Ask HN: Where do you get your unbiased news? - <AUTHOR> When I say unbiased news, I refer to updates on changes in world news, politics, and economics.<p>I listen to NPR's hourly updates 2 to 3 times per day via [1]Stitcher, then I also read NPR's website on occasion.  Aside from NPR I find it hard to find an unbiased news source. <comment><USER3> IAMA dual-citizen of the United States and Israel. I've grown up processing a lot of news about Israel, both local (Israeli news outfits) and foreign (most journalism written in English). I've had more than one occasion to see an event unfold firsthand, and later read about it in the media.

There is no unbiased news. You must read between the lines, corroborate and reconcile different accounts, and generally think in order to piece together a picture of an event, even with reputable sources, because even reputable sources are really just a big organization that sent a reporter somewhere.

In fact, the reality is even worse: many topics of news have no singular "truth" to them. As soon as a reporter ceases to be strictly recollective, news becomes an editorial affair -- and that's ok, so long as people recognize it as such. The problem is that few people are equipped to make that distinction.

Most people never learn to take a piece of writing and tear it apart critically. It's a skill that requires time and practice to acquire. Without it, people conflate the hard news and the subjective bits. Quality journalism _should_ include a mix of hard news and analysis, but the news market today sells to the lowest common denominator, who generally want a simple narrative in 500 words or less. This leaves little room for the ambiguity of the real world.

I constantly question what I read because of my experience with reporting about Israel, and I often think about how little I really know when reading about other places and stories that lack a neat narratives.

<comment><USER4> Exactly what I wanted to say. Maybe living in Israel teaches a lot about how good, and all too often bad, reporting is. Even the reporting considered the most "unbiased" in certain countries sounds, to me, like it's incredibly biased. Never mind which more accurate: it just goes to show that bias depends more on what you believe going into the new piece than what it contains.

After reading Seth Godin's "All Marketers are Liars", I've come to the realization that there _is not truth_ , not in the sense people mean when they say "unbiased". _Everything_ worth saying has a marketing spin. _Everything_ people say to you goes through layers of previous beliefs. There is not such thing as "just the facts".

It's not even hard to "prove": take any reasonably controversial story that happened recently. The initial story already shows you what most people believe based on their first reactions. Any new piece of evidence that comes out doesn't have _any_ effect on which side of the issue people are on: the "fact" is _always_ somehow a proof that they are right. I've seen this happen very often, and yet people still seem to think that it's all _facts_.

<comment><USER5> The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is the sum of the squares of the other sides.

<comment><USER4> Mathematics (and certain sciences) are one of the few fields where actual facts exist.

Most news, though, deals with with humans, humans' interactions, and so on. You can never know what other people are thinking or feeling when they do something, and oftentimes they themselves don't even know.

If you want to see how bad most reporting is, just see how bad it is in fields you understand. Most reporting about the computer industry is terrible. Just as one funny example of a "fact" by an expert (and ironic who I'm writing this to), pg's article on PR has a footnote about how the damages figure for the Morris worm was calculated.

Great read in any case, which sorta makes some of the same points: <http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html>.

<comment><USER6> _pg's article on_

I think it's awesome that usernames are so de-emphasized in HN that one can respond directly to a comment by the site's creator without realizing it (or perhaps you did realize, but deliberately chose to use the third person[1]). Though HN obviously has reputation built in with karma and well-known members with well-deserved notoriety, it's very easy to ignore names and evaluate posts solely on their merits. I believe this can be a useful tool when implementing the suggestion of others to consider aggregated information from multiple sources.

 _[1] Will grammarians one day create formal rules for forum posts?_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've seen this question pop up online a lot, and a common answer from Americans seems to be "BBC News." Brits, however, tend to detect a liberal bias in the BBC's output though it pales in comparison to any found in the US media. The BBC News team recently reported that the site will be unveiling an all new design and workflow in the next couple of weeks, including a US focused version maintained by a separate editorial team in Washington DC.

In my experience, though, it's best to use a large but manageable number of sources and interpret them with intelligence and wisdom to get a feel for what the reality is.

<comment><USER8> One reason people recommend BBC is that it's a place to get a view of the US from the outside, from perhaps a more "objective" point of view, as opposed to domestic coverage that is a part of what it reports. I like Newshour, and it seems that Owen Bennett-Jones can play devil's advocate as well as anyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Let me ask - what's your goal from the news? Entertainment? Be informed? Looking for a career that would require knowledge of that sort?

If your goal is get a clear understanding of how the world works, I'd recommend you transition away from current events news and into reading history. Current events gives equal time, sometimes greater time, to people that are incredibly stupid and will be thoroughly discredited in a short time. If you were about the War on Drugs in the 1980s, you were getting some now- discredited nonsense. You would've been much better informed and able to predict outcomes by reading up on Prohibition in the USA or what happens during any era with a ban on a desired product.

History repeats itself - bans and prohibitions pretty much always go the same way. Black markets emerge to deliver the goods if they're desired, this increases the price of the good and makes it lucrative. But disagreements in this lucrative trade can't be arbitrated in court because the trade is illegal. Thus, disputes are settled by violence. The need for enforcers, arms, and protection outside of the law is conducive to gradually centralizing gangs, cartels, mafia, and other organized crime. This is pretty much always the way with prohibitions on desired goods throughout history - and you could easily predict that if you study history, but it's far too easy to get distracted by charismatic talking points in a debate over current events.

If you want to learn about the American financial crisis, you'd do well to learn about banking crises throughout history. If you want to learn about public education, you could do worse than starting to learn about the Prussian education system.

I've found much more insight in looking back at largely resolved things than trying to sort through the mess of what's going on. Then when I find myself out at dinner and it comes up, I can say something like, "Well, at XYZ time in Japan they did ZYX, and the result was ABC. Do you think that will happen with this policy in America?" Thus, you're useful to the discussion because instead of rehashing one of the two mainstream viewpoints you can get on the news, you introduce new facts, and you'll inevitably hear about the mainstream viewpoints during conversation, debate, and discussion anyways. History isn't as sexy or charged as mainstream news, but you wind up becoming much better informed in the end, and you'll most likely still pick up the main viewpoints of events as they unfold.

<comment><USER10> Sigh... You've just pinpointed for me my biggest frustration with the current "news" industry. They _could_ easily provide a lot of that historical background to help their viewers/readers actually _understand_ current events. But they don't.

<comment><USER11> Facts, and real, unbiased data would probably cause the major 'news' industry to loose big ratings money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Almost a year ago, I quit reading local news. Stopped hitting the main news sites 10x/day, stopped picking up a physical paper when I happened across one. I'd already stopped watching televised news.

I'd found that too much of what I was seeing was simply irrelevant and it either frustrated me or pissed me off.

Since that point, research into the influence of PR/publicity companies on local news showed that our primary newspaper in South Australia was comprised of 30% content pushed by PR/publicity. The online versions of the main paper here have devolved into eye-ball seeking trash - bikini galleries, celebrity gossip, etc.

Through this experience I've learnt how little I really miss. 99% of what's going on just doesn't need to be known.

I check Al Jazeera English once or twice a week and CNN a little less often. Other than that, I feel like I've saved some time and cleared my head a little (especially of some of the negativity that comes from news).

<comment><USER13> This is fine, as long as you take the next step and also don't vote.

If you choose not to be informed, it's really irresponsible to inflict your opinion on others via the voting booth.

<comment><USER14> In Australia everyone is legally required to vote.

<comment><USER15> Is there any law against submitting a blank ballot? If so you can just write yourself in for every office for which you are eligible, and pick a friend to write in for any others.

If there's a law against a blank ballot AND write-ins are disallowed, you live in a sham democracy where an elite wants to legally compel you to signify your assent to its illegitimate rule, and it is your democratic duty to boycott any such elections in order to highlight their illegitimacy.

<comment><USER16> You can certainly submit blank or invalid ballots. One bloke I know has been writing "You must be joking" on his for years.

Technically, you're only required to attend a polling station and get your name crossed off.

<comment><USER17> What happens if you don't?

<comment><USER16> You get a letter asking for a reason why you didn't turn up and they fine you if they don't think it's a good enough excuse.

My mother once wrote "I think compulsory democracy is a contradiction in terms". They fined her.

<comment><USER18> How did they know it was her?

<comment><USER16> They send letters to everyone who hasn't had their name crossed off the voting list.

<comment><USER18> I assumed you meant she wrote "I think compulsory democracy is a contradiction in terms" on her ballot.

<comment><USER14> No, he meant she wrote that on the excuse letter.

<comment><USER18> Yes I completely misunderstood! Thanks both for setting me straight.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It isn't clear that there is such a thing. I remember a friend used to listen to NPR on the way home. At one point, he realized that he was getting home angry. Once he figured this out, he quit NPR and started listening to easy listening jazz (which I reinterpret to mean non-threatening jazz, but that's another story).

