Google Promises To Bring December Back To Android 4.2 "Soon" - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/20/google-promises-to-bring-december-back-to-android-4-2-soon/ <comment><USER2> For those deceived by the headline, December is still in "Android", it is one date picker in one app, where dates are not used much (the People, or contacts app).

<comment><USER3> Don't they use the same datepicker throughout the OS? Why do they have different ones for different apps? #DRY

<comment><USER2> They do. The People app has specialized it though, because in the birthday date picker the year is optional, whereas in the stock one the year is required.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's always the little details. My limited experiences with Android (I try it every year or so) always end when I get annoyed by basic things not working. The tablet I got at Google I/O 1.5 years ago would power off every time it was fully charged, so I could either leave it unplugged (it which case it would run down the battery after a few days), or I could keep it plugged in, but then I'd have to wait for it to boot every time I tried to use it. It feels like they give more attention to the "big" features than the "little" details, which is why I still have an iphone.

<comment><USER5> Things were dramatically improved with Jelly Bean, which is the first Android release I think really stepped up to the plate with iOS. The little things were, by and large, dealt with. Matias Duarte has done a fabulous job.

<comment><USER6> > _Things were dramatically improved with [X release]_

I've been hearing this argument with every single Android release to date. Like your comment's parent, I try out another Android device every 18 months or so, and I still have yet to be impressed.

I haven't tried Jelly Bean though. Maybe it is really the release that makes everything better.

<comment><USER7> > Like your comment's parent, I try out another Android device every 18 months > or so, and I still have yet to be impressed.

And I try out an iOS device every year or two, and I have yet to be impressed. The notification system is still inane, Mobile Safari still lags when scrolling, all your app icons still show up on your home screens, and you still can't use widgets on the home screen. When is Apple going to fix these glaring UX flaws?

<comment><USER8> @defen, Android lets you put widgets like weather, clock, stocks, etc, in your home screens. Something like this: [http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/07...](http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/07/smsunread_270x404.png)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What I cannot fathom is why the list of dates available via a date picker (which, as far as I can tell, is a standard kit component) is up to each app.

I can understand situations in which the available dates should be limited, but the People application does not need to impose any such restrictions; therefore, what is available in the picker should not be up to it.

<comment><USER10> The People app uses its own picker widget for event dates, in order to support the optional year element; it uses NumberPicker widgets internally. There is an off-by-one bug in NumberPicker that was worked around in the standard DatePicker component, but not in the custom widget implemented in the People app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> 4.2 has been a real disappointment to me compared to 4.1. Since my update, the phone lags on input more, apps crash frequently, and restarts must happen more often. Just today, I had Google Voice slow down, crash, restart, and crash again. Then, after I took a picture, the whole phone locked up. It seems that 4.2 wasn't ready for prime time, but was pushed out for the Nexus 4 release.

</comment><comment><USER12> Unless you add dozens of people to your address book every day, this is actually not such a big deal. I tend to edit the address book on the web anyway.

</comment><comment><USER13> It sounds and looks like an off by one bug. But it could be nasty to fix if people have already created events with an off by one bug. Any update to fix the date picker could then cause their scheduled dates to show up a month early, and would therefore also have to include some sort of script to update existing scheduled events users have created.

<comment><USER14> Yap, there was a change in the NumberPicker that seemed to have caused it: [https://github.com/android/platform_frameworks_base/commit/a...](https://github.com/android/platform_frameworks_base/commit/a1410e6789ce72bc423793315a51aea8b6bad6c7)

<comment><USER15> That makes sense, but why is the patch taking so long?

<comment><USER2> 50% of comments: what horrible QA, don't they test anything?

Other 50% of comments: why is the patch taking so long!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Think if Android had the same "patch small and often" as Google Chrome, that way, this could be fixed rather quick.

<comment><USER17> They're working towards it. Lots of former system apps are being extracted from the base OS and turned into apps updated through the Play store. The most recent I remember was the Calendar app, which changed into Google Calendar through the Play store.

<comment><USER18> But I don't think they'll ever make the whole OS work like that, unfortunately. I was hoping they would at least create a whole line-up of "Nexus" devices from all manufacturers that would be updated the way they update the Chromebooks. But I'm beginning to think that won't happen either

<comment><USER19> They can't. Many of the core underlying bits are tied to the device drivers. [Insert mobile device drivers and ARM complains here.]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Say what you will about Microsoft's products, but I doubt an error like this would make it through their robust testing process these days.

<comment><USER21> I can't tell for "these days", but back then on Windows 98 IIRC, they forgot Poland (literally) on their time zone map:

<http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/9331/nopoland9fg.jpg>

<comment><USER20> A cosmetic issue from 14 years ago doesn't make a great counterexample.

The reason for the Poland error is explained here: [http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2006/10/27/88041...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2006/10/27/880411.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This bug should be Google's last worry. There are people with Nexus devices that can't make a simple phone call.

Open issues: [http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/list?can=2&q=typ...](http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/list?can=2&q=type=Defect&sort=-stars&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Owner%20Summary%20Stars)

</comment><comment><USER23> Am I the only person that thinks that DatePicker really sucks because there's no way to actually enter a date thru a "keyboard"?

