Transporting a portable system: Unix to an IBM minicomputer (1983) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://zero.sci-hub.se/3252/016657c71a46a2d7110d87b4f720847e/jalics1983.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> The paper described a funny problem.

> A persistent problem encountered in the transporting process was one related > to addressing on the PDP-11. We noticed this in one of the first programs > brought over to the Series/1\. The program was supposed to print out "Unix" > and instead printed out "nUxi" (reversing pairs of bytes). Each machine > addresses words by an even address. The PDP-11 addresses a word by its low- > order byte, and the Series/1 addresses a word by its high-order byte. The > effect is that byte-oriented data are correct when taken from one machine to > another; but word-oriented data, including instructions, must have the bytes > of each word interchanged. This architectural difference had substantial > implications in moving any data between the PDP-11 and the Series/1\. In > addition, this difference was incorporated into program logic whenever a > two-byte sequence was considered at times as a 16-bit binary word, and at > other times a sequence of two 8-bit bytes.

<comment><USER2> Sounds like an endianness problem. [1]

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Yeah the fact that Unix/POSIX was once considered a minimal, easily ported OS is somehow lost in today's Linux-centric world with Linux-only concepts such as namespaces, systemd, etc. It's also strange that Docker has gained momentum when all it does is present a very shallow wrapper around Linux core APIs, thanks to Linux' excellent userspace compat.

<comment><USER4> >Yeah the fact that Unix/POSIX was once considered a minimal, easily ported OS is somehow lost in today's Linux-centric world with Linux-only concepts such as namespaces, systemd, etc.

The prevalent view of Linux has sort of evolved in this area.

Proponents of Linux, toward the very beginning, framed the value proposition of Linux as:

\- something fun to hack on

\- something striving for UNIX compatibility (not formalized in a POSIX/SUS test suite, just user testing primarily) - port your UNIX programs easily

\- runs on commodity hardware actually accessible to most home users

\- Free/open in a modifiable sense - not Microsoft DOS/Windows/Mac OS

\- a more advanced (as in implemented, supported, tested) project than 386BSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD/FreeBSD (Linus has said that Linux probably wouldn't have taken off like it did without the AT&T lawsuit - that BSD probably would have filled its place)

Linux's level of maturity and level of adoption at this time meant that there was great value in making it interoperable with UNIX systems and providing robust support for easily porting UNIX software to it - both Free software and proprietary software. Proprietary UNIX at the time had its own problems and expensive hardware, and allowing that market to move to commodity hardware under an operating system that could grow to support different traditional UNIX workloads was a big plus.

However, it's a different time now. Linux has sufficient market share and has replaced most UNIX systems that were popular at the time of its ascendance in popularity. I have worked at a number of shops that have moved from Sun harware/Solaris OS and SGI hardware/Irix OS to either DEC Alpha hardware / Linux OS, IBM POWER hardware / Linux OS, commodity Intel x86 hardware / Linux OS, or commodity Intel x86_64 hardware / Linux OS. The Linux kernel (through Android) shipped on 85.1% of all smartphones in 2018 according to IDC compared to just 14.9% for its nearest competitor[0].

As a result, I feel the popular sentiment is now to add Linux-only extensions with the result (perhaps not the intent) of locking people in to Linux as an OS since Linux is a force of its own that cannot be ignored. Yes, it still competes with Windows and MacOS for desktop share, but the mobile and server markets are pretty much settled spaces at this point - not completely dominated but with a decent enough foothold that porting from other systems is not a primary concern at this point.

There has been friction for the past ten years or so in the Linux community about this. One side sees PulseAudio, systemd, the freedesktop.org stack, Flatpack/Snap, Wayland, and other such developments as a compromise of Linux's position as another commodity platform that allows software to be easily ported from UNIX-like to UNIX-like, providing vital competition in the UNIX space. Another side sees these additions as making Linux better, the best operating system it can be, and if other systems either do not want to add these features, do not have the resources to add these features, or do not have answers to these features then this is a defect in the other operating systems and not chiefly a concern for Linux users as the share of the market that Linux has on servers and mobile is so high that it cannot be ignored.

To the first group, this is the second round of the UNIX Wars from the 90s that lead to one dominant player in this space, and could lead to the same if another (or several) competing systems can "out-Linux Linux".

To the second group, this is a well-deserved victory lap and a chance to show that Linux can be more than just another UNIX.

>It's also strange that Docker has gained momentum when all it does is present a very shallow wrapper around Linux core APIs, thanks to Linux' excellent userspace compat.

I don't think that this is too strange. Other operating systems have had similar facilities for this - from Solaris Containers to something like IBM LPARs. Eventually, all of these APIs need to be usable by "mere mortals" \- they're dead weight if something doesn't consume them. That Docker was the project that took off might have been surprising, but that something filled this space is not too surprising.

[0] [https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market- share/os](https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/os)

<comment><USER3> Very good points. I guess I'm looking at it primarily from a server OS PoV, and I find it indeed surprising that Linux has become so entrenched given it's license terms when it hasn't anything to offer beyond a POSIX-like API. You'd expect people to ship their proprietary apps on top of eg BSD base installs or POSIXish unikernels, but instead what is happening is that Docker is used. Apart from the density aspect and "microservice" trend, I conjecture that people use Docker as an isolation layer to get away from shipping GPL code. Because surely isolation from shared libs having different minor versions and install locations on Debian vs RHEL doesn't seem like a good tradeoff considering that those shared libs, when shipped as part of a Docker image, still need security updates. For me, Docker looks like a solution for a problem of our own making - that of needing different versions of shared libs, and in any case equivalently solvable by static linking.</comment></comment></comment>


Prototype of clinical trials in an untrustworthy environment using blockchain - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08874-y <comment><USER2> A blockchain isn't necessary because there's no double spending to prevent. Just broadcasting signed assertions to a bunch of nodes who make all of the data available to the public should be enough for everyone to know who claimed what and when. Less like Bitcoin, more like Certificate Transparency.

<comment><USER3> _> A blockchain isn't necessary because there's no double spending to prevent._

A "chaining of hashes of the previous blocks" has other uses than preventing double spending of currency. It also acts as a "incrementing clock" of record- keeping that's resistant to tampering.

E.g. The "blockchain" started by Surety[1][2] in 1995 in The New York Times published hashes that depended on previous hashes. They could have published hashes that were _independent_ of previous hashes but they didn't. It would not provide the same anti-tampering guarantees.

(I'm only replying to your assertion about blockchain's "double spending" use case in isolation and not commenting on whether the thread's article is a good idea.)

[1] [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j5nzx4/what-was-the- first...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j5nzx4/what-was-the-first- blockchain)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17865168](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17865168)

<comment><USER2> It seems like _any_ distributed system that involves any cryptography these days is being called a blockchain. The Vice article is simply wrong. Yes, it's a great idea to use a chain of hashed timestamps+data to prevent data from being tampered with later. People have been doing this with logs for ages.

The NYT timestamp system doesn't meet the blockchain definition, at least so long as the word has any real meaning. This point is often debated, but my take is that without also featuring some kind of consensus mechanism to order the writes in a specific manner, thus preventing double spending, then the protocol shouldn't be described as a blockchain at all.

A timestamp service (as opposed to a blockchain) is good enough for the goals described in the article. There's no need to enforce strict ordering of transactions because there's no spending. It's just assertions of some fact at some time. So all that's needed are a few reliable servers run by different parties that will log the data. If one of them cheats, it is detectable.

Knowing who is behind the private keys signing the assertions is a far more important problem in this kind of system, and blockchains don't help that one bit.

<comment><USER3> _> It seems like any distributed system that involves any cryptography these days is being called a blockchain. The Vice article is simply wrong. [...] The NYT timestamp system doesn't meet the blockchain definition, at least so long as the word has any real meaning. _

My point isn't that Surety is a "formal" blockchain by some rigorous definition. (Obviously the VICE article is taking artistic liberties with the word "blockchain" to retroactively label Surety's published hashes back in 1995.)

The purpose of citing them was only to highlight that _dependencies on past hashes_ accomplishes a different tamper-proof guarantee than _your idea of just broadcasting digitally signed assertions_.

 _> There's no need to enforce strict ordering of transactions because there's no spending. It's just assertions of some fact at some time._

Putting extra cryptographic mechanisms around the notion of _" at some time"_ is the motivating reason for a chain of hashes. If Surety didn't chain their hashes _and then publish the hash_ , that's _weaker_ than broadcasting independent hashes.

 _> Knowing who is behind the private keys signing the assertions is a far more important problem in this kind of system, and blockchains don't help that one bit._

I think I see why you believe focusing on digitally signed assertions is enough security. E.g. the web browser TLS/SSL https security works fine on broadcast assertions with no "blockchain". That's true. It's "trust of a identity hierarchy" rather than "trust of a timeline". The difference is that when users log into "paypal.com" today to withdraw money, they don't care what the private/public certificate authority keys were 3 years ago. However, the users of the database of clinical results do care about _past history_.

<comment><USER2> I'm not disagreeing with any of that. All I'm saying is that a chain of hashes is not a blockchain.

Also, we do care what paypal's certificate was in the past. That's why we have CT to catch CAs that mess up. We just don't need to use a blockchain for it to work.

<comment><USER3> _> All I'm saying is that a chain of hashes is not a blockchain._

And to be clear, I wasn't claiming that "chain of hashes" was _equivalent_ to a blockchain. (E.g. bitcoin-like blockchain.) Instead, I extracted _one particular property_ of a blockchain -- the chain of dependent hashes -- to contrast your proposed broadcast solution.

To add to the confusion, it turns out the authors may be implementing your non-Bitcoin suggestion anyway. (See further down in my comment.)