See, what most news channels do (TV, newspaper, web) is to strive to alarm you. NPR stories about central american coups, financial press predictions of doom with taxation proposals, valley press warning of the upcoming total shortage of venture capitol, bloggers warning of the impending death of microsoft, prince predicting (hoping?) for the death of the internet itself.

When we talk about bias, we are more likely to think left-leaning vs right- leaning vs libertarian. Let me suggest another way of looking at this.

Are you looking for a source of news whose thrust is to alarm you? I claim that is the common bias shared by most news sources.

So I suggest this simple experiment. As you listen to a newscast/blogger podcast/tv broadcast or read a blogger post/newspaper/news.google.com/news.combinator.com ask yourself "is this story informing or alarming".

Then check out utne.com or the Christian Science Monitor.

Better yet is to read several, or none at all.

Who is it that said "if the information is important, it will find me"?

</comment><comment><USER20> I've picked some policy blogs written by smart people. When news happens, they often write posts about it and link to articles plus they often add their own analysis.

This is something that I don't think is well understood: the most broken component of most news organizations is the editing. News editors tend to be...not smart. They don't have nearly enough subject matter expertise to make intelligent decisions about how to asses factual claims in articles or how to put the news in context. If I want to read about economics, I know for a fact that any econ blogger on the planet knows a hell of a lot more than 98% of newspaper editors. What's far worse is how news organizations present politics; they behave as if political science doesn't exist. Everything is explained in terms of fictional narratives that often contradict polling while ignoring fundamentals. Reading news articles about politics makes you more ignorant, not less.

For example, I read Lawyers Guns and Money ( lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/ ) and when, say, a war in Georgia breaks out or a South Korean warship sinks, I know about because the LGM guys write posts with links to news sources. But since some of them are security studies professors who specialize in international relations and global security, I get the added context to make sense of it.

So pick some subjects that interest you, find some subject matter experts with blogs and toss them into an RSS reader. The result will be better than any newspaper and you'll still get notified when an "important" article gets published in the NYT or WAPO or LAT or WSJ or anywhere else.

<comment><USER21> Would you mind posting some of your own resources and recommendations?

<comment><USER20> Sure. Looking over the list, I'm reminded why I enjoy reading these people. Even when I disagree with them, it is obvious that they love their field. They have a lot of fun with it. There's a kind of joy found in doing something that you love and have devoted your life to that comes out in their writing. As a result, these writers make actual value judgments. They don't write sterile corporate prose guaranteed to offend no one.

* Lawyers Guns and Money, global conflict, international relations, political science, some legal history: <http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/>

* The Monkey Cage, real political science by political scientists: <http://www.themonkeycage.org/>

* The Edge of the American West, mostly history professors but some philosophers too, but less academic than Crooked Timber: <http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/>

* Brad Delong, econ prof at UC Berkley; strong focus on economic history; leans left: <http://delong.typepad.com/>

* Tyler Cowen, econ prof at GMU, leans right: <http://www.marginalrevolution.com/>

* Marc Lynch, foreign affairs prof who talks about the middle east; unlike pretty much every middle east expert, he actually speaks Arabic and has some idea about what actual Arabs are talking about: <http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/>

* Matthew Yglesias, foreign policy, some economics and politics: <http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/>

* Ezra Klein, health care and economic policy: <http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/>

* Felix Salmon, a former bond trader who talks about finance: <http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/>

* Julian Sanchez, national security law, background in philosophy, leans right (but not in terms of national security): <http://www.juliansanchez.com/>

* Ryan Avent, who also writes for the Economist but his personal site is more focused on urban planning and transportation economics, especially with regards to climate change mitigation: <http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/>

* Brad Plumer, environment and climate change: <http://www.tnr.com/blogs/the-vine>

* Cosma Shalizi, statistics, social science that uses statistics, lots of book reviews: <http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/>

Also, here are two sites I use to find random long form articles to read on my Kindle using Instapaper. These are more hit or miss but they cover a much broader range. These sources won't tell you about hot news stories per se, but if there's some weird NYT Magazine article that everyone is talking about, you'll find it here.

The Browser: <http://thebrowser.com/>

Long Form: <http://longform.org/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Short answer: I don't. Never mind the insanely conservative bias to every major media outlet in the US, I don't really trust news that claims to be unbiased. I prefer it if instead you get reporters and editors being __honest __about their biases. The whole idea of an unbiased news media being the ideal kind of news has caused a lot of problems, as can be seen from the firing of Weigel:[http://crooksandliars.com/ian-welsh/court-eunuch-standard- bl...](http://crooksandliars.com/ian-welsh/court-eunuch-standard-blogging- exposed-d). We need to get past the idea of an unbiased news and move on to having an honest news corps.

</comment><comment><USER23> I tend to go with NPR and The Economist. Both are biased, but their biases are relatively mild and out in the open (and, more-or-less in opposition to each other).

<comment><USER20> I think this depends a lot on what your biases are. I see both the Economist and NPR as pretty ideological sources, and that's fine. The Economist is a bit more open and up front though. NPR's central ideology is bland American boosterism and an absolute refusal to ever make value judgments. That's why you see NPR being completely incapable of making truthful statements that make the US government look bad: [http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/06/22...](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/06/22/npr)

As far as ideologies go, that's a whole lot better than Stalinism, but I personally aspire to higher standards. Nevertheless, it is a very commonly held set of ideological priors, especially among the tote bag set (i.e., the group of people that regularly donate to NPR/PBS and thus got an NPR/PBS tote bag). Just because their ideological priors mostly match up with yours doesn't make them "unbiased".

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> There is no "unbiased news." Period.

If what you want to do is get information without an overt bias, then yes, NPR is fairly good. Others have recommended The Economist, I second that. I would recommend getting your news from a variety of sources (preferably not American-centric, if you wish to hear international news).

I tend to lean heavily on NPR, The Economist, and the NY Times (the last two are seriously contradictory, but I find that to be useful). I have heard good things about The Atlantic, although I cannot vouch for it myself.

</comment><comment><USER25> BBC, Al Jazeera English, and the Financial Times.

In my opinion, those are the three most journalistic institutions remaining - they report the facts as cleanly as humanly possible.

<comment><USER26> Is this a joke? Al Jazeera!? And BBC? BBC is sometimes even more anti-Israel than Al Jazeera...

<comment><USER27> Without getting into an Israel vs Palestine debate, consider this: would you call the BBC biased for being anti-nazi in the 1940s? Or American journalists being anti- the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks? And, are there surely not Palestinians out there who would see BBC's coverage as overly pro-Israel?

<comment><USER26> You disagree with me by comparing jews to nazis (and to the 9/11 terrorists) and I'm the one getting down voted. Fun.

Well, come on, reply saying you didn't say "jews" and comparing _Israelis_ to Nazis is legitimate. Except it isn't.

Or maybe you'll deny you compared them, and say it was purely an example of how being anti-X doesn't prove bias. But I didn't say being anti-X indicates bias for all X. I said taking a strong anti-Israel stand on a _controversial_ topic does not constitute unbiased reporting. See the difference? You said opposing uncontroversially bad things is legitimate. But either you missed the point or you think Jews are uncontroversially bad.

<comment><USER27> My personal view: when they stop killing palestinians I'll stop comparing them to people in the pastw who killed people of a certain race.

My view on bias ignoring my personal view: "I didn't say being anti-X indicates bias for all X" - just being anti-Israeli indicates a bias against Israel? Seems you're being biased against the coverage because you're pro- Israel to me...

<comment><USER26> So now you're comparing Jews with Nazis _more_ and saying they both did/do racial genocide. Why don't you take your anti-semitisim to Kos or DU? There's plenty of appropriate websites for you.

<comment><USER27> 1.) Where did I accuse Israel of Genocide? 2.) I said Israel kills palestinians. Feel free to argue with me that it's a war so it's fair, or that it's neccesary. Don't tell me I wasn't truthfully saying what does happen, unless the entire world's press, and the Israeli goverment, have all lied about the fact that Israeli soldiers DO kill palestinians.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you really view Israel as the only one in the wrong in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict?

<comment><USER27> No of course not (I do however think they're vastly more in the wrong in general)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> There is no such thing as a lack of bias.

<comment><USER29> If you're hearing news that seems unbiased to you, what you are hearing is news that conforms to your bias.

<comment><USER30> When I woke up this morning (Aus) my first action was to google for World Cup 2010. Seeing the Netherlands:0, Spain:1 was certainly news. I'm not seeing any bias though..

There is such a thing as "just the facts".

<comment><USER31> Well, bias also comes from withholding facts. "Netherlands:0, Spain:1" doesn't mention the dramatic game between Germany & Spain.