</comment><comment><USER24> Maybe it's not cool to admit it, but this is a bug I can really relate to. I had a Facebook page title become [Object Object] the other day and this feels similar. I wonder if the luddites of tomorrow will lament the loss of these wabi-sabi details.

</comment><comment><USER25> for some reason i find this hilariously funny.

<comment><USER26> As if they don't expect December to arrive..

<comment><USER27> Maybe it'll be a Christmas present. :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Just replace it with Smarch: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RCs2RKiLlA> <http://simpsonswiki.net/wiki/Smarch> "Smarch is the thirteenth month of the year, according to Springfield Elementary School calendars. It has 28 days."

</comment><comment><USER29> Soon as in next month, January.

</comment><comment><USER30> ...and the carriers will push the update in about 6 months.

</comment><comment><USER31> UIDatePicker must have had a good laugh at this.

</comment><comment><USER32> What kind of QA google has? - Good for nothing kind</comment>


Ask HN: How do we bring about world peace? - <AUTHOR>

Recent events got me thinking about how when I was little everything year, this is going to sound so cliche, I wished for World Peace. For all the amazing things human kind is capable of, it's amazing we can't just get along. I mean is it really that hard to observe the golden rule?
Recent developments on top of everything else that has fallen a part this year got me thinking. I know there is no solution, no answer. The real problems are never that simple. But debate and discussion is important. And this is a great platform and a great community for it.
Can we all promise not to kill each other and try to be nice? To try to develop business in ways that encourage the best of humanity and not the contrary? <comment><USER2> The bumper sticker answer is, "If you want peace, work for justice." And that's not too bad as a first approximation. It's very rare for two countries with genuine democracy and protection of civil liberties for all inhabitants and free enterprise economies to go to war with each other. It's rare for such countries even to have much internal strife that leads to bloodshed. Promoting freedom promotes peace.

Of course, I haven't answered the question here that instantly arises: how does one promote freedom? (And, especially, how does one do that through peaceful means?) That's an interesting topic to discuss. I have lived through one country's (Taiwan's) transformation from one-party dictatorship with political assassinations at home and abroad to multiparty democracy with a vigorous free press and largely independent judiciary. I'd like to see some other countries make the same transition, as that would make the world a safer and more peaceful place.

<comment><USER3> Freedom is exactly right, but it seems to me that resource constraints can curtail freedom sufficiently to cause aggression.

I think George Orwell said something along the lines that blocking access to resources is also an act of aggression.

As long as we rely on highly centralized resources, such as oil, it's hard to see how the world can indefinitely avoid politics that will anger those who rely on the resources.

Perhaps I am a bit naive, but I think that fairly equal increases in energy can do a lot to reduce the causes of such aggression. Cheap energy makes it easy to start a business and cheap to produce food. Economic prosperity is a good antidote to belligerence and a strong economic class is a good counter- balance to the political establishment of a country.

If you will permit me more naive idealism, this is one of the reasons why I have such high hopes for nuclear fusion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Can we all promise not to kill each other and try to be nice?

Sure we can. However, if you don't do/think/say {whatever} the correct way, you're not being nice and "good people" will be forced to kill you.....

The phrase "not justice, no peace" expresses this concept. Some of the things that are considered "justice" are "interesting".

</comment><comment><USER5> Coming to agree with each other that it is not a cliche to ask terribly important questions is probably a very good start.

Maybe there is hope for the geek of the earth after all!

A modest contribution to chew on:

      * Peace is not only the absence of overt violence.</comment>


Review our startup: Wibba.com - discover and share great products - <AUTHOR>

We built wibba to scratch our own itch.
We need somewhere to discover what things others are buying.
I want to know which new apps scobleizer is using on his iPhone, which books PG is reading on his iPad, which tracks our DJ friends are spinning on their turntables.
Wibba is a simple clean app which makes discovering and sharing products quick and easy. We've also built in commenting and liking functions
Open an account share products you like. Follow other trendsetters. Create your own product stream. Integrate with twitter and FB quickly and easily.
We've been live just under a week.
Do you think there is a need for a product like this, would you use it?
thanks so much!
http://wibba.com <comment><USER2> There have been many attempts at this kind of thing before, e.g RecommendBox. The trouble is it requires active participation. If I want to share the love I'm far more likely to shout out on facebook or twitter. Perhaps what you need to do is scrape your friends/followers feeds for their likes?

Also - how are you going to stop spam? THe first wibbler I checked was this: <http://wibba.com/thisiskewl/>

<comment><AUTHOR> understood. im not sure how we could scrape twitter for peoples likes. we don't have that semantic capability.

so are you using as it requires active participation it will be impossible to get traction?

<comment><USER2> I'm not saying impossible, just hard. If I feel the need to share, I'm probably going to use the channel that gives me the widest exposure, and the most relevant. This is likely to be facebook or twitter.