 _> Also, we do care what paypal's certificate was in the past._

I understand the nitpick but I mean that web browsers don't care what the particular values were several years ago (especially anything before 2013 since CT didn't exist until then while SSL/TLS existed since 1995). They check _existence_ in a CT log.

 _> Less like Bitcoin, more like Certificate Transparency._

It looks like the authors propose a architecture more similar to CT than Bitcoin anyway. Excerpt from their proposal:

 _> We chose to give data storage control to the regulator, as opposed to distributing data storage to nodes across participants in the network like in Bitcoin applications. We preferred this design because the trial regulator is the only party that can and must be trusted, since this party is the one having final approval over success or rejection of the treatment. It is a central authority that cannot be eliminated. We feel implementing distributed storage to everyone in the network (such as that used for Bitcoin) does not fit this regulatory context well, and is also impractical as all parties would also have to locally store data pertinent to the clinical trial on their machines. _

I believe this means the remaining issue is that you disagree with the authors calling something "blockchain" that doesn't have a distributed consensus mechanism to prevent double spending.

<comment><USER4> relabeling everything "blockchain", especially things with lots of established use before the existence of blockchains doesn't seem to have an real value outside of marketing obfuscation, at least to me.

<comment><USER5> Block chaining -- that specific wording, used in cryptography -- has been around for almost 50 years and is widely known. It's not relabeling and it's not going away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Can't imagine the idea of a "trustless" medical trial really taking off tbh. Or indeed that the first resort of people trying to manipulate results of medical trials to achieve a particular outcome is post hoc database tampering...

<comment><USER7> > post hoc database tampering

You'd be very surprised, then. It has always been a mystery to me how people plugged most holes in the data that I extract for them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why not a government regulated database?

<comment><USER9> Because centralized databases are prone to manipulation and censorship?

<comment><USER10> So you also need to get rid of drug databases, PubMed, protein databases, etc.

This makes no sense. If your government is in such bad shape you have far bigger problems than keeping track of drug trials.

"Blockchain" just stores the same stuff lots and lots of times in as many places as possible. Extremely wasteful and expensive, with all the overhead of doing that (and updating hat "database"), plus the consensus algorithm which may or may not be reliable/crackable.

Is it a sign of the times, and maybe in some countries more than in others, that there is a hype around mistrust? Trying to build a world where trust is not necessary? I bet that won't work. I think you need to fix the trust issue more directly, working around the trust requirement won't work. It just creates huge complexity and even more points of failure. Especially since you would have to go "all in": What's the point in taking just one thing into the trust-free solution? All those things depend on one another, you would have to do it with all or most of them to get the benefit you are looking for. It may look manageable if you only look at one particular thing, but imagine _everything_ had to be stored in such a way, the incredible effort required, and the more distribution there is the harder it is to understand what's going on.

You really think storing all kinds of data in as many places as possible and then trusting an algorithm to sort it all out, the "truth", works better than trust in a credible entity? _At scale_ (in more than one dimension)?

<comment><USER11> > "Blockchain" just stores the same stuff lots and lots of times in as many > places as possible. Extremely wasteful and expensive, with all the overhead > of doing that (and updating hat "database"), plus the consensus algorithm > which may or may not be reliable/crackable.

No. Blockchain doesn't have to be wasteful. In general is enough to store the hash of the data in the blockchain and the data itself somewhere where it can be accessed. This prevents manipulation. If at least one trusted party has access to the data it also would not just vanished. If you had an permissioned blockchain signed by the top universities of the world it could be done for very little money.

<comment><USER12> There seems little upside between what this paper proposes and everybody just sending all data to all stakeholders of figure 1. The blockchain itself does not conserve confidentiality of placebo placements outside of this process and "Regulatory agency" and "Data safety monitoring board" are presumably two trusted parties that could, post hoc, compare their two databases and draw the same conclusions.

Adding a semi-public blockchain seems like a neat little tidbit but it mostly adds a formalization of the process (which would of course be a good thing) and buzzword-worthiness, thus warranting the "wasteful" label.

> permissioned blockchain [...] for very little money Is that a solved problem > yet?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> they mandate access through a web portal... this in itself is centralization. One can simply tamper with the website. You need to distribute a client software or use an open source dapp explorer type product to prevent data manipulation en-route to the blockchain

</comment><comment><USER14> We're actually trying to do something very similar at [https://delph.us](https://delph.us).

We also have operational encryption, multi-researcher studies, and soon an end-to-end encrypted chat system between researchers and participants using Matrix.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why?

Your website seems to explain the current problems with clinical research, but I didn't see an explanation of your solution. Can you share here?</comment></comment>


Reality Winner gets sentenced - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/23/politics/reality-winner-nsa-leaker-sentenced/index.html <comment><AUTHOR> Hmmm - having worked in such a space given what she disclosed am of a very mixed mind - not blameless to be sure, but the subject matter and implications should weigh for something</comment>


Ask HN: Do you have a bucket list? - <AUTHOR> If so, why? What's on it? Have you completed anything? What's your plan to make progress on it? <comment><USER2> I had one in college and it had some very college things on it (this was 7 years ago). It was a short term bucket list. Here's a short copy/paste: \- Make a viral video (I integrated video) [note this would be on the beat of I just had sex by lonely island] \- Learn about style and Fashion \- Be able to do 100 sit ups \- Be able to do 100 push ups \- Be able to do 20 pull ups Visit Europe/Study Abroad [x] \- Build ipod touch latin application \- Learn Spanish \- Become awesome at math \- Become awesome at drawing

I only accomplished the Europe one.

Some of these I would still like to do, but I would definitely change the wording and use the SMART goal framework to attempt them. Some don't make sense anymore. I don't think an latin app really matters at this point, nor does a viral video. Looking at the list is a trip down memory lane.

What's your list like op?</comment>


Why are we paying for this? - <AUTHOR> How about if we insist that all browsers force ALL embedded videos (including ADs) to be by default autoplay=off. So we don't suffer page load delays for video content and hidden cost of background buffering? We are paying our ISP for these usually unwanted bytes. <comment><USER2> This is why I like Flash. It's easy (at least with Opera) to make Flash elements "click to play". It's not like that by default, because it makes some sites barely usable.</comment>


Censorship in China - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_China <comment><AUTHOR> _The Chinese government asserts that it has the legal right to control the Internet 's content within their territory and that their censorship rules do not infringe on the citizen's right to free speech. Since Xi Jinping became the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China (de facto paramount leader) in 2012, censorship has been "significantly stepped up"._

...

 _Reporters Without Borders ranks China 's press situation as "very serious", the worst ranking on their five-point scale. In August 2012, the OpenNet Initiative classified Internet censorship in China as "pervasive" in the political and conflict/security areas and "substantial" in the social and Internet tools areas, the two most extensive classifications of the five they use_</comment>


SmartGit - A better GUI for Git - <AUTHOR> http://www.syntevo.com/smartgit/index.html

<comment><USER2> "What SmartGit is?"

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaah. :(

</comment><comment><USER3> Well, I _do_ use and love their SmartSVN... I might give this a try.

<comment><USER4> What do you like about SmartSVN over TortoiseSVN?

<comment><USER5> I have used SmartCVS and SmartSVN on Windows, Linux and OS X. Got the same nice interface on each of the systems. TortoiseSVN is Windows only, afaik. I might try SmartGit too, but I doubt I will use it as much as I did SmartSVN—I think I prefer GitX and command line.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've been looking for something like this for a while now - it's difficult to convince people that Git is worthwhile when there isn't a complete GUI for it. This is cross-platform too!

This looks like a serious contender to GitX, which I've been using for a few months. The widgets obviously aren't native (I'm on OS X), but they're certainly passable. Plus, they seem to have a good idea about usability.

</comment><comment><USER7> Meh, doesn't have anything compelling that would make me switch from gitx + commandline.

</comment><comment><USER8> the more tools for git the better. it makes for a healthier and broader ecosystem.

i notice that you can choose either 1\. free 30 day trial 2\. pay for license 3\. free non-commerical license.

what does it mean to not use smartgit commercially? does that mean i can't use smartgit for projects i'm paid to do as a consultant? what about for my startup which currently has 0 revenue? or is this simply "pay for support"?

<comment><USER9> I've been waiting for better git GUI tools to get git going amongst friends who are less terminal-happy than I am, so this should definitely help.

That being said, I feel perfectly fine with just a terminal.

<comment><USER10> I agree on all points except I like a GUI tool for visualization, which I still use gitk for because none of the other tools on OS X even come close to the information density.

I'm also somewhat wanting of a better mergetool since I'm a little sketchy with the CLI tools for that, and usually end up merging anything complicated by hand.

<comment><USER11> P4merge is pretty awesome for merging.

<comment><USER10> Wow, looks awesome! Thanks for the tip.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Restrictions of GPL prevented people from creating commercial Git GUI programs (see GPL FAQ <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>). Did they create their own Git implementation from scratch?

<comment><USER13> The GPL generally doesn't block a proprietary program from calling an open source one via a shell pipe. If it did, most commercial software running on a Linux system would run afoul of the GPL licensing of the core system commands (cp, ls, bash, etc.).

Furthermore, there are a number of more liberally-licensed binary-compatible reimplementations of Git available now (Grit and JGit spring to mind) that could be used as an alternate access layer, if you were less concerned with 100% compatibility with the latest Git features.

<comment><USER12> This is a difficult question (GPL is difficult!), that's why I referred to GPL FAQ. See this answer: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- faq.html#GPLInProprietarySys...](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem) or <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- faq.html#MereAggregation>

Thanks for pointers to other implementations!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Doesn't this just serve as an ad for this company? I'm not sure why it is being upvoted.