Although it's pretty harmless here, it can make a difference when you talk about bigger things, like unemployment. Fox News might be apt to stress the fact that X Million Americans are unemployed this quarter, whereas NPR might note that unemployment rates are down Y%.

They're both true, and plain facts. Yet, highly biased. Even if you state both, you're ignoring other, larger factors. Did a government program start/expire? Did a set of large companies undergo layoffs? Etc.

So theoretically, if you read enough (true) information, you don't have to worry about bias. (Very hard to do practically)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I love The Economist. It's the only magazine I subscribe to.

I think British culture is close enough to US culture to do a great job capturing the subtleties of American politics; at the same time they remain less biased since, for the most part, they don't have a horse in the race.

BTW: I also find that while they do try to remain unbiased, NPR slants a little more to the left than the right,

<comment><USER33> The Economist isn't even close to unbiased. It has a very clear view and interpretation of the world.

<comment><USER34> I think there's a big confusion in a lot of this discussion between bias and general rationality. The Economist has a much more rational, well-thought-out point of view than most American newspapers and periodicals, but it's also a very ideological one, and while reading it one should be trying to consider ways that the facts presented could lead to different conclusions which the editors would not be promoting.

I ultimately agree that this is a much better place to be in than trying to publish irrational but "unbiased" news, however.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I really enjoy the Christian Science Monitor. Despite its name, it seems to be relatively unbiased. I also like its approach to news- They tend to work on a local level, but cover broad issues from a different perspective than you'd typically find from the AP or Reuters.

<comment><USER13> CSM tends to have a much more thorough perspective than the big news sources. I'm not sure how that came to be the case, but I do appreciate them for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> There isn't such a thing as an unbiased news source. One solution is to get de-constructed news from a source like No Agenda - <http://www.noagendashow.com/>, and then you'll start to recognize the slant behind new stories more readily.

All professional new outlets have sponsors, and so they are biased. NPR for example, has shows sponsored by Monsanto, GE, and Archer Daniels Midland - <USER2> good luck avoiding bias!

<comment><USER37> Yeah, I like to listen to their stream in the morning. Good stuff! ;-)

<comment><USER36> ITM! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> PBS Frontline is amazing. Very in depth, very informative. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/>

</comment><comment><USER38> Why do people feel the need to label news sources as either "left" or "right" wing. Why do both sides always have to have valid points? Either the news source has good reporting and its opinions are logical and supported by facts, or not.

That said I don't really read much news but I prefer Al Jazeera English and the BBC.

</comment><comment><USER39> I like the PBS NewsHour program. They seem to have a slight left bias that I find tolerable. I really like the way they pick two or three issues daily to go in-depth with and try to get opinions from multiple sides. I also like that the people they get opinions from seem to be the well thought, well spoken type rather than the "I can talk the loudest and make the other guy look dumb" type that the cable news networks seem to use.

</comment><comment><USER27> As a Brit I find that I just need to tune into pretty much any American news channel (like Fox), and after five minutes of that right wing hilarity any other coverage in the world seems 110% unbiased in comparison.

</comment><comment><USER40> The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Watch it for yukks and for a general take on what occupies the American psyche. It's in your face frivolous, but so much news these days is frivolous while pretending not to be that in comparison, The Daily Show actually feels like straight talk. They seem to really do their homework when it comes to researching past news. And the interviews are gold.

The Economist has a decent survey of what's important to different peoples around the world, but I try to keep in mind that a page or two of commentary often doesn't capture all the nuances of a local situation. Other times I just scan the front page of Google News.

All news is biased. Just choosing the verbs and nouns in a news report makes it so. Things I try to avoid these days are outright dishonesty, unfair judgement (different standards when judging Party A vs Party B), and hidden agendas. Having a value system is alright if you are honest and forthright about it.

<comment><USER20> _And the interviews are gold._

Um, what? Daily Show interviews tend to be awful. Most of them are random book authors hawking their latest book or actors hawking their latest film. Stewart often acts like an attention-starved puppy. When he decides to actually confront his guests, things often go badly because he's so unprepared. Did you see his interview with John Yoo? Yoo wiped the floor with him. Did you see how he sucked up to Musharraf? I mean, when you have a dictator on your show, you can at least ask one or two challenging questions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I personally use Twitter to subscribe to a variety of individual journalists, news makers, wire services, lawmakers, media personalities, etc. Thus, essentially building my own "news aggregrator".

I try to follow +just enough+ people that infuriate me from time to time - just to challenge my own well established biases.

</comment><comment><USER42> NPR is pretty left leaning. I certainly wouldn't call them unbiased.

As for where to go I agree with the other comments. There is no unbiased news. I say check both. Add Fox News to your NPR habit and you should be fine.

<comment><USER43> Haha, now come on, surely* NPR wouldn't be equal to Fox News' level of bias and sensationalism... how about NPR + HuffPost?

...okay, yeah, I don't get why NPR is in there, either.

* _As surely as a non-American who just samples a lot of American media could say, at least._

[edited: I guess that came out wrong... not intended to slag off NPR. Or are people just sensitive about HuffPo?]

<comment><USER22> Certainly doesn't help to pick two right-leaning sources, anyway. I've never gotten where this whole idea that NPR is a liberal outlet comes from.

<comment><USER43> I don't know why anyone would be regularly consuming any such obviously/strongly biased sources. I'd be concerned that spending too much time amongst poor journalism and extreme views, they might just start to seem more 'normal' or 'acceptable' when they are really potentially very damaging/hurtful our (your?) society as a whole.

Certainly, sample some of it from time to time, to get a feel for what people are consuming, but there are more sensible options. For example, here in Australia I read a mix of The Age (moderate left bias) and the Australian (moderate right bias), and also sometimes the Australian Financial Review (surprisingly centrist, pleasantly free of sensationalism).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Those claiming here that Fox news are lying bastards are probably going to be equaled by the number of people here claiming that NPR leans left. As objectively as I can observe, the real outliers (far to the left) are the entire NBC/MSNBC set of stations and Newsweek (which is about to go under anyway). Among ABC and CBS, I think the only valuable sources are 60 minutes (which can lean left) and CBS Sunday Morning (which isn't hard news, but is informative and entertaining).

Again, in my opinion, NPR <i>leans</i> left. Fox news <i>leans</i> right. And if you want to watch the NEWS programming on Fox, then it is usually accurate as opposed to the OPINION programming on Fox like Glen Beck and O'Reilly.

Surprisingly enough, the most worldly, unbiased, informed and thorough daily news sources are the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal. Unfortunately, both of them use some combination of pay-for-service access - which changes regularly as the newspaper industry figures it out. They're both very close to centered, although the editorial boards lean left and right respectively. The big difference, however, is that both also give voice to dissenting opinions (where appropriate - on the OPINION pages) and publish well-thought-out, if contrary, letters to the editor.

Some of the other commenters are right - you need to take a look at multiple sources and discern for yourself not only where they sit on the political spectrum, but also the percentage of news to bullshit each chooses to publish.

<comment><USER22> Those claiming that Fox News are lying bastards (such as myself, though I didn't use "bastards" originally) likely are doing so because the evidence is on our side. On Fox, there is no division between the opinion and news programming, and both are riddled with so many outright lies that it is an insult to journalists to apply the word "news." To then equate that total butchering of facts with an upfront and honest ideological bias such as those espoused by Olbermann and Maddow (whom I am assuming you mean when you refer to MSNBC, as they don't really have very many liberals at all) is no more than false equivocation. Liberal-leaning watchdog groups such as Media Matters (<http://mediamatters.org/>) do a damn fine job of documenting and citing evidence of Fox's lies, and so I will not get into it here. Rather, my point is that there is a huge gulf between having two or three liberal hosts of fact-based shows and having an entire channel twist and abuse facts into subservience to the Republican/Tea Party.

<comment><USER45> Despite all of the conflicting research around the TP, the one thing that I'm fairly sure of is that 100% of them watch the Fox News & Entertainment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> bloomberg is my favorite news source. its no bull shit and data driven.

i remember once comparing a NYT's article on apple's earnings a little while back. one had to skip past the 10th paragraph to actually discover what their EPS was and by how much they beat expectations. those figures would never be found past the first sentence on a bloomberg piece.

in general i consider it safe to read articles with goggles that filter any hint of an opinion provided by the author. i look for the numbers and the facts, the rest is just noise.

</comment><comment><USER15> I like to read FiveThirtyEight.com, not because I care about the issues but because I enjoy seeing issues explained with numbers and statistical reasoning.

</comment><comment><USER47> Honestly, HN is primarily my source. With the exception of some hard science and astronomy that I get from more direct sources. I usually hit msnbc once or twice a day and find nothing worthy of the name news. I dislike the layout of nytimes.com, so that prevents me from reading much there. Overall, if something hits HN it's usually of interest.