Edit: if you could identify semantically likes on twitter, that would be a neat little app. Aggregating likes would be valuable I'd have thought.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Yet another affiliate-marketing app. I personally do not have the itch to know what others are buying.

I'm more interested in what people are creating.

<comment><AUTHOR> thx for this, its not about affiliate marketing though</comment></comment>


How to get lost users to come back to your product - <AUTHOR> http://blog.alexgodin.com/post/47045832186/how-to-get-lost-users-to-come-back-to-your-product

<comment><USER2> You should also know when to stop emailing them.

I have received over twenty emails from Facebook, asking me if I know Tom Levesque, and to SEND him a friend request. Over and over, and over again. No, I don't know a Tom Levesque. I don't need to be asked the same question repeatedly.

<comment><USER3> Right on.

A while back I logged into a Twitter account that had been dormant for a couple of years, since it appeared that some good friends had started using it more actively. As a result, I started getting email from Twitter once a week like clockwork. Clearly not a "our algorithms determined that something interesting happened" message, but a "our algorithm determined that you should get a message once a week, let's pick a random event from your social graph" one.

The main result is that I know better than to ever log in again and become a marginally engaged user worth spamming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I also thought those fb emails, and even more so the linkedin ones where people endorse you to be very effective. So I personally hated and admired them at the same time.

The problem for me is that those tactics don't seem to translate so well outside of the social-network environment. When you have customers who use your products, and there's no personal interaction between customers, then what can you use that's as effective to bring customers back to use your product?

Features is perhaps the only thing, but it's not even remotely as effective in my opinion. And features can be a double-edged sword as they are quite often not really important to the customer.

</comment><comment><USER5> Persistent emails does not win me over. In fact when a reputed company / product I may have once tried sends me irrelevant emails, I just use the spam button.

Don't call (email) me, I'll call you (visit your website when i need to).

</comment><comment><USER6> I've never used Facebook, but I'm flooded with messages from Twitter and LinkedIn which are identical to these.

Personally, I'd be much more likely to read and consider re-signing by way of less frequent messages which suggest _how_ the product has been improved and _why_ I might want to come back.

Incessant "FOMO" pressure just trains me to ignore that pattern.

</comment><comment><USER7> As a side note the photos of "people I may know" on Facebook, in emails I get and the emails in the post are mostly pretty girls.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow. It is pretty crazy that they're all female. I wonder if they have an algorithm to figure out who's more attractive or if they just choose people of the opposite gender.

<comment><USER8> It's probably people with a lot of friends in your area. And if you already have a few friends, it's probably friends of those friends. Maybe pretty girls are just the ones with the most friends?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Well, I can hardly see a chance of using this in a service thats not a social Network.

For every other kind of service/app, I would send a reminder once in a while and/or showing the users what has changed on the service since their last visit.

Or much more crazy: ASK them why they are not coming back. If they are unhappy with your service. I think you might be suprised about how many valuable answers you will get.

</comment><comment><USER10> Thanks for sharing Alex! Are there any other companies you think are worth looking at in terms of email marketing?

I'm personally a fan of how well designed Twitter's re-engagement emails are.

</comment><comment><USER11> > Data shows that emails with questions in the subject perform much much > better.

Would you be able to point to this? Would love the reference.

</comment><comment><USER12> FYI: You blurred out the names on the image but not on the sentence above it.</comment>


Bitrise.io – Apple Credentials Portal Bug - <AUTHOR> Anybody received an email from Bitrise regarding their bug? It is frustrating that this was not publicly posted by them on any of their blog and social media channels. <comment><USER2> Can you disclose the contents of your email here for the wider public?</comment>


Show HN: SeymoreApps – The free mobile app advertising platform - <AUTHOR> http://seymoreapps.com/?ref=51bf7a81289a65f96a000001

<comment><USER2> This is actually pretty cool.</comment>


Bring Reading Rainbow Back - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/readingrainbow/bring-reading-rainbow-back-for-every-child-everywh <comment><USER3> I once met LeVar at a bar at a restaurant. As a fan of Star Trek, I wanted to go up to him, but figured he must get bothered by a lot of intense trekkies so I broke the ice with a conversation about Reading Rainbow.

He talked about Reading Rainbow with me for a good 15 minutes straight. He was unbelievably proud and passionate about the work he did on that show, and so I'm very pleased to see this video today.

Proof [https://twitter.com/dmitric/status/405038964001996800](https://twitter.com/dmitric/status/405038964001996800)

<comment><USER4> I might lose all my karma points for posting this but: LeVar Burton was on Star Trek? I guess I am not much of a geek. :)

<comment><USER5> Yes, he played Geordi La Forge on ST:TNG. It's been decades but as I recall, there was even a crossover episode of RR where they went behind the scenes and showed him in costume, how the transporter effect was done and so forth. I still remember it vividly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I observe that of all the things I did with my kids when they were growing up, reading to them every night has had the most profound impact. Early in their lives they liked being read to because it was 'time with mom' or 'time with dad', later when they were early readers, it was a way to 'be the mom' and read to us. And of course once they became facile readers it took them to places and introduced them to people they would never have met in their day to day lives. To this day I have fond memories of my daughter correcting errors in Egyptian mythology on Star Gate because she had absorbed a giant tome on it in her fascination with the stories.