<comment><USER15> I would imagine it's because there are not a lot of gui tools to use git. Especially on the mac and most of them are not "full featured." I really like gitx but it doesn't do a lot of the more advanced stuff.

<comment><USER10> Yeah gitx really bother me. The whole point of git is its amazing power. As much as a nicely designed OS X app makes me feel good, I'm not about to throw out the power of something like gitk and the speed of the command line for basic tasks in exchange for a watered down interface.

Even though gitk commits some of the most heinous UI sins on OS X—such as remembering large windows even after switching monitors so that you end up with a box that can not be resized without editing ~/.gitk—it's still head and shoulders above all the native OS X apps I've tried.

If a commercial product is good, I'm all for seeing it garner votes on HN.

<comment><USER15> Out of curiosity what features would it take for you to change over to gitx?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> not GitSmart?

<comment><USER17> "Smart git" is also a lame joke if you're from the UK.

<comment><USER18> The name for Git itself was chosen for its meaning in the UK.

<comment><USER19> <http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitFaq#Whythe.27git.27name.3F>

_Quoting Linus: "I'm an egotistical ###, and I name all my projects after myself. First 'Linux', now 'git'"._

 _('git' is British slang for "pig headed, think they are always correct, argumentative")._

<comment><USER20> As seen on /. : "This is a thread for talking about git, not for being one!"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I exited the installer after it seemed like it wanted to overwrite my ~/.gitconfig :[

</comment><comment><USER22> gitk / git-gui works fine for me whenever I need it.

</comment><comment><USER23> _Sigh_ the milking of the open source. I wonder how much milk git has left to give to entrepreneurs.

<comment><USER15> In which sense do you mean it? That they are repackaging someones code and milking them? Or do you mean that git is being abused by people looking to make a profit?

<comment><USER23> I mean it in the following way. While it is totally legit and generally a good thing to build a product out of an open source project, I sense that some naive customers of these products give most credit to the product builders rather than the actual developers.

For example, git has a totally clever way of hashing, efficient delta storage, signing of code etc. whenever I see a product made out of git I know deep down that someone will think its the product supplier who came up with all the cleverness of it, whereas its usually just a wrapper.

Also, there is so much that goes into the git project, that is very valuable, and people charge $50, $70 whatever using all the value of its design over naive users, essentially "centering their business over IP that someone else produced and gave away." To me this is easy money earned, and that's what I am objecting here.

Using open source ain't the problem, you gotta create the core business value yourself.</comment></comment></comment>


Africa's Economic Growth: 23 Positive Facts about the Richest Continent - <AUTHOR> https://www.fatumasvoice.org/africas-economic-growth/ <comment><AUTHOR> Before COVID-19, Africa's overall GDP was on a growth trajectory - faster than other economic blocks. We can prevent the virus from greatly undoing the gains and progress:</comment>


Ask HN: Do recruiters follow up emails ever work? - <AUTHOR> If you are a recruiter, do you ever get a response to a follow up after the original email was ignored?<p>If you are a recrutee: do you ever reply to a follow up after ignoring the first cold email? <comment><USER2> I receive about 2 emails/week from recruiters. I don't answer. Sometimes I get 3 emails from the same recruiter. Amazon, Microsoft, startups, etc. They all use the same boring pattern where they only customize the first line.

"I know you might be busy at xyz, but..."

"You might be receiving these kind of emails everyday, but..."

etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> This Ask HN just kicked me to write up something that I've been wanting to test for a while [1].

Basically, I write back a canned response[2] and forget about it. If they write back then we move forward.

[1] - [https://medium.com/@unmgmt/my-simple-reply-to-unsolicited- re...](https://medium.com/@unmgmt/my-simple-reply-to-unsolicited-recruiter- emails-3085f72317e3)

[2] - [https://gist.github.com/undernewmanagement/c69c2378ca75f8882...](https://gist.github.com/undernewmanagement/c69c2378ca75f8882d7f)

</comment><comment><USER4> Depends on timing. You can ignore an email a few couple times but then that special day arrives and you get that same email again but something is different in your situation so you actually respond this time.

</comment><comment><USER5> Even if I'm not looking for a new position, I reply to offers which really match my profile. If I don't reply on the first mail, I'll also definitely ignore the follow-ups.</comment>


Reddit Founder Alexis Ohanian Interviewed by Flexport Founder Ryan Petersen - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=A_y6RemHDJI <comment><USER2> This link is for only the owner of the video. Not a public link</comment>


Chrome Extension to remove Facebook fbclid tracking parameter - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ideekmlpolffjogehcjblcoajcnieeho/publish-accepted?hl=en-US <comment><AUTHOR> I wrote and published this extension today. I hope people find it helpful in protecting their privacy.

<comment><USER2> Somewhat ironically you've accidentally included the `/publish-accepted` part of the URL in your submission, which means when I click through the link, the Chrome store is telling me that "I" have published the extension and will see it in the store in a few moments. You should try to get the URL fixed :)</comment></comment>


Embattled Yahoo CEO Received $1 Salary In 2007 - <AUTHOR> http://cbs5.com/local/yahoo.ceo.compensation.2.711740.html

<comment><USER2> why is it news for CEOs to take $1 salaries? Everybody knows it benefits them to take that type of salary anyways. Why hasn't any CEO try a $0.01 salary yet? :)

<comment><USER3> > why is it news for CEOs to take $1 salaries?

Because people are seriously sick of hearing about the Chairman of BigCorp earning $250,000,000 in salary and stock options, and taking another $100,000,000 in severance.

(0s for extra effect)

I don't know, its kind of refreshing to hear about Jerry Yang, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, taking $1 salaries, even tho we all know they're worth gajillions.

<comment><USER4> You missed part of his point, which is that there are huge tax benefits in not taking a salary, and these are well-known, therefore not news.</comment></comment></comment>


Facebook Dropping React Patent Clause - <AUTHOR> https://ma.tt/2017/09/facebook-dropping-patent-clause/ <comment><USER2> Co-founder of WordPress, Matt Mullenweg, whose stance and the discussions inside the community — apparently caused Facebook to relicense React under MIT — wrote a post about their decision.

He thinks that now React could be an officially-supported option as well.

— Discussion on GitHub: [https://github.com/wordpress/gutenberg/issues/2733](https://github.com/wordpress/gutenberg/issues/2733) — Poll on Twitter: [https://twitter.com/MrAhmadAwais/status/908551927264305152](https://twitter.com/MrAhmadAwais/status/908551927264305152) — Another Poll on Twitter about Facebook's Decision: [https://twitter.com/MrAhmadAwais/status/911591226180341761](https://twitter.com/MrAhmadAwais/status/911591226180341761)

Cheers!

</comment><comment><USER3> so WordPress will allow a way to use react, Vue, preact,.. How?</comment>


Should you deprecate a feature untouched by 95% of users? - <AUTHOR> http://support.toggl.com/discussions/questions/289-what-do-you-mean-in-the-section-notes-by-will-be-deprecated-on-nov-1st-2011#comment_9929078 <comment><USER2> The value of a feature is frequency of use * impact to those who use it. Cutting a feature on frequency alone will lead you astray.

Comment #13 on the OP says it very well (aside from english errors):

 _"I bet 95% of all emails sent across the world doesn't have any files attached. Let's remove the ability to attach files to emails!!!"_

<comment><USER3> That email analogy is flawed. Even though most emails don't have attachments, most people use attachments sometimes.

If really only 5% of your users are using some obscure feature and it's getting in the way of other improvements, then you should probably deprecate it unless those few customers are disproportionately more valuable to the business.

<comment><USER4> "If really only 5% of your users are using some obscure feature and it's getting in the way of other improvements, then you should probably deprecate it unless those few customers are disproportionately more valuable to the business."

I disagree, in the general case at least. For one thing, you need to decide the granularity of "feature". It can be anywhere from the entire project to a single line of code. It can actually get even more specific when you start talking about combinations of things as a "feature".

If you try to apply a "only 5% of users will use this" rule to any significant project, I think it will quickly start to feel incomplete. Users can tell. They develop expectations about the features that should be present in a certain class of application. When they come across a need for the feature, even if very minor, they will be very frustrated if it's not present. That frustration will destroy the user community.

Another thing is that often software is bought in bulk for an organization. The accountants will demand support for X in the standard software package, and IT will demand Y, and pretty soon you need a full-featured product. If you say "only 4% use X and only 3% use Y", and eliminate both, then you've just lost an entire organization worth of users.

If you're a startup or have a new product, then I'm not saying you need to reach that level of maturity before 1.0 release. But when your product gets big, you will need to invest in this kind of completeness.

<comment><USER3> I'm aware of the "different 20% for everyone" problem, but I thought I qualified my statement enough to make that obvious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you were to hypothetically say "We're killing X" and that _didn't_ cause a nightmare for support, I'd take that as an extremely strong bit of signal regarding how important X and X-like things were. By the same token, words like "This feature seems to me so important that I don't think we can live without it" (direct quote from customer!) are solid gold for directing future priorities. Dave McClure suggested pre-emptively killing a feature every week just to elicit responses like that. That seems both a) valuable and b) cheap to do, since _saying_ that X is on the chopping block is essentially free. Heck, you could wire up an A/B test with a "Got a problem?" button right next to it, and it wouldn't take you more than ~5 minutes.

If you're building a time tracking software and your customers are using it to do project management... you might be in the wrong business. Something to think about.

It is, of course, possible that folks paying you $12 a month get very attached to one particular thing. $12 a month does not buy you a whole lot of development priority, to put it mildly. It is occasionally necessary to tell them "Nope, sorry, it appears that we're not the best fit for your needs."

<comment><USER6> So if I'm using that app, I'd have to check the developer blog, or some "news" section, every week just to see if one of my favorite features might get axed? It sounds like a really annoying thing for a user.