</comment><comment><USER48> I gave up on all news about 10 years ago. If something is important, or unimportant but popular, I cannot escape hearing about it. Once in a while I buy the economist to read on the plane.

That said, I recently started reading the New York Post. There's something to be said about a really trashy, tabloid take on the news.

</comment><comment><USER49> no such thing as unbiased news. also, no such thing as left-leaning mass media outlets. think about it: mass media implies mass funding - you need to be a corporation to be a mass media outlet. nuff said.

if you want to learn about what is happening in the world, you could do worse than start at the forums of media watch sites such as <http://medialens.org> (for uk-centered media monitoring) or <http://fair.org> (for us-centered media monitoring). from there, you can refer to the original articles in the mass media and contemplate on the validity of the criticism by the media watchers.

that way, you incorporate a critical view on the news medium right from the moment you read the news.

</comment><comment><USER50> The Wall Street Journal. * Their opinion columns are slightly against leftist policies. I've been reading the Journal since Obama took charge in Washington, and the opinion pieces have been highly critical of the present administration. But then, anti-business sentiment among the people is high, and the present administration reflects this, so I would still say that the Journal is a great source of news AND opinion.

The New York Times, on the other hand is very much a left-leaning publication... I read it during the Bush years, and I am planning on reading more NYTimes, come November ;)

Edit: Oh yeah, forget about TV as a source of unbiased news... It's far better to go to the papers for your news :)

<comment><USER51> It's really a shame that the WSJ has gone down the toilet since Murdoch bought it. I subscribed from college until its recent decline and modulo the hilariously biased opinion pieces ("we have both sides of the story: the right-wing opinion, and the far-right-wing opinion...") it was a good source of information about what was happening in the world because its subscribers had a vested interest in getting information about what was really happening: when real money is on the line you want a no-BS, no-spin view of the world because it can cost you dearly if your news source loses its way and tries to tell you what it thinks should be true rather than what it knows to be true. Since the journal joined Rupert's empire the story quality has declined, the headlines have become less informative and more sensationalistic (even in articles that are not page one stories), and its current trajectory seems to be aiming for crash-and-burn before the decade is out.

These days if you want good daily business reporting the Financial Times is really the only choice you have.

<comment><USER50> That is a pretty harsh assessment. But I think the Journal still does a pretty good job. Consider, for instance, the repeated support of the Journal for extending the Bush-era tax brackets (that are set to expire by the end of this year, I think).

Initially, I got the impression that opinion writers at the Journal seem to have a 'no-tax' fetish... But then, it appears that many other publications are joining the Journal in insisting on making the Bush-era tax income tax brackets permanent, because all of them are of the opinion that this is essentially a pretty good stimulus policy, considering that the other forms of stimulus show no signs of improving the miserable jobs numbers.

Arguing that the Journal has gone down the toilet since Murdoch bought it is a specious argument, and I would think that it is essentially an ad-hominem attack against Murdoch. Murdoch also owns the Fox serials like Family Guy, which has a blatantly far-left viewpoint and doesn't shy away from showing it... So McFarlane and co. routinely get the question, ' How can you work for Murdoch who also owns the 'fair and balanced' fox news?', to which they answer that Murdoch doesn't interfere with their business, because he wants revenue- generators, and he is a businessman first. Of course this is an anecdotal piece of info, but I do not think Murdoch is fiddling with the Journal. And the so-called 'right-wing / far-right-wing' articles appear under the clear heading 'opinion'...

So your claim that 'the Journal has gone down the toilet since Murdoch bought it' doesn't appear to be a fair one, to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> There's no such things as unbiased news, all news stories are written for their specific audiences across geography and culture. All news stories of the same event have different narratives, to fit according to the intuition and interests/expectations of the intended audience.

When people say BBC news or some other news is less biased (some say read Chinese news about the US). It's really because it's a different narrative that sounds new/fresh, it covers different tangents that boring local media has never went.

So just watch whatever fits your taste/ideology.But if you are out to change your perspective and encompass as many divergent views as possible.

Just go for the highest contrast, and read history.

</comment><comment><USER53> Several years ago I read a biography on Rupert Murdoch and one thing that this book impressed upon me was how biased much of the world media is.

Based on that, the approach I take is not how to find unbiased news sources (although I still do try to find those), but to read widely and deeply and most importantly, to think! I try to read both 'liberal' and 'conservative' media to get both sides of the stories. I feel a lot of arguments could be avoided and consensus more easily achieved if more people tried to understand what the 'other side' thinks/feels ... and so I try to keep myself 'educated' by reading all sorts of media.

</comment><comment><USER54> I agree that there is no unbiased news. Ideally you would be equally critical towards all sources. Be aware of every word you read on the page, and understand that anything could be fabricated.

As soon as you become "loyal", you're much more likely to believe them regardless of what they say.

In addition to sites others have listed, for politics mostly, I've found that these two sites are a good addition (though they're surely biased as well): <http://www.factcheck.org/>, <http://politifact.com>

</comment><comment><USER55> Stratfor is my daily geopolitics fix. They occasionally offer $99 subscriptions, but there's a free weekly email and podcast that's a good way to get an idea of what they do.

They're not news so much as forecasting. A lot of what happens in the news now which used to seem to come out of nowhere doesn't, because I've been reading their updates on the brewing situation between countries X & Y for months.

Similarly I enjoy Foreign Policy, though they're a bit pulpy at times. Still cheaper than an Economist subscription though.

</comment><comment><USER56> No media outlet is unbiased -- and that's fine. Whenever I read an article (especially opinion pieces) the first thing I do is check the byline and research the author a tiny bit.

I stopped watching TV years ago, and have mostly dropped radio as well. I enjoy reading news with the time to stop and think about what I just read. My main sources are (in no particular order): The Economist, NY Times, BBC News, The Guardian, NPR, and the Globe and Mail.

</comment><comment><USER57> I now try to only follow the news for 3 or 4 days a week - no news down time is nice.

When I do follow the news, if a story interests me I try to find articles from 2 or 3 different countries to get a spread of bias - not saying that averaging always helps though.

I live in the USA, and I generally feel that our news is of very low quality. The corporate control of our news media and government is a done-deal, and that strongly effects accuracy and impartiality.

</comment><comment><USER58> All news is biased. It is the essence of news and reporting. Whoever is recording has chosen to show you what you see and hear. If someone is telling you something it is biased.

When I'm buying a book at amazon.com, I read the One, Three and Five star review before deciding what to believe.

When I hear something on the news go to Fox, CNN/BBC and NPR/CSPAN...assuming I feel it is 'bias-able'.

</comment><comment><USER59> I don't think there are any unbiased news source. I think the best we can do is read from several different sources and interpolate accurate news. I'm starting to feel that this method is too much work, but here's who I read:

Primaries: New York Times BBC Al Jazeera English

Skim both: Drudge Report and Huffington Post

</comment><comment><USER60> My view is that no media outlet is completely unbiased, so I try to read as many opposing views as possible with as many facts as possible, and derive some interpretation of the truth for myself, based on as many relevant facts I can find from all sides of a debate/topic.

</comment><comment><USER61> I watch MSNBC and Fox, and average everything together. Good first approximation of the truth. YMMV

</comment><comment><USER62> <http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy>

</comment><comment><USER63> Combination of reddit.com , NPR , bbc.co.uk , cryptome.org and off the hook. Sometimes I will watch CNN. If one thing I have learned is that there is no such thing as unbiased news. I try to get from all angles and remain skeptical.

</comment><comment><USER64> Every story no matter the source will have its (1) Origin (2) Value (3) Limitation (4) Purpose. Keep that mind mind. Credit to the IB History Program for embedding those criteria for analyzing sources into my brain.

</comment><comment><USER65> There is always some level of bias. If there is space for reader's comments (like here), I try to parse them because there I usually find "the other side" of the bias, then I have more to build my opinion...

</comment><comment><USER66> Why unbiased news is _not_ possible?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West#Democracy.2...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West#Democracy.2C_media.2C_and_money)

</comment><comment><USER67> I have a script that launches a browser with several tabs, for BBC, Drudge, al Jazeera (sp?), Google News, a few others. Somewhere in the mix I get to know when something or other happened.

</comment><comment><USER68> Noam Chomsky's brief (41s) response to the question of 'best newspaper':

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r3z1Wp6nWc>

<comment><USER69> I agree with him. Here in the UK it's probably the only vaguely impartial newspaper, plus the actual news that is reported feels more important than the news reported by the rest of the UK media. Maybe it's just because there are more numbers involved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> parse out the facts like everyone says. if you already know bias exists, then you don't have too much to worry about. seeing bias shouldn't be a worry for some people, especially HN users. Here we always read and analyze everything carefully before making a decision about how to take it.

Treat all news sources the same way, it shouldn't be too bad.

</comment><comment><USER26> NPR is not unbiased. What you will perceive as unbiased depends on your own political leanings.