If you have kids, read to them, if they have heard the story before and are bored ask them what the characters in the story are thinking, if they feel like they know that ask them how the story might go differently based on different outcomes. Get them reading, and thinking about what they are reading, and be tolerant of them sneaking a light under the covers so they can finish a book.

<comment><USER7> Anecdote is not data.

Here's data:

[http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/research/rea...](http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/research/readtoyoungchild.pdf)

Key Findings

* Reading to children at age 4-5 every day has a significant positive effect on their reading skills and cognitive skills (i.e., language and literacy, numeracy and cognition) later in life.

* Reading to children 3-5 days per week (compared to 2 or less) has the same effect on the child's reading skills at age 4-5 as being six months older.

* Reading to them 6-7 days per week has the same effect as being almost 12 months older.

* Children read to more frequently at age 4-5 achieve higher scores on the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) tests for both Reading and Numeracy in Year 3 (age 8 to 9).

* These differences in reading and cognitive skills are not related to the child's family background or home environment but are the direct result of how frequently they have been read to prior to starting school.

<comment><USER8> I wonder whether this is better than _talking to_ children for a similar, blocked off period of time every day.

I can think of reasons it might be better and reasons it might be worse.

<comment><USER6> Talking is great, but often constrained to the limits we set ourselves (our town, our experiences, our acquaintences) but reading is not bound by our imagination, only by the authors. Helps us step out of our comfort zone.

<comment><USER8> For sure. On the flip side, talking can be more interactive (which is probably good but maybe it's not), and stretching our own imaginations is worth doing - most people can probably come up with stories with enough creativity to entertain a four-year-old, particularly if the adult has been doing some reading.

But then, of course, building positive associations around books is doubtless valuable in our current society.

Lots of great arguments on both sides. I'm certainly not going to forego reading to my children. I'm just floating a perspective I found interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I can attest to the effectiveness of the iPad app on my 5 year old. This app stimulated her interest in reading even more than us reading to her every night. She now reads at close to a 2nd grade level.

I was amazed to find out that she had been discovering books via the app completely on her own. She would have the app read a book to her, then turn off the auto-reading and learn to read it by herself. Now she uses the app to read to her little sister.

Kudos to Levar Burton and all those involved in bringing Reading Rainbow to the next generation on a new medium!

</comment><comment><USER10> "1 out of every 4 children in America will grow up illiterate"

Is that really true? According to Wikipedia, 99% of the U.S. population is literate.

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

<comment><USER11> Being a foster parent there is also communication illiterate!

Took me 6 years to get my oldest daughter to stop saying like every third word! Then she went off to college and she got worse!! Thanks high education!!!

<comment><USER12> Speaking in an established sociolect is not an instance of communication illiteracy. Valleyspeak has been around for decades, and isn't going anywhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Glad to see them working to promote reading! Though I wonder...

Why didn't they start with the web to begin with? You can use a web-based solution on a tablet (given a decent design), but you can't use a tablet-based solution on the web. Now they're trying to fight that 'limitation.'

I understand the 'novelty' and the sheer boom of tablets at the time and the better physical mapping from tablet experience to reading a book, but technologically there's doesn't seem to be much of a reason for them going with an iPad app first. Possibly offline support (valid) or performance (shouldn't be a problem...). There's probably a much more practical answer such as: their technical team had experience in app development OR maybe Burton just really liked his iPad and that's where the movement started.

On another note, I loved the show growing up and like they're trying to continue it. I'm a bit conflicted about the subscription part of the service. I want it to be sustainable, but wish there was a larger free offering. Maybe latest content is free, archived content requires a subscription (ala Hulu)? At least they'll offer it for free to needy schools that's nice.

</comment><comment><USER14> if this were a kickstarter to public domain all of reading rainbow. I would gladly donate, but to fund yet another closed garden that I would need a subscription for is a non starter for me. Best Of Luck to those who back it.

<comment><USER8> I heartily endorse your concern, but I still donated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Excited to see this! I have such fond memories of watching Reading Rainbow.

I would love to see a similar kickstarter for other shows I also enjoyed - <USER2> Magic School Bus first in my mind. I just rediscovered all the shows on Netflix and I've been watching all the episodes.... I _just_ discovered that a lot of the guests on the show are celebrities like Dom DeLuise, Elliott Gould, Alex Trebek and more, and I can't find another show quite like it. It dates itself here and there - like the series finale was about computers and features floppy drives - but The Friz is unparalleled on so many levels. She was a great role model while I was young.

<comment><USER16> My second choice after Reading Rainbow would be Square One. I had only watched it between the ages of five and nine, but it literally put me three years ahead in mathematics during elementary school. (Helped along by a fantastic teacher too.)

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

<comment><USER17> More of my personal philosophy has been shaped by Weird Al Yankovic's song "Patterns" (first seen on Square One) than I should probably admit. ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Great cause that I'm happy to support. Now I just wish somebody would bring back 3, 2, 1 Contact! and Mr. Wizard (ancient HERO robot and all).