<comment><USER7> I think the parent comment is suggesting something like, in a new version of the software, doing this:

\-- remove the button for the feature, replace it with a "Give me back my feature!" button

\-- when the "give me back my feature!" button is clicked, send a GET request to mydomain.com/theywantedthefeatureback.php , and give them back the feature button

\-- look at your server logs to determine whether anyone actually uses the feature

This is no big hassle for the developer or the user and it will tell you rather quickly whether anyone actually uses feature X.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It reminds me of Joel Spolsky's 80/20 myth article.

"80% of the people use 20% of the features. So you convince yourself that you only need to implement 20% of the features, and you can still sell 80% as many copies.

Unfortunately, it's never the same 20%. Everybody uses a different set of features." <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000020.html>

<comment><USER9> I wonder if that might be a myth? It appears that Office has probably peaked and is losing customers to less featured offerings like Google Docs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Depends on how important that 5% of users is to your product and your business. Also depends on whether the feature is a credibility indicator of some sort (i.e., it's seldom used, but people like to know it's there and/or will think less of your product if it's not).

The Pareto Principle comes into effect here. If the 5% of users adopting the feature are your most important customers, or if they're bleeding-edge users or opinion leaders to the other 95%, then it's worth keeping them appeased. On the other hand, if they're users you neither care about nor need, then consider whether the feature is extraneous -- or, worse, whether it's actually annoying the 95%.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is why you should always carefully consider what features you add to your product. It is always easier to add a feature than to remove it (even if it is only used by 5% of your users).

</comment><comment><USER12> Would you remove ramps because 95% of your visitors climb the stairs?

<comment><USER13> If somehow I ended up spending an inordinate amount of time performing ramp maintenance, and if the presence of ramps made it difficult for me to install an escalator or an elevator, I'd yank them in a heartbeat.

Having a bunch of features _isn't always good_ , especially if the features are half-baked, require constant attention, or impede more useful features.

<comment><USER14> (I think) the parent poster was making a subtle reference to access for handicapped persons when he made the ramps vs. stairs comment. I believe his point was that there are times when keeping a seldom-used feature is the right thing to do.

It's probably not the best analogy, though. Maybe if this discussion were about alt tags on images then it would make more sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Only after testing to determine the issue. Perhaps the other 95% don't know how to use it, how useful it is, or even what it is.

If the issue is truly usefulness, and keeping/maintaining the feature could negatively impact the majority of non-users, then deprecation is warranted.

</comment><comment><USER16> I know _exactly_ how to handle this as I did it before and it worked really well.

1\. Make sure the feature can be completely hidden from the UI.

2\. Add an option somewhere in Advanced section of Preferences that toggles the visibility of the feature.

3\. Turn the feature _off for all new users_ and keep it _on for all existing ones_.

4\. If it is possible to detect whether the feature is used by an existing user, then if it is not used, show one-time message saying the feature is being turned off and how to turn it back on if needed.

That is it. Graceful deprecation.

<comment><USER6> When do you remove the feature entirely? Or do you just discourage users until, at some future point when a change breaks it, you don't get any complaints?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> In defense of these guys:

1\. The feature is _highly_ tangential. The core product is a time tracking app. A time tracking entry (core) can be associated with a "project" (metadata), which in turn can have "notes" (metadata about metadata). These guys built a time tracking app and ended up maintaining, in a dark corner inside of it, blogging software (functionally speaking).

2\. This is the sort of feature that just grows and grows. Already we've gone (guessing here) from what was a project note to "notes" plural. Someone presumably had to figure out how to sort the notes and how to delete a note, etc.

Next the users will be asking for text search. After all, if you have 100 notes on a project, with people using them as a repo of project knowledge, search is kind of a basic feature, don't you think?

And it would also be nice if there was a pretty archive view with a nicely formatted calendar so you could easily go back in time without clicking through endless pages of old notes.

Oh, can we have RSS feeds per project, too? I'd like to see when there's a new note.

Oh, also, we should be able to attach an image to a note. Pretty basic.

Hey, if we can attach images why not videos? Can we embed tweets, too? Audio? Will you support HTML5 for my iPad AND Flash so we don't have to transcode to ogg for Firefox?

Oh and this text entry form is looking a little, hmm, primitive, could we add WYSWIG controls?

Etc. etc. They are smart to nip this in the bud when their product is still young, IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER18> Important questions about that:

* How many users are 5% (there's a difference between 5 people and 5000 people)?

* How critical is this feature to them (Meaning: Will they drop our product if we remove it? Or just be slightly annoyed?)

* How much money do we make off these users and how important are they in public (will they cause enough bad will to form via ratings/blogs to affect further sales?)

Think, analyze, ASK.

</comment><comment><USER19> To answer to the question in the title of this submission:

You should not. As soon as a feature has got released to all users of a software, you won't be able to disable it without some users becoming really dissatisfied.

The solution is not to release a new feature to all users.

Before even thinking about releasing a new feature, first ask yourself:

What is the goal of this new feature?

The answer to that question is your hypothesis, you need to try to answer by experimenting. That is, perform an A/B-test:

Launch the feature to a subset of your users and check if it achieves its goal. This goal must of course be measurable and ideally there are KPIs that you can use to check the success or failure of your experiment.

When the experiment is successful you deploy the feature for all users. If the experiment fails, you remove it for the subset of users and the rest will never know about it.

This also helps the codebase to stay clean, features not making it into the product, is code not making it into your codebase, which means less code to maintain, less complexity.

</comment><comment><USER20> > We aim, though, to only deliver features that have exceptional value to > everyone, and drop everything else.

Personally I think this aim is where they're going wrong. It's unreasonable to think that all your features are going to be used by everyone, much less have "exceptional value". If it's not causing much maintenance, why not just leave it in? Why go through all this trouble?

This feature is notes which isn't completely unrelated to their app. I don't use their app but something they could do is just make it less noticeable if they really don't want people using it for some reason.

</comment><comment><USER21> Quick answer: No. The best example is Google's I'm feeling lucky button, which a very high percrntage of users don't use. But turns out people still want this feature. Marissa Meyer had a discussion about this.

<comment><USER22> More people use "I'm Feeling Lucky" than probably realize it. I don't know how it is today since I've got so much stuff wired directly to keywords on my install now, but it used to be that if you typed a non-URL into Firefox's address bar, it would run an "I'm Feeling Lucky" Google search for you. I think they changed it a few versions back, but many people (myself included) messed with the 'about:config' page and got it back. HTTPS-Everywhere seems to mess with this though. I should fix that.

<comment><USER23> Whether you want an "I'm feeling lucky" button is completely independent of whether you can have a browser feature that does a similar thing (though I just checked and it looks like the default for chrome is to direct you to a full search)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't even know what they're talking about, but I'd wager 95 percent of Microsoft Excel's features are never used by 95 percent of its users.

</comment><comment><USER25> What if they set it up in such a way where you could either upgrade your subscription or pay a one time fee and have it enabled for your account? Maybe give a trial for new users to see if try want the feature? That might take care of the "5% of users" and maybe bring in some new revenue.

I'm not quite sure if it'd work how I imagine but, if it could work, it sounds like a pretty good idea.

</comment><comment><USER26> The way I handle this problem with my web app is to quietly move highly unused features to a state where administrators can still use them but customers can't see them. I let them hide there until I'm satisfied that there won't be a problem removing the feature permanently. I have not had a "roll back" request to date.

</comment><comment><USER27> The other thing to consider is to ask whether the presence of this feature is obtrusive or bothersome to the 95% who don't use it. Does it needlessly clutter some user interface? If instead it is _mostly_ invisible to those who don't use it, then there is little harm is leaving the feature where it is.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm an avid Toggl user, and I've never used the project notes before, nor have I felt pressured to by the interface. The notes feature is completely unobtrusive. It takes a few clicks to get to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Maybe the question they should be asking what did they do wrong with this feature that only 5% of people are using it. Maybe it's hard to use? Maybe it's hidden in the UI? There are other potentially fruitful ways of looking at this question other than people just don't like or need the feature.

</comment><comment><USER29> 5% is actually pretty huge. Here's my simple heuristic, I call it the Income- Loss-Wince-Factor: How would feel about a 1% decrease in income next year? How about 5%? 22%? Ouch.

<comment><USER30> If 5% of users utilize a feature, and it's pulled, you're going to lose a fraction of those users. Being afraid to lose a few users sometimes leads to horrific swiss-army-knife products where the existing users are placated but you lose new users to some simpler product that comes along and covers 50-70% of your use cases but has a much simpler and more efficient UX.

I've seen this firsthand too many times: the loss of users when removing a feature is more concrete than the gain in simplicity (particularly because new users are generally not well represented in feedback vs. old users) so there's paralysis over removing features that just never really got traction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Also could keep in mind the loss in revenue to your company if you were to cut that feature. If the 5% users is paying all of your bills, then you need to be careful.

</comment><comment><USER32> I did that and still now months later that 5% hasn't ceased to complain about it.

</comment><comment><USER33> The metric is invalid on its own, and in Toggl's case, potentially disastrous. 5% use it? Who are they? What if a big chunk of those 5% are managers? What if the 5% is concentrated in your biggest customers?

Without a lot of research and care, you could potentially lose _more_ than 5% of users with such a move.

And what happens if they find another feature that only 5% use? And another?

"Rarely used" is not the same thing as "not essential".

<comment><USER34> I don't understand why they wouldn't just level with their users. Explain to your users that each feature costs money to maintain and almost no one uses this paticular feature. Then ask those who use the feature...

1\. If that feature is essential to them

2\. if they'd be willing to pay a little more to keep it

I find most people are very reasonable when you explain exactly what the problem is to them.