For example, I consider anything left of Ayn Rand level capitalism advocacy a left-leaning bias because it's left of the truth. But other people would say that's extremely biased even though it consists of nothing but true statements. What they would call unbiased would be advocacy of some mixed/compromise economic system which is left of capitalism. Shrug.

</comment><comment><USER66> <http://www.opencrs.com> is good

</comment><comment><USER71> I do not get unbiased news. I get biased news and account for the bias.

</comment><comment><USER72> Bloomberg.com. Least biased US source I can find.

</comment><comment><USER73> Colbert.

</comment><comment><USER74> sad but true: the daily show

when all news is biased, at least they make their bias clear.

<comment><USER8> The Daily Show has a bias against stupidity, which both major parties have more than enough of....

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> bbc news is a very good ressource

<comment><USER66> I agree. BCC is legally bound to be _objective_

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> The PBS Newshour

You can watch the 1 hour, no commercial, programs online on their site. In my opinion this is the only professional national nightly news program in America. They do not lack journalistic integrity or show 'fluff' stories. Usually the program consists of 3-4 main stories where they bring on 2-3 highly qualified commentators with opposing or unique viewpoints and the discussion is moderated. At one point in the program they give a rundown of the days other stories in a brief rapid fire list, delving into more detail depending on the importance or gravity of the story.

This Week with Jake Tapper

Sunday's at 9am. Excellent and unbiased. Tapper asks really hard questions of both sides of the political spectrum. Last week he had McCain, this week he had David Axelrod. He owned them both a few times.

\</comment><comment>--

The quality of news in this country from the main stream media is deplorable but there are a few gems out there.

</comment><comment><USER77> I haven't settled on one yet but I know it would not be Fox News.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you prepare for GDPR? - <AUTHOR> What tools do you use? What processes have you put in place? How confident are you that you are compliant? <comment><USER2> We're a software company, we decided to educate our own DPO. While learning about GDPR and preparing our processes and applications, we developed a solution which can help other companies to comply.

It's still in a beta and it's open source: [https://github.com/gdprhq/GdprHq.Io.ClientSdk](https://github.com/gdprhq/GdprHq.Io.ClientSdk)

For us, it helps a lot to see the actual source code and links between methods and articles from the GDPR.

To be ready for GDPR, we have several things on our to-do list: 1\. prepare business processes, identify personal data, processors, processing activities and lawful basis, etc. 2\. modify our internal applications to make them compatible with GDPR (data subject requests, e.g. right to be forgotten); internal applications are the one we develop for our own usage, e.g. for quotes, invoices, subscriptions and similar 3\. assure that processors we're sending personal data are working on compliance, e.g. SaaS services we're using for website visitor analytics, mail campaigns, etc. 4\. modify applications we're selling to our customers; it's also important to ensure that apps we're selling are GDPR compliant if our customers will store their personal data in them

Developing our own solution was the best way to learn GDPR :)

Nino [https://www.gdprhq.io/](https://www.gdprhq.io/)</comment>


Revealed: Everything Google Will Unveil at its Oct. 29 Android Event - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/10/21/revealed-everything-that-google-will-announce-at-its-android-event-on-october-29/ <comment><USER2> The article contains at least one mis-prediction: Android already supports vertical panoramas. I've used that feature before.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Why do companies keep using size-based nomenclature? E.g. Nexus 4, Nexus 7, Nexus 10, Galaxy Tab 7, Galaxy Tab 10?

It may _seem_ like a good idea, but if the product is successful, how do you name next year's model? The Nexus 7-2?

If the models were only going to be updated annually, like Apple does, then I guess it would work (2012 model, 2013 model, etc). But Google and Samsung both seem to be releasing product updates faster than that, so I don't know how they can iterate without confusing average consumers (Nexus 7 2nd-generation model?).

<comment><USER3> Its better than the "New iPad", still have no idea what Apple was thinking on that one.

<comment><USER4> My only confusion is what they'll call the next one, and what they'll call the old New iPad. I'm assuming they'll use it to classify issues in documentation amongst other things.

<comment><USER3> My guess is that the iPad's form factor is pretty much done. I don't see a massive change in screen size, resolution, shape, or packaging form factor. Any large departure from the current iPad will likely be a different product. If thats the case they may simply be transitioning to the way they name their computers. e.g. 'Late 2012 iPad' for the rumored update coming up.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Gaslighting of Parasite - <AUTHOR> https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/06/the-gaslighting-of-parasite.html <comment><USER2> I think even the author misses it to some extent.

IMO, this movie was made specifically to appeal to awards from the Cannes and Hollywood intelligencia who see themselves as self-made and surrounded by parasites (even their own family). Literally worshipped by the original staff while admired but exploited by their envious grifter replacements.</comment>


Show HN: Super Planet Crash - <AUTHOR> http://www.stefanom.org/spc/ <comment><USER2> I am the developer of the game (StefanoM). I'm glad people are enjoying the game, and I'm sorry for the downtime -- I did not expect it to become this popular.

If you have any improvements or suggestions (especially on the programming side!), please email me directly.

Update: As an astronomer (and not a professional programmer), being on HN makes me super proud. Thank you!

<comment><USER3> Hey stefanom, fantastic game. I see your website is having some trouble keeping up. You should sign up for the free version of Cloudflare and put your website behind it - then you'll not have nearly the trouble with the traffic load.

(I'm not affiliated with them in any way)

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the tip, Matt. I believe I have it set up now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice. Unfortunately my solar system was stable for about 40 years and then descended into a nightmarish world of Earth bouncing around the solar system in what would have been a horrific experience for the citizens of the planet. On the plus side the visuals from the multiple planets veering close to destroying it would have been a sight to remember. Well, remember for the short while that remained before the atmosphere either froze, was burned away by the sun or stripped by the gravitational field of a giant planet.

</comment><comment><USER5> I am usually quite resistant to games - even 2048 bounced off of me with little affect - but something about the idea of creating solar systems and playing around with nature's laws is deeply appealing and I just spent 15 minutes figuring out how to construct a system which can get as many points as possible without imploding. (hint: large multipliers. Here's an initial attempt that I intend to refine once I'm done with work; [http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2823906](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2823906) )

<comment><USER6> Got you beat[0] just barely, with only the addition of a dwarf star. The speed multiplier is certainly the key. It also seems your initial planet placement is random, so it's getting something that allows use of the dwarf star.

[0] - [http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2974678](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2974678)

<comment><USER7> At least one dwarf star, plus everything you can fit in the habitable zone, seems to be the way to run it. The main trick is keeping the initial planet from ejecting itself when you add these things.

<comment><USER8> What you have to do is drop them at just the right distance to evenly space 9 of them while only placing one at the same orbital alignment of the two central stars so they all follow the same orbit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you don't want to kill your site, you should make it possible to start a new game without reloading the whole page.

<comment><USER2> Good catch. I did not expect the game to become this popular, so I took what I considered to be an easy shortcut.

<comment><USER10> What sort of initialization are you doing that requires a full-page refresh?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I put a dwarf star in the middle of the Sun (it placed it right next to it), and while it does destabilize the sun a bit, the rapid rotation of the dwarf star stabilizes it overall. The planet doesn't rotate in an uniform way around the two stars either, but it also seems stable overall, thus breaking the 500 year limit, at least:

[http://postimg.org/image/jepystvbz/](http://postimg.org/image/jepystvbz/)

<comment><USER12> I'm surprised I made it to 500 years ^^

[http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2870842](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2870842)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is there any way to delete the first planet? It seems like there's a motivation to keep refreshing until it spawns somewhere convenient.

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra Start with an accreation disk, it will evolve into a stable system in a few My.

</comment><comment><USER14> does this imply that most solar system arrangements are unstable and we are lucky in ours?

<comment><USER15> > does this imply that most solar system arrangements are unstable and we are > lucky in ours?

No, not really.

Even without knowing the masses of the planets and the sun here, the scale of this game is _tiny_ compared to the real solar system. In realistic scales, it is a lot easier to come up with stable configurations.

Planetary systems form slowly from a gas and dust disk surrounding a new born star. The early protoplanets will collide with each other and form bigger bodies and the system will slowly reach a stable configuration. Planets may be thrown out of the system or flung into the star too.

The best current understanding of exoplanet systems is that there are planetary systems orbiting the majority of stars out there. Our solar system is neither an extremely lucky coincidence or a rarity among other stars.

<comment><USER16> > The best current understanding of exoplanet systems is that there are > planetary systems orbiting the majority of stars out there. Our solar system > is neither an extremely lucky coincidence or a rarity among other stars.

All the exoplanet systems were discovered only recently (span of a few decades). So we don't really know if those systems are stable in the long run, and hence we don't really know if our solar system is "lucky" or not.