<comment><USER19> 3, 2, 1 contact was sooo good. Mathnet? ^_^ & Mr. Wizard - my little elementary school mind was blown when he showed me water isn't wet.

<comment><USER20> Mathnet was a segment on SquareOne. I enjoyed that as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I remember going to the library when I was a kid to pick up copies of books I saw on this show. I had no idea it had such a long and successful run; I hope they succeed in continuing it.

</comment><comment><USER22> How effective do people think this will be as a way to help students in foreign countries learn to read English as a second language? Specifically in countries where the school system mandates learning English (ex: Japan).

Of course, I'll be trying out the app myself if I can to see what it's like, but I'm interested to hear from people who have used their existing app for a similar purpose. I'm trying to decide if that $5000 reward is worth it (it would be a hell of a chunk of my savings but I love the students at my school).

</comment><comment><USER23> I had the good fortune to see Levar Burton receive award for children's media at my university. At the end of the ceremony, he brought two dozen children from an associated preschool up on stage and read them a story (I think it was called "Enemy Pie".)

I can say without exaggeration that it was the best public reading of anything I've seen in my life. Watching children so deeply engage with an icon that they probably don't even recognize was a wonder.

</comment><comment><USER24> Ironically I'm probably reading the kickstarter page poorly. Are they raising money to buy the license of old episodes, or to make new ones?

<comment><USER25> Neither.

They are raising money to create a subscription web service of their current subscription tablet app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> As a kid I never liked this show. I loved reading books. I always thought, "why do I want to watch tv about reading books?"

</comment><comment><USER27> Only "underprivileged" schools will get the content for free, which implies they intend to sell the software to schools, which implies business.

You're not supposed to be able to kickstart a business. You shouldn't get a pass just because you're Reading Rainbow and levar burton.

<comment><USER28> What do you mean "you're not supposed to"? People can and will spend their money however they'd like. They've raised more than $400k already, obviously at least a few people disagree with you.

<comment><USER27> It's against the terms of service to kickstart a business. You need a product. This is a long-term education-sales company, not a specific product of any kind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This show and Cap'n O.G. Readmore did help make books adventurous for me. Hopefully OG will do a kickstarter. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap'n_O._G._Readmore](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap'n_O._G._Readmore)

</comment><comment><USER30> Working for a company that is a direct competitor of Reading Rainbow's app, yet growing up with Reading Rainbow my feelings are mixed and diverse.

</comment><comment><USER31> My phone's ring tone is the reading rainbow theme

</comment><comment><USER19> Who can sing the theme song? And, are you singing it now either in your head or out loud? *raises hand

</comment><comment><USER32> I've read the Kickstarter page twice, and I still can't figure out what they are going to spend the $1M on (or how they arrived at that number). I know it doesn't cost $1M to build a website.

<comment><USER33> How much does a CDN to reach 70% of grade school children cost? There's a lot more involved than just installing Apache on a vps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Are the old episodes available on Netflix or Hulu?

<comment><USER34> Looks like they're on Amazon Instant for $2/episode, and iTunes for $2/ep or $15 for a 15-episode season.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> This is pretty neat! Work that nostalgia magic!

</comment><comment><USER36> Yes, can't quite get season 5, or 4-9th.

</comment><comment><USER37> Just hit the goal, still rising fast.

</comment><comment><USER38> I dislike books. There are better mediums, like games, for conveying knowledge.

<comment><USER39> I agree. Books are so 20th century. I prefer going after things that are the same color.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I grew up with this show, I always looked forward to watching it in school, and I'd watch it at home as well. I loved the adventures and special effects, and just adored watching it.

Having said that, this show did absolutely nothing for me when it came to reading. It didn't inspire me to read, it didn't get me reading, it didn't make reading exciting for me. None of those elementary school programs (Book- it, book fairs, Reading Rainbow) did. I didn't start reading books until I found books that didn't condescend to and patronize children. When I discovered there were books with real situations and characters that acted real (and featured violence and sex and bad language), that's when I realized that books were good.

It's odd, enjoying this show for its entertainment value, but realizing it was completely ineffective in its goal, especially when so many people seem to think this is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

<comment><USER41> My mother gave me a blank check for book fairs and those Scholastic order sheets, and I blame it almost entirely for anything that I've done since. It only dawned on me as an adult how expensive that investment must have been for her at the time. The way I found as a child to find books that didn't condescend to or patronize children was to raise my reading level by reading many, many, books that did accept that I was a child and not a little adult.

I was a few years too old for Reading Rainbow (I was already 7 when it came out) but I enjoyed the theme song and that Kunta Kinte was reading children's books.

<comment><USER42> My mother gave me a library card, a bicycle, and carte blanche to spend all day every weekend at the library.

I didn't quite realize how much time I spent there until I started having trouble finding books I hadn't read in the YA racks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> In for $50 and a T-shirt.

</comment><comment><USER44> I really feel like this is off-topic.

