intelligent life, killing human civilization. Your hypothesis about not having the technology is also very, very popular, and as such I don't understand why you have such a big apprehension to the Fermi Paradox in general.

<comment><USER20> No, I am not proposing that the universe is full of life, nor am I proposing that it is empty of life. I am objecting to the notion of "drawing conclusions about how much life there is based on how much life see," because we are blind.

A universe empty of life is just as compatible with our observations as one that is full of it. We should not "expect" anything at this point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> 20 years ago it would have been unthinkable to find water in any other planet in the solar system.

Mark my words: in 20 years, we'll find extremely simple proto-bacterial life in Mars and in many other planets.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash We have already established that microbes live on the exterior of the ISS. They may have come from Earth originally but it does show that life can exist in conditions that we humans consider to be absolutely inhospitable.

<comment><USER24> Isn't life thought to have started in "conditions that we humans consider to be absolutely inhospitable".

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Yes, but to quote the annoyingly semi-reasonable creationist Ken Ham: "We weren't there. We didn't observe it." (Note: I am not a creationist, I do agree with the logic of that argument, but I also see no scientific basis for any religious origin story of life to have more scientific basis than others).

We have recreated the conditions that predate life and found that organic molecules were formed, but we've never observed the leap from organic molecules to organic life. So the best we can do barring the invention of a time machine is look for life elsewhere from Earth to try to fill in the blanks.

<comment><USER25> You see a man lying still on the ground, blood pooling around his body, and a woman standing close by gripping a knife with bloody hands. What happened? "We weren't there. We didn't observe it."

<comment><USER26> She tried to save his life by removing the knife, then she went in to shock? Probably not the explanation you had in mind. This is not a good metaphor.

<comment><USER25> You see? You are still able to make theories based on what you know and causality, and we can debate about which theories are most likely to be true. Not directly observing something is the beginning of theorizing. We don't just give up on knowing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> >an area of high reflectivity which is thought to be water

This not seems to be entirely = to 'water revealed on Mars'

<comment><USER28> Scientists have excellent language to describe these sorts of things (ambiguity and confidence in guess). For example, from the actual paper's abstract:

"""Quantitative analysis of the radar signals shows that this bright feature has high relative dielectric permittivity (>15), matching that of water- bearing materials. We interpret this feature as a stable body of liquid water on Mars."""

It's absolutely true that we can't call this a strong positive siting, it's more of a "good evidence which is not completely unambiguous".

<comment><USER29> > """

Python? Scala?

<comment><USER28> I use triple quotes when quoting, because many things I copy-paste have subquotes (either "..." or '...') or contractions (don't).

<comment><USER30> If someone quotes your triple quote, would they have to use quadruple quotes?

<comment><USER28> We just don't do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Here's the original paper (no paywall, and apparently not linked in the BBC article):

[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/07/24/scien...](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/07/24/science.aar7268)

A couple of highlights:

My first thought was why couldn't this be some other liquid like CO2:

 _We examined other possible explanations for the bright area below the SPLD (supplementary text). For example, a CO2 ice layer at the top or the bottom of the SPLD, or a very low temperature of the H2O ice throughout the SPLD, could enhance basal echo power compared with surface reflections. We reject these explanations (supplementary text), either because of the very specific and unlikely physical conditions required, or because they do not cause sufficiently strong basal reflections (figs. S5 and S6). Although the pressure and the temperature at the base of the SPLD would be compatible with the presence of liquid CO2, its relative dielectric permittivity is much lower (about 1.6) (28) than that of liquid water (about 80), so it does not produce bright reflections._

Why liquid and not solid water?

 _... Perchlorates can form through different physical and /or chemical mechanisms (30, 31) and have been detected in different areas of Mars. It is therefore reasonable to assume that they are also present at the base of the SPLD. Because the temperature at the base of the polar deposits is estimated to be around 205 K (32), and because perchlorates strongly suppress the freezing point of water (to a minimum of 204 and 198 K for magnesium and calcium perchlorates, respectively) (29), we therefore find it plausible that a layer of perchlorate brine could be present at the base of the polar deposits. ..._

This is a similar principle (freezing point depression) to that used in de- icing roads.