<comment><USER15> > All the exoplanet systems were discovered only recently (span of a few > decades). So we don't really know if those systems are stable in the long > run, and hence we don't really know if our solar system is "lucky" or not.

Yes, all exoplanet systems have been discovered recently but the best theories explaining the birth of planetary systems predict that the planets form very soon after the formation of the central star. And we have good estimates about ages of stars, which are several orders of magnitude (as in 10^8 vs. 10) older than observations about exoplanet systems.

Statistically that means that we were not "lucky" and neither were any of the other exoplanet systems.

Given that the science behind exploring exoplanet systems is so young, this theory is not necessarily correct but it is the best understanding that the scientific community currently has.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So I used this to answer the obvious question: life would suck on Tatooine, with an earth-sized planet shooting in and out of the habitable zone. Then I found this: [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23051-only-the- toughes...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23051-only-the-toughest- would-survive-on-tatooine-worlds.html).

</comment><comment><USER18> So in "Super Planet Crash" the planets can't actually collide? I pumped 11 super-Earths into essentially the same orbit (in the habitable zone), and they seemed to just overlap and do just fine. When I lose, it's always because a planet flies off.

</comment><comment><USER19> According to Kepler's law of planetary motion, the orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci. Although circles are ellipses, having the planets start with a circular motion makes the system simpler but somewhat unrealistic.

</comment><comment><USER20> 2 suggestion. 1) Make the new game not a full page refresh. 2) Remove the first planet.

<comment><USER2> I'll see what I can do over the next couple weeks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> 3 bodies, 94.9 million, 500 years:

[http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2987733](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2987733)

Surprisingly stable, given the Earth-sized planet's erratic orbit.

<comment><USER22> Looks kinda like you reached a 3:1 resonance between the small planet and the mini star. I wonder if it's actually dynamically stable, in that the mini-star is actually pushing the earth-sized planet towards that stable orbit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> 5 bodies, anyone have more? [http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2825038](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2825038)

<comment><USER24> just placing them all in the same orbit works ;)

Congrats! You reached 500 years without going unstable! 120,047 points over 500.1 years!

<comment><USER24> [http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2833251](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2833251)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> 137,479 points over 500.2 years by just clicking out 12 earths randomly in the habitable zone and then set speed to max. Not sure I understand this.

<comment><USER26> Use the other planetary bodies for more points. 100k in 500 years is nothing!

<comment><USER25> Ok, just meant that it was very easy to get to 500 years.

<comment><USER27> Yeah, simple configurations are just stable and will last indefinitely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I always wanted to know how it's possible to have a dual star system with planets in between the stars. It's easier than I thought[1]. I guess the heavier the second star, the further it must be from the inner planets.

[1] [http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2843935](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2843935)

<comment><USER29> IIRC, those are now believed to be extremely common--one primary with nearby planets, a secondary so far out that it's barely brighter than the background stars.

Of course "far out" is the key there. I'm pretty a real planet stuck between two stars with <2AU separation would be deeply, deeply fucked. o.O

<comment><USER28> Well, as my link shows, if the second star is a dwarf of any sort and the planet is close to the 'main' star, it should be fine. Of course, habitability is another question entirely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It seems that running on the fastest possible setting helps to avoid (skip) most collisions by making them near-collisions.

P.S. Got to 430 years.

<comment><USER31> Hm, I got to ~100 years with twelve small-ish bodies and it looks as if integrating in shorter steps helps avoid the buildup of instabilities?

<comment><USER32> Different playback speeds can even make planets spin out while replaying high- scoring systems. Bit disappointing!

<comment><USER29> You should email the author directly (firstname.lastname@example.com, according to the site) if you have a reproduceable case. The simulation timestep isn't supposed to change, only the display timestep.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Looks cool. How does the program keep errors from numerical approximations to the inverse square gravity law from blowing up?

</comment><comment><USER34> I found a bug: [http://puu.sh/8arsr.png](http://puu.sh/8arsr.png)

The very first planet started on the absolute edge, then when I added a Dwarf Star pretty close to the Sun, it altered the orbit such that the planet went out of bounds but it didn't kill me.

</comment><comment><USER35> It doesn't work for me with the latest FireFox. The interface won't let me do anything. Maybe the server is simply overloaded, because it's almost unresponsive and takes minutes to load the "high scores." It seems to work under Internet Explorer though.

</comment><comment><USER36> I put 11 Earths in a row in very similar orbits. For some strange reason, some of them went out after ~100 years and made new, stable orbits. [http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2980198](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2980198)

</comment><comment><USER37> This needs a few "overflow-x/y: hidden", but other than that it's a great game.

</comment><comment><USER38> This is great, but I'd suggest having an instructional module as soon as a user signs on with more details about the different planet sizes, what they mean, and what the "actual" distance would be between the center and the 2AU barrier.

<comment><USER2> I am applying for funding to develop a more comprehensive educational application. Hopefully the success of the game will give my application some extra clout.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Just wondering, wouldn't anything create a solar system?

Just throw dust everywhere. planets will absorb materials, will become bigger. Some smaller planets could crash against others (bigger ones) and could create a mini planet orbiting the other (moon-earth).

</comment><comment><USER40> I get NaNs when I put a Dwarf star as close as I can to the parent star. Perhaps a black hole is generated? :) [http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=3069947](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=3069947)

<comment><USER41> Or it got eaten by a big "Bug"

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Not sure how much of an achievement this is, but I was a little proud of my co-orbital pair, introduced at around 37 years:

[http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=5188442](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=5188442)

</comment><comment><USER8> I wonder if there is a way to perpetuate the "Star-Switching" feature of this one

[http://www.stefanom.org/spc/index.php?view=4994899](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/index.php?view=4994899)

</comment><comment><USER43> I've managed to do that with a system that I was trying to create to break it: [http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2830379](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2830379)

</comment><comment><USER44> 137 million fake points, 500 years, 1 addictive game. [http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=3032407](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=3032407)

A very simple and elegant idea. Well done.

<comment><USER21> Interesting, rerunning your simulation you lose a planet at 140.9 years (44m score). I wonder if there have been some subtle code changes that affected the results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I have found that starting a new game takes a significant amount of time due to load. One way to remedy this is by enabling Work Offline on your browser and simply refreshing the cached version.

</comment><comment><USER46> My best after a few attempts is:

500 Years, Score: 33,445,876, 7/12 bodies

See [http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2850139](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2850139)

<comment><USER47> 165 million

[http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2893119](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2893119)

<comment><USER21> Weird, I replayed your simulation and you lose a planet at 336 years (89m score). I wonder if the game was subtly tweaked since you played it, or maybe your browser produced slightly different results than mine.

<comment><USER47> Apparently these systems (dwarf-n-habitables) are hard to record correctly: [http://www.stefanom.org/2000000-systems- played](http://www.stefanom.org/2000000-systems-played)

I just observed the same result (89m 336y).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> LOVE THIS. still trying to do 2 dwarf stars. is it even possible?

<comment><USER49> I did, but it only lasted like 50 yrs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> What physics model is being used for this? I can't seem to get tidal acceleration to work properly (it seems to for the first orbit, then it doesn't change.)

</comment><comment><USER51> Surprisingly addictive.. [http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2821551](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2821551)

</comment><comment><USER52> [http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2923344](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2923344)

500 years, 42million

</comment><comment><USER53> [http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2825379](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2825379)

</comment><comment><USER54> Got to 1.2 billion 500 years, but it took forever. Next challenge: fastest possible completion with the highest score possible.

<comment><USER21> Link? The high scores on the page top out around 400m.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> looking at the high scores they all seem to be just exploiting the rules or a bug. Can those types of attempts be filtered?

<comment><USER2> Hi Shivetya,

Admittedly, the point system could have been better designed. However, for this first attempt, I could not come up with a better alternative. "Exploiting" the point system within the game is not that easy, so the people that achieved the high-scores must have played tens, if not hundreds or more, of games before finding the right timing and initial condition.

Those are all imaginary internet points anyway :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Got 7 bodies and 500 points... =)

[http://screenpresso.com/=XTGMc](http://screenpresso.com/=XTGMc)

</comment><comment><USER57> I always get carried away, and disrupt the equilibrium of earth like planets in the habitable zone with a brown dwarf :(

</comment><comment><USER58> Has someone created a mirror of the site yet which works? It's not opening up for me as usual, the HN effect.

</comment><comment><USER39> I tried it.

Create 12 planets as fast as you can, watch the sun in the middle.

After some time watching and focusing, change tabs...

"Real life image burn" :)

</comment><comment><USER49> dumping a bunch of super-earths into the same orbit around a dwarf star seems to work well. 125.8 years

[http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2906533](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?view=2906533)

<comment><USER8> Yea, but what you have to do is drop them at just the right distance to evenly space 9 of them while only placing one at the same orbital alignment of the two central stars so they all follow the same orbit.