<comment><USER45> What topic is that?

<comment><USER44> The official guidelines of what dictates on/off topic: [http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

I guess one could argue that "good hackers" would be interested in indulging nostalgia for a popular children's show in America from 1980s, but that's really pushing it.

<comment><USER41> You don't have to argue, you just count the upvotes.

<comment><USER44> Upvotes aren't important and do not indicate that something is good content.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


U.S. business contributes smallest share of federal taxes in a generation - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-20/u-s-business-contributes-smallest-share-of-taxes-in-generation <comment><USER2> I still don't understand corporate income taxes. These are just pass through entities. All the money goes to actual people which are a lot easier to tax than a corporation. I think it's such a waste of human capital having corporations incentivized to spend on armies of lawyers and accountants trying to come up with some baroque legal construction to avoid taxes. Maybe I am ignorant about tax law but people seem a lot harder to "invert" to cheaper tax jurisdictions no matter how rich they are.

I would even go as far as saying that payroll taxes are the same. Taxes hidden from the general public with weird incentives that break stuff in unexpected ways. We would be better served with more income, property or sales/vat taxes.

<comment><USER3> "Corporations are people, my friend!"

Corporations are certainly not pass through entities. They own assets, they exert influence on society. They benefit from government institutions. They amass wealth so that they can spend it to their benefit.

Maybe, like people, it makes more sense to tax them on revenue then on profit so they cannot invert to a cheaper jurisdiction?

Or am I a pass through entity? Arguably, most actual people are more pass through entities with respect to money then corporations. Corporations are far more likely than most individuals to amass wealth.

<comment><USER4> > Maybe, like people, it makes more sense to tax them on revenue then on > profit so they cannot invert to a cheaper jurisdiction?

Taxing on revenue as opposed to profits harms corporations that have a low margin, high turnover business (for example retailers)

<comment><USER5> It also benefits large players as a chain of companies producing a product would have a larger combined revenue than a single company with teams doing the same work.

<comment><USER6> Isn't this just another way of saying "higher gross margin"?

<comment><USER5> If I'm understanding what you mean right, no I don't think so.

If we have two companies, one makes a widget and the other buys it and adds a clock to then sell:

Cost of making the widget $5, sale price $10

Cost of adding a clock $10, sale price $40

As two companies, the first has a gross margin of $5 and the second $20. If the companies were to combine, they'd have costs of $15 and a sale price of $40 = gross margin of $25.

I might not understand the term properly though, I based it on this [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/grossmargin.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/grossmargin.asp)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> According to the OECD, corporations paid 7.1% of the US tax burden. Note that in the France, that Randian paradise, that figure was 5.1%: [https://taxfoundation.org/sources-government-revenue- oecd-20...](https://taxfoundation.org/sources-government-revenue-oecd-2019). Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, and Spain also relied less heavily on corporate taxes than the US.

The remarkable thing about the political debate in the US is that folks on the left talk about all the public benefits the government offers in Europe, but are dead silent about how Europe pays for those benefits: consumption taxes. US consumption taxes account for 15% of revenues. That's just half the OECD average.

<comment><USER8> The problem with corporate taxes is that it's a race to the bottom. International companies prefer to put their offices in countries where they have to pay little in taxes, so countries keep reducing their corporate taxes to remain attractive for companies. Meanwhile, consumers don't move around as much, so consumption taxes are fairly reliable.

Which is sad, because consumption taxes are also fairly regressive.

If we want to move more of the tax burden to corporate profits, rather than revenue (which is what consumption taxes basically are: corporate revenue taxes), you need either international agreements to increase those taxes, or tie profit taxes to local markets.

And now that I think of it, I think that might actually be possible: profit is revenue minus cost, right? With consumption taxes being the same thing as revenue taxes (which I think they are; it's a tax on the revenue corporations get from selling to consumers. Dutch VAT (BTW) is also called "omzetbelasting" (revenue tax).

So allow companies to deduct local costs from local revenue, and you've turned revenue tax into profit tax.

This seems way too simple, so I'm probably missing something here.

<comment><USER9> Taxation does not have to be a race for the bottom, unless the state wants to collect the money and give little in return.

Take New York State for example. It has some of the highest taxes in the country. What do the citizens get back? Roads? Well, New York roads are known to be some of the worst in the country. And you still have to pay tolls to use them. Schools? Just average. State University? Again, quite average.

What the heck am I paying for?

<comment><USER10> As a non NYer, I feel people are getting taxed to live there. i.e: you are paying to live where you live.

<comment><USER9> Well, NYS population declines the fastest about the states.

[https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/alb...](https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/12/19/leaving- new-york-population-loss-steepest-u-s/2362167002/)

<comment><USER11> Never thought I would see a D&C article on Hacker News.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Corporations only paid 7.6% of the tax take -- the lowest share since at > least 1960, according to the IRS data

That sounds low but it's not far out of line of the rest of the OECD. The mean is around 9%. Sweden is about 6%. The two members above 20% (or anywhere near it) are Chile and Mexico.