And maybe the best part of all - there may be other smaller but currently undetectable pools:

 _... The limited raw-data coverage of the SPLD (a few percent of the area of Planum Australe) and the large size required for a meltwater patch to be detectable by MARSIS (several kilometers in diameter and several tens of centimeters in thickness) limit the possibility of identifying small bodies of liquid water or the existence of any hydraulic connection between them. Because of this, there is no reason to conclude that the presence of subsurface water on Mars is limited to a single location. ..._

<comment><USER32> thanks for the link. I find it staggering that science reporters in these big outlets barely ever link to the original source and often don't even name the exact publication. This kind of writing could easily get students into trouble, why is it acceptable in post-graduate journalism? Links never hurt or confused anyone, and they make the page so much richer.

<comment><USER33> While your diatribe might sometimes be valid, in this case the link is there. It is the last sentence of the article: "The findings were reported in _Science_."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The little kid inside me is jumping up and down, like I have seen Santa. My belief in Mars hosting simple life forms is stronger than ever now. May be NASA already has data for it, but hasn't finished yet sifting through it. Amazing news!

</comment><comment><USER35> Why is "lake" in quotes? Seems like it is a real lake right?

<comment><USER36> It could also be a body of non-free water - very wet slurry would fit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> If I really wanted mankind to invest more money into exploring Mars, I wonder what the best approach would be. What do y'all think? 1\. Make enough money to invest your own capital/start your own company. (Ex: Elon Musk) AKA Do it yourself. 2\. Go into politics and get enough support to start a campaign? AKA Get the government to do it. 3\. Other?

</comment><comment><USER38> Just finished "Red Mars", the book aged quite well for the scifi genre.

SPOILER ALERT:

The book ends with a dissident faction of Mars settlers living in a hidden water ice dome under the polar cap.

<comment><USER39> Haaaaah, same here. Inhaled _Red Mars_ and _Green Mars_ last week. Putting off starting _Blue Mars_ for a few days yet so I can actually get some work done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> would this be enough to create an viable atmosphere or should a dome be put over it?

<comment><USER41> Given that any previous water in the atmosphere has mostly escaped over time, the dome seems like a better bet.

<comment><USER3> Mars lost its atmosphere on a geological time scale. You just need to raise the average temperature 5C to create a runaway greenhouse effect (and that gas release from the polar regions would far outpace the solar winds stripping atmosphere away and once it leveled off would take millions of years to get back to the state it is in now).

The very thin atmosphere it has now, will take another 2 billion years or so to be stripped away entirely.

<comment><USER40> maybe we should let Elon Musk nuke mars [https://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/11/us/elon-musk-mars- nuclear...](https://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/11/us/elon-musk-mars-nuclear-bomb- colbert-feat/index.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> sounds scary! lol

</comment><comment><USER43> wow that's cool!!

</comment><comment><USER44> Nice. An "easier" source of water is a huge bonus for the first people landing no Mars.

<comment><USER45> Haha that was your first thought?

<comment><USER44> I know right? There is so much literature and speculation on what it will take to live on Mars that "source of liquid water in quantity" is a greatly simplifying step that knocks a dozen different failure scenarios off the decision tree. I'm guessing that people aren't seeing how big a deal this is for future colonists.

<comment><USER36> Yeah, but first you've got to drill a mile through the ice cap. Then you've got to fight off the scientific community who are having none of this Conquistador nonsense with your nasty infectious human microbiome wiping out the scientific find of the century.

Melting ice is easier _and_ less evil.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Soon they will find fish and potentially mermaids and mermans in that water.

</comment><comment><USER47> I've been saying this for _years_. This is such an amazing news.

I know there's lot of skeptics but just gonna put this out there in 2018. Our solar system has intelligent beings greater than our civilization. There has to be if water can be easily found so close to Earth. I don't know what they do but the theory is they are mining for resources. Pretty sure they would wipe out Earth if they wanted to but they choose not to? What do they want!!!?</comment>