<comment><USER35> Completely agree. We've been in this position before and worked with users to find a solution where they paid a premium for us to offer support in a difficult environment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> You should have not implemented it to start with :)

<comment><USER37> I don't think that's fair. You don't know how useful a feature will be until its implemented and in users' hands. You will have a _guess_ , of course, which is why you implemented it in the first place. But you don't _know_. And surely, a certain percentage of the time, your guess will be wrong.

<comment><USER36> Unless you _ask_.

<comment><USER37> Again, I think you're being unfair. What people say and what people do are not always the same. People may say "Yes, that's a great feature!" and then not actually use it when it exists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'm aspiring to work at Microsoft so I'd probably opt to make that unused feature the most prominent one in the next release.</comment>


New Content-Delivery Tech Should Be Presumed Illegal, Says Former Copyright Boss - <AUTHOR> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/29/228228/new-content-delivery-tech-should-be-presumed-illegal-says-former-copyright-boss

<comment><USER2> We are now getting misleading Techdirt stories secondhand through Slashdot. It's interesting to see how far this game of telephone might go.

The "former copyright boss" is saying nothing of the sort. Here's what's actually happening:

Aereo is a company that streams NY broadcast TV over the Internet, capturing the broadcast signals and proxying them over IP to users. They are, unsurprisingly, being sued by every NYC television company, including PBS, because their product repackages broadcast TV in a product that lets users skip ads by default.

As I understand it, the suit is early days. But as is typical in cases like this, the content producers moved for a preliminary injunction to shut Aereo down while the case runs. The trial court refused, and so the content producers appealed.

Ralph Oman, who stopped working for the government before the dawn of the commercial Internet, filed an amicus in the content industry's appeals request to impose an injunction on Aereo.

Techdirt read Oman's amicus and reported sentences in the brief taken out of context. Techdirt's reading of Oman's amicus doesn't even make sense; the courts dealing with this case have no ability to create a "guilty until proven innocent" standard, nor can they require that technology produces consult Congress before launching products.

Oman was making an inside baseball argument to the court hearing the case. One element that recurs in all complex policy cases: how do judges resolve the (often contrary) forces of precedent, Constitutional principle, and the statutes enacted by legislatures. What Oman is arguing is not that the judge should apply some new restrictive rule on technology; rather, he's arguing that should the judge refuse an injunction on such a clear-cut case (his sentiment, not mine), that judge would in effect be creating a new policy of exempting technology companies from vicarious liability out of whole cloth, ignoring both precedent (thus his citation to a case where copy shop owners had been held liable for misuse of their property) and statute.

Obviously, Oman is a copyright hawk. I'm "conservative" as copyright goes, and even I don't think Oman is making a strong argument. This is obviously a very "leftist" forum, but that doesn't free you to make up entirely new and ridiculous arguments and stuff them into some random guy's mouth to create a straw man.

Finally, as straw men go, this is a pretty feeble one. This guy doesn't matter at all. He stopped managing copyright policy before the advent of CU-SeeMe.

<comment><USER3> _"We are now getting misleading Techdirt stories secondhand through Slashdot. It's interesting to see how far this game of telephone might go."_

You know when I was watching President Obama's cover of the hit single "Call me maybe" [1] I was thinking the same thing.

Kidding aside though, the two things that the Youtube spoof and this have in common are taking snippets of actual "stuff" and mashing them together into something that the person making the mashup finds useful/amusing/entertaining. As HN and Reddit and slashdot before them seep into the journalistic consciousness there are pretty clear efforts to craft a message based on selective sampling. By drilling into the sources for all the clips (unnecessary of course but bear with me) used to compose the 'call me maybe' video its clear that the President never set out to make this video or even knew the lyrics (probably does now though :-) and this slashdot article appears to be a lesser instance of the same effect. Pull a few bits out of context, wrap them together into a choice sounding narrative and blam! you've got a "story."

So to answer your question the 'telephone' you mention is simply 'spin doctoring' (to use the 20th century vernacular) and it will continue as long as people make long enough sound bytes in their communication that they can be re-purposed for spin without setting off too many alarms in the readership.

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX1YVzdnpEc>

<comment><USER2> It bothers me that we are O.K. with this, militantly O.K. with it, so long as the spin confirms our biases.

<comment><USER3> So are you railing against the nature of humans? I mean you're not the 'Wake UP! sheeple' type generally, and you're contribution here (and presumably elsewhere) is clearly appreciated, so you are taking action on your concerns (which is great and way ahead of a number of others).

Patrick rightfully called me out the other day for creating out of whole cloth this 'other' which could be held up and criticized. Is that what you are doing by saying _"... we are O.K. with this,"_? Who are the 'we' in that context, I don't like it, you don't like it, so it isn't you and I but is this group of 'others' some great uncritical mass of readers? And then to go one step deeper are you railing against, 'their' agenda or this technique of spinning?

"Pandering to the crowd", "Preaching to the choir", and other colloquialisms for providing positive feedback on a system of beliefs is as old as humans. Maybe older. I suspect its in our nature to have self doubt and to seek out re-assurance of our beliefs. It takes practice and introspection to catch yourself being 'sold' rather than 'educated.' For some people that effort doesn't pay sufficient dividends to invest the effort.

I find these human driven belief systems to be some of the most intriguing from a systems analysis point of view. I feel compassion for folks who are unwitting participants, and I feel anger towards folks who manipulate them to their own advantage, and admiration for folks who manipulate them for the greater good of the community.

<comment><USER2> You're chasing this pointer maybe a few links farther than I intended. I'm just saying that it's annoying that message board threads are comfortable ignoring the dishonesty of sources like Techdirt and Torrentfreak, so long as those sources are whipping up rageviews from people who vocally support copyright infringement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The quote (via two layers of blogspam):

Whenever possible, when the law is ambiguous or silent on the issue at bar, the courts should let those who want to market new technologies carry the burden of persuasion that a new exception to the broad rights enacted by Congress should be established. That is especially so if that technology poses grave dangers to the exclusive rights that Congress has given copyright owners. _Commercial exploiters of new technologies should be required to convince Congress to sanction a new delivery system and/or exempt it from copyright liability. That is what Congress intended._

Translation: "The courts are in business to protect us, not you". This, broadly, has been their position from the beginning. It's ridiculous, sure, but predictable.

<comment><USER5> Thanks, that's less hyperbolic than the title, but I don't think you've quite captured what he's saying either. I think he's saying if you invent a new tech, YouHolodeck, you're not magically exempt from copyright law and you can't just post existing copyrighted material ("but it's different, it's holographic"). Existing laws should apply, without needing constant updating ("on the internet", "in the holodeck", "in the singularity").

If you want an _exception_ you have to ask for it, you don't get one by default. That does _not_ mean the new technology is illegal. If Disney says no Mickey Mouse in holospace, then no Mickey Mouse in holospace, but you're still going to be free to post holos of your local street corner mime doing his thing.

<comment><USER6> >I think he's saying if you invent a new tech, YouHolodeck, you're not magically exempt from copyright law and you can't just post existing copyrighted material ("but it's different, it's holographic"). Existing laws should apply, without needing constant updating ("on the internet", "in the holodeck", "in the singularity").

I don't agree that he's saying that. The issue is that (leaving DRM circumvention tools aside) standard copyright law doesn't prohibit distribution _technologies_ at all, just infringement. Hollywood doesn't like that -- they want to be in charge of what distribution technologies people are allowed to create, regardless of what they're used for. So their end run around it has two parts: 1) They refuse to sanction the use of the new technology for their own content, and then 2) they argue that because it isn't sanctioned by the major players, substantially all use must be infringing and dissemination of the technology itself (regardless of use) therefore induces that infringement and has no substantial non-infringing use.

It isn't about Mickey Mouse and the local mime. Aereo doesn't pick which channels its users watch. Its users can use the technology to watch PBS broadcasts (e.g. of your local mime) that are distributed under Creative Commons or other permissive licenses, or Presidential speeches that as U.S. government works fall immediately into the public domain, or use the technology to record video that the users have negotiated a separate license for with the copyright holders, or make a variety of legal fair uses of the plaintiffs' copyrighted material. Or the users can use it for blatant infringement, e.g. to record sitcoms and burn them to DVDs to sell in the street. But that's all between the copyright holders and the individual users. Aereo is just providing the technology -- and Hollywood is trying to stop the _technology_ , not the infringement.

<comment><USER2> Did you read the amicus that Techdirt is (poorly) summarizing? Because I read your comment and I can't find anything in it that refers to what Oman actually said. You instead seem to be arguing about what "the content industry" "wants". The content industry obviously wants a lot of silly things, but we're discussing a specific court filing --- more importantly, that's what 'tedunangst is talking about, and so if you're not talking about Oman's filing it's very weird to say he's wrong.

<comment><USER6> In the filing (which rabidsnail quoted above) Oman makes the argument that not enjoining use of a _technology_ (rather than an identifiable act of infringement of a particular work in a specified context) is to exempt the distribution technology from copyright liability. That is clearly nonsense -- find a user using it for an act of blatant infringement and you'll be able to collect damages or enjoin that infringement. But that isn't what they're asking for. They aren't trying to stop just the infringement, they are (as I said) trying to stop the technology itself.

They're asking for a veto -- not on using new technology to distribute Mickey Mouse, but on using new technology for _anything_ because someone _could_ (and probably will) use it to distribute Mickey Mouse.

<comment><USER2> Saying that the vendor of a product carries the burden of persuasion that their product isn't solely intended for infringement is very different from suggesting that all technology should be enjoined by default. Do you think Oman is also arguing that copy shops should be enjoined by print rightsholders? If you'd read the whole amicus, rather than a quote out of context, you might have to ask yourself that question.