Corporate income tax is kind of a mess to implement and enforce.

</comment><comment><USER13> Why is it desirable to tax the business rather than the wealthy owners and stockholders? If the business money flows to those making millions of year, tax the millionaires some high rate at a new tax bracket.

<comment><USER14> The business money need not flow through to their owners. It can instead show up as unrealized capital gains, which A) gets taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income, B) can be deferred indefinitely, C) can be cheaply borrowed against for tax-free spending money, and D) gets wiped out when the shares are transferred via inheritance or in-kind charitable contribution.

If you have $10M of non-dividend paying stock, you could conceivably spend $200k per year while having a taxable income of _zero_ and remaining eligible for income-based health insurance subsidies.

<comment><USER15> I often hear about C), but I have never heard an explanation of how it works.

I understand that if you have tons of valuable assets, you can get a loan against them for a very favorable rate. but then you have to pay back the loan or at least pay the interest on it. how do you do that without having at least some income or realizing some capital gains?

<comment><USER14> Your assets tend to become more valuable over time, which allows you to borrow more money to pay the interest and give yourself spending money.

Eg, suppose you have $10M in assets and borrow $200k against it. Next year it's worth something like $10.7M on average, you get charged something like $8k in interest, and you borrow another $200k to spend. So long as you leave enough of a buffer against volatility and the rate of growth of your assets is high enough, you can just borrow money indefinitely against appreciating assets.

People did this in the run-up to the 2008 housing crisis with homes, too. Take out a loan, cash-out refinance later when it's worth more, end up with a house you've taken more cash out of than put in.

<comment><USER15> ah, now I understand. sort of like the "safe withdrawal rate" for normal people.

also sorry, didn't realize both of my questions went to the same person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm ok with reduced taxes in general. An extraordinarily small percentage of our tax money goes to essential services: police, fire, EMS, etc. The efficiency of the US government (deliverable per dollar) is very poor. It may not be like this in every country, but for now, it's likely best to keep those dollars in the hands of individuals and businesses rather than a forced transfer elsewhere.

<comment><USER17> The efficiency of government is pretty high when it comes to IRS collection, to Medicare, to many systems. Defense spending I'd agree is extraordinarily inefficient.

<comment><USER18> Does it: it costs 100's of billions to comply with tax law.

<comment><USER17> There are other factors there, like corporations lobbying to block the IRS doing simple preparations of personal returns (like other nations do).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Once upon a time, most business income was taxed on the business side. For small businesses, the tax paperwork was a pain. So passthrough laws were made, allowing the owners to treat the business income as personal income, simplifying tax paperwork. The tax is still paid.

These changes over decades have moved the same tax from being called corporate tax to personal tax. There is nothing nefarious about it.

This last year, more such changes made to simplify taxes for small buisness moved more of the income in this manner.

I have been a small business owner for a long time, and do precisely this, because it simplifies my paperwork. The tax is still paid.

In aggregate this accounts for a lot more than most people realize.

Here's what happened this last year to move the needle

[https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/taxes/pass-through-income- ta...](https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/taxes/pass-through-income-tax- deduction/)

</comment><comment><USER20> Look, if you raise the rates or establish a more concrete AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax - a base rate that can't be ducked under), then corporations will just move their headquarters to another country with more favorable tax conditions. IMHO establish AMTs on corporations not headquartered here to incentivize them to move here and bring jobs.

</comment><comment><USER21> If you look back in history, taxes always have been for ordinary citizens. Even before modern tax systems.

<comment><USER22> Only indirectly. Governments/Rulers taxed richer individuals and they used their wealth (and/or other privileges) to extract excess money from ordinary people in order to pay those taxes.

That's why I don't think records of earlier tax rates are really giving the full picture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Wondering why no one has mentioned the fact that Entrepreneurship has been weakening for the last 25 years... Seems like one would expect corporate taxes to go down when there's fewer companies.

<comment><USER17> Entrepreneurship has gone down because fewer people as a whole make enough money from their wages to fund new ventures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Businesses don't pay taxes, their customers do.

</comment><comment><USER25> When people cite the stock market as proof Trump's trade war isn't hurting average Americans, it's helpful to show them this chart.

</comment><comment><USER21> I don't think fair tax system doesn't exist. (With a few exceptions in EU)

<comment><USER26> I don't think the US cares about fairness or wealth inequality. That's an ideological position- decided by the American people. Berny Sanders wanted the US to become like the Netherlands or Norway. The American electorate said no. Case closed.

<comment><USER27> You know that America more than one election ever, right?

(also, it was the Democratic electorate that rejected Bernie, the general electorate would have gone for him over Trump according to polls)

<comment><USER28> It's worth pointing out according to poll Hillary was supposed to win as well.

<comment><USER27> Yeah, by a much smaller margin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Tax corporate revenues. Problem solved.

</comment><comment><USER30> All the tricks and loopholes means that the corporate tax rate is almost a red herring to distract voters from what really matters, which is how easy it is to hide your money overseas. As we've seen with Ireland, tax havens are fully compliant with helping American corporations get around the law.