[http://www.stefanom.org/spc/index.php?view=4994899](http://www.stefanom.org/spc/index.php?view=4994899)

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Looks like something that would translate over to ipad/iphone really well.

</comment><comment><USER60> Omg this is so awesome, and framestyle style website with retro coloring <3

<comment><USER2> Thank you! The palette is the awesome base16 by Chris Kempson.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> This is great, fantastic work stefanom! I'm already addicted to it.

</comment><comment><USER62> Doesn't seem to be working on any of the browsers on my mac

</comment><comment><USER63> Can't load but the mere chance it's anything like either the ancient coin-op arcade game, 'Mad Planets', or the recent Flappy Bird variant, 'Flappy Space Program', makes me like it already.

</comment><comment><USER49> and we broke it</comment>


ECMAScript 6 destructuring gotcha - <AUTHOR> https://www.nczonline.net/blog/2015/10/ecmascript-6-destructuring-gotcha/ <comment><USER2> I wonder if the author is confused about this: "This syntax is a bit confusing, as it's the opposite of the name-value pair syntax of object literals."

It's not the opposite at all. In all cases, between braces, it's "key : value".</comment>


Godaddy Auctions off your old domains now? - <AUTHOR>

I had a domain that expired for one of my customers. They contact me to renew it and its up for auction on Godaddy's auction thing. Then, I go to renew the domain and they want to charge me $4.99 to sign up for the auction thing?<p>GODADDY SUCKS! I'll be switching all of my 100+ domains to namecheap.com. <comment><AUTHOR> Now they get back to me and are going to Charge me $80 more for squatting on the domain?

Here is the exact text from godaddy.

According to a whois lookup at the registry, the domain name [domainname] expired on 8/10/2012 and was held in a short grace period to allow the registrant to renew. Given that the domain was not renewed in a timely fashion, the domain has now entered a 30 day 'Redemption Period'. During this period the registered owner may renew the domain by paying a redemption fee.

The Redemption Period is the 42 day time line available to domain owners to renew a domain after the expiration date. From Day 19 and on the domain registrant can renew with a Redemption fee. When your domain is in Redemption Status it has passed the expiration date, but has been reserved for an extended time frame for the domain owner on behalf of the domain registrar. A Redemption Fee is an $80.00 fee that must be paid to renew domains that have been expired for 19 days or longer. The Redemption Fee is initially paid by the Registrar to extend the registration and prevent the domain from being backordered or going onto the market.</comment>


Facial Recognition's Next Big Play: The Sports Stadium - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/facial-recognitions-next-big-play-the-sports-stadium-11596290400 <comment><USER2> Huzzah. I know sportball fans are from all ideologies but even those who are passionate about rights will likely be fine with this - bc sportball.

It's hard to conclude anything else - 14yo me was right about people all long.</comment>


Releasing the Drosophila Hemibrain Connectome – The Largest Synapse-Resolution - <AUTHOR> https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/01/releasing-drosophila-hemibrain.html <comment><USER2> I wonder what the effect of the final product will be.

Will it be able to accurately represent what occurs in a fly's brain? I feel like there is still so much more involved e.g. voltage through neurons, timing, concurrency etc.</comment>


Ask HN: Rate my App: ToDoLess.com - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
ToDoLess.com is a simple approach to Project Management. It has Lists, Timelines (Gantt-like charts) and Texts. That's all.
You can access it there : http://todoless.com/beta
Here's a temporary user/password just for you guys : hackernews/hackernews
This is still in beta but i would like to know your opinions about it.
Thanks in advance! <comment><USER2> It would be nice to see some sort of Timeline or list of To-Dos right after login, probably in the whitespace on the right hand side.

Another good feature would be denoting which projects have outstanding todo items on them to differentiate them from those that don't.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Timeline or list of To-Dos right after login

You mean something more general, e.q. not necessarily related to a particular project?

> denoting which projects have outstanding todo items on them to differentiate > them from those that don't

Yes i thought about something like that too. Maybe i will show the progress of the project related to its timelines. Or the hotness of the projects related to the number of comments in the recent days. I will seriously look at the possibilities on this page.

Thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hi,

Fantastic work! I've wanted just something like this for a while for my personal projects - it does all that I need and is pretty slick. Really like the timelines.

Best of luck with this, I've got you bookmarked :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

Nice to know that it's something that other people may find useful!

Edit: you can leave us your email in the form on this page if you'd like to be informed when we launch : <http://todoless.com/> :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> UI needs work. How is this any different from Google Tasks? Most people would like to incorporate it in their emails - so Google Task already fits the mold.

Might be useful for a desktop app - maybe AIR?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes Google Tasks seems nice. But ToDoLess is more for people who manage lots of projects. It also has gantt-style Timelines which can be useful for visualizing the time-sensitive tasks.

I didn't think about a desktop version but it could be an idea.

Thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Although i did not mentioned the pricing on the site, i would like to have your feedback about it:

I was thinking about a Free plan for 3 projects, a Standard plan at 7$/month for 50 projects, and a Premium plan at 12$/month for 500 projects. All plans would have unlimited users (invited).

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> clickable link: <http://todoless.com/beta></comment>


Writing a minimal x86-64 JIT compiler in C++ (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://solarianprogrammer.com/2018/01/10/writing-minimal-x86-64-jit-compiler-cpp/ <comment><USER2> I did a similar exercise a few years ago [1] and was recently inspired to redo it for RISC-V. It turned out to be so much easier that I even had to energy to improve it to the point where really good code was generated. It was a ton of fun and I'd encourage ppl to try.

[1] [https://github.com/tommythorn/expjit3](https://github.com/tommythorn/expjit3)</comment>


Functional Programming Is Object Oriented - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/functional-programming-object-oriented-ayad-aliomer/ <comment><AUTHOR> I'm curious to hear what people think</comment>


Cable lobby rebuffed in attempt to ban public broadband networks - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/02/its-dead-kansas-municipal-internet-ban-was-stabbed-shot-and-hanged/

<comment><USER2> This is great news; in yesterday's broadband story I left this comment: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7271044](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7271044) , which is about how the cable lobby has worked hard to prevent municipal broadband.

</comment><comment><USER3> "I think we did really kill the entire issue for at least a year."

hmmm.

<comment><USER4> Exactly the part I came on here to quote. It will be back; these things always come back. Democracy requires eternal vigiliance.

<comment><USER5> > _Democracy requires eternal vigiliance_

You mean, wherever there's a huge pile of cash to be had, eternal vigilance is required.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm a big believer in private enterprise. But I also believe in local control.

The more local, the better, and the less subject it is to lobbyist control.

Comcast may be a private company, but its knee-deep in the Washington game. The public/private distinction is not as clear as one might think.

I think we'd all be better off forming small co-ops that own the last mile. That would make it easier to make providers compete for business. Only one last mile, with lots of options to connect.

Government likes to have a single water system, a single grid over a geographic area. But that makes the entire system more susceptible to failure and also fairly immune to competitive pressure.

If your local monopoly grid isn't robust, you can't switch. And huge areas can go dark.

With competing grids, your co-op might go dark. But there just be a competing grid up within walking distance. And these grids would be competing on reliability, just like cell phone carriers do. You'd have more options than going to a public utility commission meeting, speaking your piece and then having them do whatever is politically expedient.

</comment><comment><USER7> Maybe now Overland Park, KS and Google can get fiber installed without acting like preschoolers.

</comment><comment><USER8> The title forgot the part where they flushed it down the toilet.</comment>


Ask HN: Are the "High-Tech Employee Antitrust" Fees Normal?  Excessive? - <AUTHOR>

I received a notice in the mail today regarding the class action suit.  I noticed the fees for the suit are north of $86,548,500.
Are these types of fees normal?
Even if normal, are they reasonable?  That's an honest question -- I'm not familiar with the law, so perhaps there are a lot of costs I'm simply unaware of.
Honestly, part of the reason I'm questioning it is that a member of the suit, I've found them really disappointing.  I had a pretty basic question & emailed the address they provided for questions.  It was a full 92 days before anyone responded.
For $86 million I guess I would hope for better than that. <comment><USER2> "I've been doing litigation for twenty years. The only ones who ever win are the lawyers." \-- Tyler Paetkau

It's commonly the case that the members of the class in a class action lawsuit receive very little of the money, while the law firm gets most of it. I feel that's wrong but that's commonly the case.

I'm not real sure what you can do about it.

</comment><comment><USER3> There are a number of variables which go into this sort of calculation. There is no doubt that attorneys make a fair bit of profit in these class action suits. But you must also realize that there is a lot of work and risk that goes into a class action. First, a law firm will be tied up, entirely, for months at minimum, and often more reasonably for years. And we're not talking a single attorney in most cases. We're talking about a partner or two, a few associate attorneys, all of their legal secretaries, and supporting staff. This is not to even mention the consultants and others needed to get the suit even off the ground in court. This is a huge amount of salary to keep up.