<comment><USER6> >Saying that the vendor of a product carries the burden of persuasion that their product isn't solely intended for infringement is very different from suggesting that all technology should be enjoined by default.

I'm not clear on how it's different. If the product _is_ solely intended for infringement then it gets enjoined, right? So they're arguing that by default, unless the vendor can prove otherwise (the vendor having the burden of proof), the product should get enjoined on request.

<comment><USER2> A judge has to determine that the product is solely intended to infringe, just as they've had to do since the Betamax case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It might be useful to have the full story behind Aereo. If I recall correctly, they are trying to serve as an Antenna outsourcing service of sorts - you pay them to house your antenna and they let you watch TV from anywhere you have an internet connection.

From a consumer's point of view, seems very reasonable and convenient. A Dropbox for public TV of sorts.

<comment><USER5> That is basically it. Aereo is not doing any one thing you could not do yourself, but the conglomeration is a little gray.

As an admittedly poor analogy, the police can follow you around without a warrant. They can't, however, slap a GPS tracker on everybody's car and follow ten million people around simultaneously. The law is interpreted by people, and they consider things like scale, scope, automation, intent, etc.

<comment><USER7> That's a very interesting detail (sorry taking discussion a bit off track), but as UAV technology compresses and shifts to commodity scale, Police could potentially have a robot "follow" you around without warrant. It would seem that the original intent of the provision limiting surveillance gets circumvented.

<comment><USER2> The principal that prevents the police from attaching GPS devices to your car has less to do with the scope of surveillance and more to do with the fact that the police have to violate your personal property to accomplish it.

<comment><USER8> I think some expansion of this statement is in order. As far as settled SCOTUS cases go, the _only_ reason why police need a warrant to attach a GPS to your car is because they must "sieze" the car (for however brief a time) in order to attach the device. As you alude to, it has nothing to do with the surveillance itself. However this is far from a settled issue. At least 4 out of the 9 SCOTUS justices support a new Fourth Amendment theory called the "mosaic theory", introduced by Alito in US v. Jones (2012). Under this theory, courts would evaluate the actions by government in aggregate to determine if the actions constituted a search. Under such a doctrine, 24 hour GPS surveillance on public roadways may well be illegal without a warrant. This theory has been criticized by some academics as too difficult of an analysis for the courts to handle. Yet it does show that the justices are indeed considering the scope of surveillance and some of them are trying to figure out a way to limit the scope using Fourth Amendment analysis. Alito in particular seems worried about it and he has found support for at least some of his ideas from Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm seeing a lot of slashdot.org posts today that are just small snippets of the original article that add little or nothing...

<comment><USER10> Most slashdot posts are like that.

<comment><USER5> It's a link aggregator, what do you expect? HN titles add little to (and frequently detract from) the article's content...

<comment><USER11> Surely a link aggregator like HN can do better than linking to another link aggregator? Come on.

<comment><USER5> I agree, but it's unfair to blame slashdot for HN's failings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Someone should make a website or a subreddit with "Shit the Copyright People Say". I'm sure it will fill up quickly.

</comment><comment><USER13> Excellent, the iTunes store is illegal, and the RIAA is a conspiracy with Apple to foist illegal technology upon citizens, lets bring RICO charges against the record execs. Someone who runs a record store somewhere must have committed a crime at some point, so lets run them through the presumption of guilt via a RICO charge. Lets also make sure they aren't using criminal funds to fund their defence and freeze their accounts.</comment>


Z3 : An LLVM backed runtime for OCaml - <AUTHOR> http://raph-amiard.github.com/Z3/

<comment><USER2> Bad name: Z3 is an SMT solver from Microsoft and a very good one at that. I'm assuming this LLVM OCaml thing is newer.

<comment><AUTHOR> I wasn't aware of that. The Z3 name was imposed as part of the university project this started with.

It was supposed to be part of the VMKit suite of compilers, J3 being the Java bytecode compiler and N3 being the .Net compiler.

I'd be happy to change the name of this project if it ever gains enough traction to cause confusion in any way :)

<comment><USER3> To backup the original poster, one of OCaml's stronger communities focuses on program analysis for C programs (using the CIL library <http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~necula/cil/>) and SMT solvers like Z3 are also widely used in that community, so there's definitely some potential for confusion if your OCaml backend gains some traction.

Still, an LLVM backend for OCaml seems like a great idea. Keep up the good work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> C++ instead of OCaml?!

Specially taking into consideration how much better OCaml is suited for compiler development and the existence of LLVM bindings for OCaml.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well the use of C++ instead of OCaml allowed us a certain number of things :

\- Most notably reading OCaml's header files, and hence using the correct, macro declared data types in LLVM code generation. This could have been done with an hybrid of C and OCaml, but was much simpler in OCaml. \- Also using OCaml runtime to read the bytecode. This could have been done in OCaml, but would have been more tedious.

Also you have to consider this project isn't treating an AST per se (the thing at which ML languages excels, by the use of sum types) but a bytecode array, which is flat in structure. We put back some structure in it, but it is predictable and not as complex as an AST.

<comment><USER4> Don't take it personally.

I am all for using the right tool for the job, and I like C++ (except for a few things like lack of modules. :) ).

For an outsider which loves ML languages, OCaml still looks it could have been a better solution.

This is like doing bootstrap compilers, sometimes the efforts of such tasks lead to improvements on the language eco-system.

Then again, this is about using what you thought was the best tool at hand, so don't take it badly for my negative comment and good luck for the project.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not :) I'm just providing some context.

This project has more fundamental issues in my opinion if you want to consider it as a real replacement for ocamlopt, as i explained here <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4798320>. It is not, just a replacement for OCaml's interpreter, and as such it is a very simple project and will probably remains so. I don't plan to make it evolve beyond bug-fixing and maintaining it.

As such, if i had to re-code it in another language, it would be in C, to make it integrable into OCaml's runtime easily. Probably not OCaml, because its expressive power is not needed.

If i had to start from scratch, i would do an LLVM backend for the ocamlopt compiler. And i would do it in OCaml of course :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just checking that you are aware of OCamlCC. If you aren't, good news! You will have plenty of notes you can exchange with Benoît.

<http://oud.ocaml.org/2012/abstracts/oud2012-final10.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER6> how close to ocamlopt do you think you can get? (ie do you have any handle on what the returns would be for further work on this? what are the main limiting factors?)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok brace yourself, this is gonna be a long answer :) Go down for the TLDR if you don't want to read everything.

It really depends on your approach. This project isn't well suited for performance, because it treats OCaml's _bytecode_ , which is very hard to optimize for performance, because it has been designed to be interpreted by an Abstract Machine, not compiled.

For example, it is stack based, arguments are passed on the stack explicitly when a function call happens. On the other hand LLVM is register based, with function arguments. You then have two choices :

\- Either you translate the bytecode very directly, by using an explicit stack (eg. an array of memory). This is the easiest approach, but it produces code that is hard/impossible to properly optimize. \- Either you try to make a model translation, from stack based to register based, and translate every semantic to the LLVM model (for example, pass function arguments as LLVM function arguments instead of putting them in a stack manually). This approach is _much_ more difficult, but promises a lot more potential for optimization.

Another problem is that OCaml's bytecode is untyped. You loose all type information.

We tried both approaches in the Z3 project. The main branch is based on the direct-translation/explicit-stack approach. It is not very fast, and hasn't a lot of promises for going faster.

There are experimental branches based on the translation model. We were able to get much better performance with them on some code. There is a lot of potential for optimization, because, this way, you write LLVM idiomatic code, and you are able to reconstruct some type information, that enables you to do further optimizations. But there are drawbacks :

\- It is much more complicated. The ZAM isn't formally specified so you pretty much have to read the code of the VM to understand what's going on. Debugging is horrible.

\- Once you're there you have to provide your own Garbage Collector. In the direct-translation approach, we were able to use OCaml's garbage collector directly, because we re-used the interpreter stack. But in this approach, you have at least to provide a way to scan the roots. And once you write LLVM idiomatic bytecode, you realize how ill suited it is for relocating garbage collection.

TLDR : In the end it is just not worth it to optimize this project for performance. A better approach would be to start from scratch and do a real OCaml -> LLVM compiler for ocamlopt, that would be able to use the full AST with type information.

But even if you did that you'd still have to tackle the Garbage Collection issue, that is not an easy one :)

EDIT : To provide more context, this is a very good post by Xavier Leroy on the do-ability of an OCaml->LLVM compiler, and on its interrest (keep in mind Leroy is conservative about that, but it's probably a good thing).

[http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml- list/2009/03/3a77b...](http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml- list/2009/03/3a77bfcca0f90b763d127d1581d6a2f1.en.html)

<comment><USER6> thanks. stuff like this is what makes hn still worthwhile.</comment></comment></comment>


Falcon 9 flight 1 - video highlights - <AUTHOR> http://www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=51

<comment><USER2> That's awesome that they made it into orbit on the first flight! Can we buy shares in them yet?</comment>


Wikipedia founder on keeping a civil cybertongue - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572101333074122.html

<comment><USER2> >Finally, it's time to re-examine the current legal system. Online hostility is cross-jurisdictional. We might need laws that directly address this challenge. There is currently no uniformity of definition among states in the definition of cyberbullying and cyberharassment. Perhaps federal input is needed.

I don't get it that people don't get that the internet cannot really be policed! How would a law in the States stop someone from Iran to bully someone in a forum.

Who can stop them are the website owners, moderators and other members. It is really like in real life, some websites are small like small villages and need only one policeman, others like Wikipedia are like cities and might need a stronger 'police force'. The 'punishment' is easy and swift you just ban the user!

What is needed are stronger algorithms to automate some of these chores, not more lawyers!

<comment><USER3> _I don't get it that people don't get that the internet cannot really be policed! How would a law in the States stop someone from Iran to bully someone in a forum._

The fact the internet is internation makes it difficult, not impossible for the Internet to be policed.

First, remember that even though the internet makes international dealings trivially easy, much of the interaction (most perhaps?) takes place entirely within the borders of one country. This makes it easily subject to that country's laws.

Further, even when it is truly international there are still ways of enforcing at least a large subset of laws through international courts, or by suing in a court with jurisdiction over the defendant, or in some major cases through extradition.

And that is what can be done right now. With time and work, international governing bodies and more detailed treaties can be written to ease those legal dealings. (What form those can or should take is well beyond the current scope, but it is safe to say they are possible and even likely.)

(edited to fix grammar)

<comment><USER2> _First, remember that even though the internet makes international dealings trivially easy, much of the interaction (most perhaps?) takes place entirely within the borders of one country._

That is true and current laws in most countries would allow you to sue someone for defamation etc. Even cross-border in most cases. The problem is not the legal framework it is rather the _policing_ that is the problem. Laws per se do not stop criminal activity. My own argument is that the community itself should do the policing, perhaps aided by better software and a device that ... can send a 60000 kV spike back to someone's computer when he behaves badly :)

<comment><USER3> _The problem is not the legal framework it is rather the policing that is the problem._

I see what you are saying, but while this is still very much an evolving area there is a great deal of good policing going on in the truly criminal cases. The FBI has a very impressive Cyber division for instance.

 _My own argument is that the community itself should do the policing, perhaps aided by better software and a device that_

When it comes to things like low level harassment and simple rudeness, I largely agree with you. Good moderators combined with good automation should be able to keep that to a minimum.

When it comes to more complicated areas (adjudicating legitimate fair use or dealing with real hackers), then I believe it is necessary to have good laws with good, effective enforcement. At least from my perspective, while these things are in their infancy and are evolving rapidly, they can be and are being built.

 _can send a 60000 kV spike back to someone's computer when he behaves badly :)_

Tempting thought in some cases ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> He's making a good point and I believe that protection against harassment on the internet should be better. On the other hand I think the huge amount of crap people post is a inevitable side effect of the ease of communication the internet has brought. You cant filter "stupid" stuff, after all, whos to decide what is stupid and what not?

</comment><comment><USER5> his points are definitely commendable, but i'm wondering how he can more effectively convey them to a wider (read: low-brow) audience. WSJ readers are (hopefully) not the same people leaving abusive remarks on youtube or 4chan comments :)</comment>


Fire at Internet Archive - site down, no people or data harmed - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/internetarchive/status/398078132424417280 <comment><AUTHOR> [https://twitter.com/brewster_kahle](https://twitter.com/brewster_kahle) [https://twitter.com/footage](https://twitter.com/footage) and [https://twitter.com/internetarchive](https://twitter.com/internetarchive) have all tweeted about it. There was a fire in a side building, a scanning center. The SFFD has blocked off the area for now. The site seems to have been down for a while but most of it is back up now. Personally, I still can't use the Wayback Machine. No word yet on why the fire affected the website. Here's a picture of what's left of the building: [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYZUtBdCUAAW6ey.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYZUtBdCUAAW6ey.jpg:large)</comment>


Ask HN: Who are generally better programmers: INTPs or INTJs? - <AUTHOR> Why? <comment><USER2> You might as well ask who's better between Scorpios and Pisces.</comment>


Parliament expels Ukraine president, protesters seize his compound - <AUTHOR> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ukraine-protest-20140221,0,1284200.story

<comment><USER2> Meanwhile the Kremlin is not hiding their anger with the situation and isn't relenting in their interference. Russian intelligence agencies have been busy creating and arming their own "Ukrainian Front" as a resistance to the protesters. I'm curious what Russia will do next and if conflict will continue.

This is the type of crisis situation intelligence agencies love to exploit. Using citizens for proxy wars to further their interests.

[http://20committee.com/2014/02/22/kremlin-denounces- independ...](http://20committee.com/2014/02/22/kremlin-denounces-independent- ukraine-blames-west/)

[http://20committee.com/2014/02/03/meet-moscows-new- ukrainian...](http://20committee.com/2014/02/03/meet-moscows-new-ukrainian- front/)

<comment> guard-of-terra Russia will do nothing. Today, even Kharkov, the unofficial capital of eastern Ukraine (which is supposed to be loyalist) featured a 30+k manifestation of opposition and had president, mayor and governor fly to Russia.

It's too late for Russia to do anything and they won't even if it wasn't.

Russian here.

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't be surprised if Putin tried to grab Crimea though.

<comment><USER4> This is how _Pravda_ is picturing things:

" _Meanwhile, in the Crimea, people discuss an opportunity to separate from Ukraine and address Russia with a request to be accepted in the structure of the Russian Federation._ "

[http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/20-02-2014/12688...](http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/20-02-2014/126885-russia_ukraine_yanukovych-0/)

No idea how to interpret this.

<comment><USER3> That's what I meant...

<comment><USER4> Yes, I was adding context.

<comment><USER3> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As a Ukrainian-American I really did not see this happening and am very pleasantly surprised. I thought the deal announced on Friday would be it, and the parliament would not have the backbone to deliver anything more. Turns out, there are people in there who actually care about the fate of the country.

Now the question is where will it go from here. From what I understand, the opposition leaders are not exactly angels themselves, though certainly much less criminal than Yanukovych (none of them tried to steal an election before AFAIK).

On top of that, change in leadership does not necessarily mean change in course. Russian/Putin can still exert quite a bit of force on any Ukrainian president while Ukraine (just like the rest of Europe) is heavily dependent on Russia's natural gas. So it remains to be seen if Ukraine will have enough momentum from this victory to actually reduce corruption and turn more towards the EU to position itself such that the talks with Russia can be done on a more level playing field. I imagine it is hard to negotiate a deal regarding natural gas when you are paying Russia back with borrowed money.

<comment><USER6> > (none of them tried to steal an election before AFAIK)

What do you call the Orange Revolution? Especially since Yanukovych was elected in the following round of Presidential elections?

If anything, the government has been the reasonable party in this whole debacle, with the opposition being represented by violent fascist protesters and racist leaders (Oleh Tyahnybok and Dmitri Yarosh have both risen to prominence).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Now is the most critical and pivotal time for the protestors. All revolutions reach the point of actually having to deliver, and it can go many ways. But the most likely two are this: degeneration into infighting, power struggle, and the emerging of a "strong man" who isn't any better than the last, or everyone sitting down at the table, agreeing that it's in everyone's best interest to work together, and putting together a slate of non-corrupted statesmen who have the nation's best interest at heart.

Unfortunately, most revolutions go in the first direction.

<comment><USER8> Problem is, all opposition leaders in Ukraine are corrupt too. The second direction is highly unlikely in this case.

And the EU really won't embrace a corrupt Ukraine; they have enough problems with Bulgaria and Romania as it is.</comment></comment>


Enough JavaScript to be dangerous in 2016 - <AUTHOR> https://blog.hellojs.org/enough-javascript-to-be-dangerous-in-2016-5d04b3439e16#.gxtsz313w <comment><USER2> Nice discussion, but where's the example src code?</comment>


A portfolio with awesome css animations - <AUTHOR> https://magical-girl.site/ <comment><AUTHOR> Poster here, I have nothing to do with the person who made this, but I saw it in the morning and I thought it was super cool.

My Japanese is mediocre so I might've read it wrong, but it seems the person who made this dropped out of school, here's their Github:

[https://github.com/yuki540net](https://github.com/yuki540net)

If someone's in Japan you should hire them.</comment>


The new TLDs are here, do you really need Yourname.BLARGH? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.easydns.org/2014/03/28/the-new-tlds-are-here-email-guru-holdings-blah-blah-blah <comment><USER2> One TLD that stands out from the rest is .HIV:

-It's the first TLD ever bought by a non-profit initiative: [http://www.dothiv.org](http://www.dothiv.org) (based in Berlin, Germany)

-Their goal is to create the "red ribbon" of the digital age

-Revenues generated through the sale of these domains will be used to raise funds in support of projects that fight HIV

-Companies that buy .hiv addresses can pledge to donate a given amount of money to the initiative each time somebody visits their site, thus creating a clever system of micro-donations.

In my opinion this is an ingenious idea and one of the most creative uses of domain names I've seen so far.

<comment><USER3> Does this mean DDoSing a .hiv address will send a ton of cash to dothiv.org?

<comment><USER4> It's a pledge, so likely voluntary, not automatic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I welcome the new domains, how else would my bike get the web page it deserves? [http://kyle.bike/](http://kyle.bike/)

<comment><USER6> That's cool. Is it live?

<comment><USER7> It's a looped gif: [http://kyle.bike/bike.gif](http://kyle.bike/bike.gif)

<comment><USER6> Thank you. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Whenever people talk about new tlds, I always think mostly about names like google.con or googl.ecom. Yeah, yeah, it's cool that you can get some awesome tld, but I don't see the point. What's wrong with .com/org/net?

<comment><USER9> I would invert the question. What's wrong with more options?

The thing that really strikes me every time the new TLD subject comes up, is that there's always a percentage of people who want to forbid creation of certain TLDs for unpredictable, idiosyncratic reasons.

<comment><USER10> Automatic spam filters and search engines are going to down rank them heavily. It's hard to automatically evaluate domain names such as xkcd but anything under .ecom is probably trash.

<comment><USER9> That's supposed to be a reason for forbidding it?

Anybody could have any number of reasons for wanting a particular domain. Maybe someone will make the next del.icio.us? Maybe a TLD you don't like completes a word or phrase that makes a good brand, or is part of the next big viral trend that goes on to shape our culture in ways we wouldn't have anticipated.