Next you have other costs such as filing fees, notification to the affected parties, copying fees (this is no small amount per month), research costs, and validation costs. All of this adds up quickly. Trust me the list goes on and on.

Now for the kicker. There is no promise or guarantee that the suit will win. Most class actions don't. So the attorneys of record for the plaintiff side take on all of the liability of these costs, for however long as the suit is in process. This is a huge level of business risk, spanning sometimes many years. Imagine an investor taking on this level of risk in a technical company? They will want a substantial reward at the end. Thus, the level of fees associated.

Remember also that of the plaintiff loses, they often have to pay the defendant legal fees, which are also sizable. This is a huge risk.

Finally, it's unfortunate that they didn't email you back promptly. But remember, in a class action you are not really their client. You are their means to an end. It's a rough relationship.</comment>


Quit my job to start a mobile game studio and just released our first game - <AUTHOR> Just 6 months ago, I had finally saved up enough money to leave my job and pursue my dream of creating a mobile game studio. I had already been creating games in my free time after work and it was more of just a hobby then but I decided to take the risk and make it a full-time gig. Since I quit, I had been working on an iOS title called Bumper Jump and I finally just released it. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it and answer any questions you may have. Here's the link to Bumper Jump on the App Store: https://itunes.apple.com/app/id1082793702 <comment><USER2> The game looks really cute. Will take it for a spin on the weekend (wife has an iphone while I get stuck with Android). I assume you used SpriteKit? Did you do the graphics yourself or hire someone? They look simple but very professional!

Also .. where are you based (trying to judge cost of living of areas vs mine)?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep it's SpriteKit! How did you know it was that and not some other 2D engine? Thanks, I did the graphics just in photoshop. I'm based in Seattle. There's a pretty large gaming industry here.

<comment><USER2> Very cool!

My guess was SpriteKit because there was only an iOS version :) The physics capabilities you get with are quite awesome. Haven't seen something that works equally well and that's cross platform. I started playing with Unity as a hobby ... given how programmable it is, I assume there are physics engine plugins for it.

Best of luck!!

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea it's pretty great but I was planning on getting into Unity in the future so I can make 2.5D and 3D games and develop it cross-platform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Looks cute. It's nice to see someone following their dream.

Clickable: [https://itunes.apple.com/app/id1082793702](https://itunes.apple.com/app/id1082793702)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I don't post here much if you couldn't already tell :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It looks like a fun game!

Congratulations on following your dream, I wish I had the same opportunity.

I'll give it a try and tell you more later.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, it's never to late!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Cool game! Reminds me a bit of Icy Tower :)

One piece of feedback - I get a popup to login to Game Center every time I open the app. If I don't want to login, it would be nice if you stopped bugging me about it.

Apart from that, well done on shipping!

</comment><comment><USER6> Just played. Really fun, tho confirms how rubbish I am at games :-) The only thing I didn't like was the ufo that saves you (?) when you screw up. I wasn't sure what was going on.

</comment><comment><USER7> Great artwork and colour scheme. The title screen looks dynamite. Gameplay is fun and has good feel.

One thing: I wouldn't place the bar that counts down a powerup's effect at the top-left beside the score. It's way too small and is pretty much outside my field of view while I'm carefully placing bumpers in the lower portion of the screen.

</comment><comment><USER8> Fun. I'll let my kids have a go and get their feedback.

</comment><comment><USER9> No offense but I feel this shouldnt be on HN.

This is plainly some thinly veiled advertising. This belongs on Reddit imho (it also has a way larger userbase).

<comment><USER5> It's a free game. Who really cares?

Also, have you ever used HN before? Every single Show HN is basically what this post is and those are a mix of free products, bootstrapped startups, cool tech demos etc. so it's not like this is any different or somehow advertising when those aren't.</comment></comment>


Does open-source cryptographic software work correctly? [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://cr.yp.to/talks/2019.05.16/slides-djb-20190516-correctly-4x3.pdf <comment><USER2> "Fix: Run code on all inputs"

Another way to think like this is to approach testing using fuzzing, but in a way that is designed to have 100% coverage of invariants.

Basic fuzzing generates random inputs looking for a crash, without asserting invariants along the way. Invariant fuzzing, on the other hand, is concerned not just with the inputs to a function but also the outputs.

For example, if a function is expected to throw exceptions for bad inputs, then use invariant fuzzing to test that all exceptions are thrown for a variety of bad inputs. Writing an invariant fuzz test like this often takes less code than writing hundreds of unit tests, which have significantly less coverage.

Another example, and this is how we found CVE 2019-1543 in OpenSSL [1]. For all the AEAD ciphers in OpenSSL that we wanted to support, we fuzzed [2] and round-tripped various combinations of {key, iv, plaintext/ciphertext, aad, tag}, comparing against an independent interface, while also randomly corrupting bytes in {key, iv, ciphertext, aad, tag} to ensure that AEAD authenticity invariants were being kept by OpenSSL. We needed the "A"s in the AEADs so we tested them.

Adding this AEAD authenticity invariant test to our fuzz test took 25 lines of code and found the CVE in literally a second.

After the CVE was found, OpenSSL added a test vector. This was 8 lines of code, and tested authenticity only for a single test vector, without covering the entire range of IV lengths, which was the root of the issue that the CVE uncovered. All this effort, for little gain, when the whole spectrum could have been tested across a few thousand vectors in the same amount of code.

If you are interested in this kind of thing, Guido Vranken is taking the same approach to the next level for multiple crypto libraries [3].

[1]: [https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-1543](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-1543)

[2]: [https://github.com/ronomon/crypto- async#tests](https://github.com/ronomon/crypto-async#tests)

[3]: [https://github.com/guidovranken/cryptofuzz](https://github.com/guidovranken/cryptofuzz)

<comment><USER3> Stronger assertions can be given by static types. For more expressive assertions, dependent types[0] as seen in Idris[1] are very powerful.

When it comes specifically to cryptography, I think formal verification should be added for increased confidence.

(I'm not saying "don't bother writing tests if you're using a strongly typed language" \- these things can and should be be complementary)

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

1: [https://www.idris-lang.org/](https://www.idris-lang.org/)

<comment><USER4> Here is a project that uses F* (another language with dependent types) for proving cryptographic algorithms. [https://project- everest.github.io/](https://project-everest.github.io/)

As cool as Idris is, in my experience it has been quite buggy. I would suggest Agda or Coq instead which are more mature.

<comment><USER3> F* is rad! Idris indeed still has some way to go to be production ready but I like to give it relevant attention when I can. It's like a reimagined Haskell :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wouldn't some of these bugs we caught by unit tests?

<comment><USER6> Only if the tests are comprehensive enough-- very few piece of cryptographic software have tests anywhere near as comprehensive as even something like GMP.

For some bugs the probability of triggering them with 'random' inputs ends up being a something like 1:2^64 or worse... so there unit tests aren't necessarily helpful.

In libsecp256k1 we include tests generated from specially constructed distributions that are more likely to generate errors (which, for example, found bugs when run against openssl that had 1:2^256 level odds of being detected by uniform random tests), as well as test generated using absurd amounts of whitebox fuzzing and symbolic execution-- but even these levels of tests aren't guarantees. We hope, however, that the set of bugs that might get past this testing is largely orthogonal to the issues that get past review or our use of formal methods.

Tests also lose their power when they don't get run on every compiler+architecture+configuration. Few pieces of software do runtime self- tests and few users (or even distributions) actually run the test suite on their particular system. When they are cross-compiling to an embedded system, it might not even be realistically possible to do so.

Sadly even formal proofs are not guarantees for security in practice, especially when you're talking about constructs more complicated than field arithmetic, because the proven properties seldom map precisely to our intuitions about what constitutes correct behavior. This is especially true for very open ended code where it gets applied to applications which were entirely unforeseen by the developer.

Right now I believe we've have a testing methodology in place for every class of serious issue we've ever had in development that would have a fighting chance of catching it even if we didn't know about the specific issue. But then again, I would have also said the same thing before the last class of errors we found that our process was unlikely to detect. :)

Then again, this doesn't really sound all that different from the kinds of security assumptions normally made in cryptography: Why is the discrete log problem (in certain groups) hard? Because no one knows of an effective attack.

The difference is that many (most?) pieces of open source software receive little to effectively no peer review.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The title of this seems a little clickbaity. It'd be just as accurate to ask whether cryptographic software works correctly, especially after the Infineon debacle mentioned briefly in the later slides. (For those who don't remember it, RSA private keys generated by Infineon's proprietary code could be feasibly recovered from the public keys. This code was used in a large proportion of crypto smart cards and TPMs.)</comment>