Maybe people are just okay with being penalized by search engines because that's counterbalanced by other objectives. etc.

<comment><USER10> I was not suggesting that we should ban those domain names. However, using one is probably a bad idea, which makes adding them a waste of time. In the end there being added because companies know they can sell those domain names not because there useful.

A more useful option IMO is to have things default to .com if someone does not enter a domain name like how you can avoid country codes or area codes when dialing long distance.

However, by adding a huge list of TLD's your removing that option. Even worse while .edu means something WTF does .cow or .zzl mean? At best there is simply going to be another .com land grab except now seeing yourbank.bank or yourbank.bnk does not mean it's actually yourbank.

So yea, I do think it's a bad idea.

<comment><USER9> As if to prove my point, you're using really random, idiosyncratic reasons to prevent creation of TLDs, and neglecting to consider that they might have any number of values we are yet to anticipate.

They don't _need_ a reason to be added, other than offering more choice and more possibilities. You can not like them all you want, that doesn't mean they won't have value or that people shouldn't be free to explore the possibilities as they please.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have [http://have.tips/](http://have.tips/) and I have no idea what to do with it. Any tips? (see what I did there?)

</comment><comment><USER12> "which by the way, you can already do here in Toronto with .TO)" [0]

What's up with that? Is there something I'm missing or are they just selling tonga [1] domains under the toronto label now?

[0] [http://web.to/](http://web.to/) [1] [http://www.tonic.to/](http://www.tonic.to/)

<comment><USER13> It's not unique to Toronto; Los Angeles is encouraging local businesses to use Laos' TLD (c.f. [http://www.la](http://www.la))

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> .blargh sounds like a great TLD for a blog.

<comment><USER15> Myself, I'm hoping for .blag

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The number of new TLDs is rather ridiculous.

That said, I can't say I mind all of them. Scotland and Scottish culture will finally get their own domain - .scot - which will be great.

<comment><USER16> great.scot is already taken.

<comment><USER15> Is it? I didn't know they were taking registrations yet.

I'm determined to get great.scot myself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> With uncommon domain extensions I always fear that they might jack up the rates at some point in the future, going from $20/year to $250/year or even more.

Still, my personal site and email is on a fairly obscure country TLD, and I hope they will never do something like that, being a country and all. With these new TLDs for which companies paid large amounts of money, who knows what might happen?

Does anyone know if such a bait and switch has ever happened in domain-land?

<comment><USER17> > _With uncommon domain extensions I always fear that they might jack up the > rates at some point in the future, going from $20 /year to $250/year or even > more._

I sincerely wish that this would happen with _all_ domain registrations. Maybe not $250/yr, but $100/yr would be OK.

It wouldn't bother anybody that owns a few domains for business or even personal use.

It would slow down spamming techniques that rely on registering lots of different domains.

It would almost entirely halt domain squatting.

<comment><USER18> Are you kidding? I know, and in the past have hosted, portfolios for a number of artists. People making $20k a year pre-tax. $100 is a _lot_ to a lot of people.

Comments like this are why this weird social closure that so many tech people delight in is so disturbing.

<comment><USER17> Well, this has been an enlightening thread. Free or cheap health care? HN will debate the shit out of that. Cheap domain names? Sacred cow.

There's a lot I think I could say about this. I've been a pretty poor dude in the past, and not terribly wealthy now, even if it is in one of the richest countries in the world.

But I don't expect I could have a good conversation about it here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Does anyone know of listings or a resource guide for when each TLD is going live and the registrars that are selling them?

I have a couple of domain hacks that I've been interested in that I want to use for a project.

<comment><USER20> [http://blog.europeandomaincentre.com/infographics-launch- dat...](http://blog.europeandomaincentre.com/infographics-launch-dates-for- the-617-new-gtlds/)

Does not work well on mobile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> is there a .js? if not we should probably build an ad-hoc framework to support it

<comment><USER22> TLDs with two letters are only for countries: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top- level_domain](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domain)</comment></comment>


Aaron Swartz's newest project: watchdog.net - <AUTHOR> http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/watchdog

<comment><USER2> I've thought about doing something kind of like this in the past (tying together tons of data on corporations and individuals -- campaign finance, tax and financial info, etc) but concluded that to make it meaningful (rather than looking like a big data dump) would require a collaborative effort approaching that of Wikipedia and abandoned it.

The question is, you know X donated money to Y at a certain date, and Y is on the board of Z Corp, and ... so what? I never could figure out an answer.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, this was the bit that held me up on the data site for a long time. It didn't seem like succeeding could do anything but depress people. But talking to others in this sphere, there are some legitimate things you can do with the data: for example, Dennis Hastert (R-IL) recently had to resign in part because of some earmark data that someone uncovered; he was replaced by a pro- reform Dem particle physicist a month ago. So I think connecting it up to the media and building voter scorecards and stuff out of it could be effective.

<comment><USER4> Indeed, if making such information easily available results in "actual changes", as opposed to merely "availability of information", then this would be totally awesome.

Of course, a website like this can only make the information available, but hopefully it will be used productively. Best wishes!

<comment><USER5> Currently it only provides availability of data. There's no reason that it couldn't then provided next actions for that data--it's pretty easy to toggle a form that emails your congress person, or submits to local news, or any of a variety of actions.

Indeed, I think that's a direction it's heading, and the combination of information + action could be potent. How many people avoid taking action b/c it's just a pain to get out of their desk chair?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder which of his other ones are still going strong. Jobbook seems abandoned even though it was a great idea (or at least, addresses a real need).

There are a lot of organizations doing really good watchdog work -- the problem is getting people to pay attention.

<comment><USER2> Sometimes it's impossible to resist the appealing thought that there are purely technological solutions to social problems.

<comment><USER7> Technology is the only thing that has ever solved social problems. You just have to find the right technological solution. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> UK has had this for ages: <http://www.theyworkforyou.com/> <http://www.writetothem.com/>

</comment><comment><USER9> It seems like Aaron would benefit from writing down both his goals and assumptions.

</comment><comment><USER10> How are his other projects doing? If I were going to get involved, I'd want to look at his track record of commitment, or lack thereof.

</comment><comment><USER11> So what is his plan to avoid the site being biased?

</comment><comment> ten-seven It's been done, in several different forms. It depends on your political leaning how you manage to do it. His politics is evident from other writings. Using the name "watchdog" gives it an air of legitimacy it may not, or ever, deserve.

<comment><USER12> Just because it's been done doesn't mean it can't be done again, better. And as long as relevant data is pulled for _all_ candidates irrespective of affiliation, his political leaning should not matter.</comment></comment>


Meltdown strikes back: the L1 terminal fault vulnerability - <AUTHOR> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/762570/75306c44ec963c8f/ <comment><USER2> I've lost count of all the side-channels that have been discovered since Meltdown/Spectre, and to be honest, I quite frankly really don't care any more than I did before... I don't run untrusted code (yes, that includes JavaScript) and I'm the only user of my PC. Since Intel first introduced "protected" mode in the 286 I've felt the notion that it was only intended for protection against accidental errors, not deliberate maliciousness. From that perspective, all this "side-channel hide-and-seek" seems like an exercise in futility to add a level of security to something that was inherently not designed for such.

 _Since this attack goes directly to a physical address, it can in theory read any memory in the system. Notably, that includes data kept within an SGX encrypted enclave, which is supposed to be protected from this kind of thing._

Maybe one of the more positive things to come of this mess... and proof that DRM-enabling technologies will(should?) always be broken by design.

<comment><USER3> "From that perspective, all this "side-channel hide-and-seek" seems like an exercise in futility to add a level of security to something that was inherently not designed for such."

It seems that this SGX thing _was_ designed for such. That's what makes this new attack notable.

<comment><USER2> Make no mistake, SGX was designed to give Intel control over what code its processors can run (they have the signing key), and to enable user-hostile DRM. Attacks against it are welcome in the same way as jailbreaks and rooting.

<comment><USER4> Let's be precise; that Intel is enforcing enclave Launch Control is orthogonal to the SGX mechanism itself. Launch Control is a bane to end-users, like you said, and a pain to enclave creators (I had to talk to some random business development employee at Intel..) Intel has even specified a system for users to use their own Launch Control (or disable it) but that is not implemented in any actual chips.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> duplicated

<comment><USER6> Earlier post : [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17760733](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17760733)

But zero comments at 6h

<comment><USER7> Probably due to this [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17759762](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17759762)</comment></comment></comment>


Bitcoin Pizza Day 2018: Eight years ago, someone bought two pizzas with Bitcoins - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1285209/bitcoin-pizza-day-2018-eight-years-ago-someone-bought-two-pizzas-with-bitcoins-now-worth-82-million/ <comment><USER2> Has anyone tracked what became of those specific bitcoins?

<comment><USER3> According to the dude who sold the 2 slices of Pizza for 10,000 BTC, the coins quickly made it back into the crypto-economy.... i.e. it appears that he performed other transactions using those 10K bitcoins and didn't hold on to any of it.

( See the actual blockchain transaction in the interview page below )

> Q. What do you primarily use bitcoins for? Do you still control millions of > dollars worth?

> A. Bitcoin as a currency is meant to be spent. Those 10,000 BTC made it back > into the economy fairly quickly, around the time they were worth some $400. > A ~10x ROI from simply trading in a different currency is quite good, even > if that factor could have been higher had I held on to said currency longer.

Source: An Interview with Jeremy Sturdivant aka "Jercos", the young man who sold two pizzas for 10,000 BTC 5 years ago on May 22, 2010

[http://bitcoinwhoswho.com/index/jercosinterview](http://bitcoinwhoswho.com/index/jercosinterview)</comment></comment>