<comment><USER31> Most of those "double-irish" tax tricks are actually illegal tax evasion. The IRS has recently been auditing these companies and hitting them hard with back taxes. The transfer pricing rules clearly state that the transfer pricing must represent the nature of your business. You can't specifically use transfer pricing to reduce taxes on purpose.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Just to make sure we understand something here:

Taxation is robbery.

If you want companies and individuals to pay taxes, you're defending a state that is unethical (as taxation forces people to give away their private property through coercion), and authoritarian ("democracy" is no justification for the use of force).

If you have any supposed justification for a centralized state that enforces taxation through the use of force on its citizens, you're only denying the fact you agree with crime.

Please stop talking about companies and individuals paying more taxes. We should all be paying no taxes through coercion.</comment>


Django Evolution - A changing of the guard - <AUTHOR> http://groups.google.com/group/django-evolution/browse_thread/thread/11b3c8b88a16dbbb

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been using Django Evolution for my project, AppRabbit.com, and it's worked fine because schema changes are so closely controlled, but when trying to use it in a team settings on a separate project we're finding that it fails at simple stuff like changing field types. Checking the forums usually nets you a patch of some sort, but it would be nice if everything worked out of the box. I really hope that the new maintainer, Christian Hammond, will be able to move the project forward and really make it work for more scenarios.

P.S. Yes, we've tried South, and we may still end up going that direction, but we've had a lot of trouble with that too, so we'll see how things go.</comment>


Modeling Sequences with Quantum States - <AUTHOR> https://www.math3ma.com/blog/modeling-sequences-with-quantum-states <comment><AUTHOR> Preprint here: [https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.07425](https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.07425)

NB: OP here, but I didn't write this blog or co-author this preprint.</comment>


Venezuela's Inflated Vision of Beauty [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/americas/100000002531876/venezuelas-inflated-vision-of-beauty.html

<comment><USER2> Guy looks like a Bond villain.</comment>


Why the EAX register of x86 is called that - <AUTHOR> https://keleshev.com/eax-x86-register-meaning-and-history/ <comment><USER3> One thing directly connected to this history is why the x86 is little-endian. As the article explains, the 8008 was designed for the Datapoint 2200 terminal. The 8008 was intended as a compatible replacement for the existing Datapoint processor, which was built from simple TTL chips.

To reduce the chip count, the Datapoint 2200 used a serial processor, which processed one bit at a time, so you had a 1-bit ALU among other things. One consequence is that you have to start with the low-order bit when doing addition, so you can handle carries. And for 16-bit values, you also have to start with the low-order byte. This forces you into a little-endian architecture.

Thus, to be compatible with the Datapoint 2200, the 8008 was also made little- endian. Unfortunately, Intel was very slow creating the 8008, so Datapoint had moved on to a parallel 74181-based architecture and didn't want the 8008. Intel decided to sell the 8008 as a stand-alone product, essentially creating the microprocessor industry. As the article explains, the x86 grew out of the 8008, so x86 also inherited the little-endian architecture

<comment><USER4> Pretty much all simple multi-word ALU algorithms need to start with the low word first. That particular terminal wasn't remotely unique (though for all I know, it was indeed the specific product that drove the Intel design decision), nor was x86 the first LE architecture. The PDP/11 made the same decision for the same reason several years earlier (and the VAX followed for pseudocompatibility), etc...

Really, it wasn't until the mid-80's and the RISC revolution, where all of a sudden people found themselves designing systems that would be 32 bits wide from the very first silicon that the community "decided" that the only true byte order should be BE.

And of course, the reason they made that decision was simply that the order of bytes in memory happened to match the way readers of the latin alphabet write arabic numbers on paper. Had the arabs invented computing, there would never even have been a debate.

<comment><USER5> > Really, it wasn't until the mid-80's and the RISC revolution, where all of a > sudden people found themselves designing systems that would be 32 bits wide > from the very first silicon that the community "decided" that the only true > byte order should be BE.

IBM 360-series mainframes were 32-bit and big-endian in the 1960s. (Their earlier computers may have been big-endian too, I'm not sure.)

<comment><USER6> > (Their earlier computers may have been big-endian too, I'm not sure.)

Yes, their choice of big endian probably came from their earlier unit record equipment, which used punched cards as input, storage, and output. Since punched cards were (sort of) directly human readable, it was natural to use big endian.

<comment><USER7> Also, making punch cards bid-endian meant that BCD integers sorted the same way lexographically and numerically, so there wasn't any special sorting mode necessary for numeric fields in punch card sorting machines.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> From reddit:

"This is basically the report_final_FINAL2.docx of register names."

<comment><USER9> That analogy only works if "report", "report_final", and "report_final_FINAL" were all released, were insanely successful and made you a billionaire and then you didn't want to lose the customers that liked those versions when you made some small edits.

<comment><USER10> Half-life 2: Episode 2

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Excellent explanation in the article. Also note that in x86-64 mode, the low 8 bits of all registers can be accessed, namely: AL, BL, CL, DL, SIL, DIL, SPL, BPL, R8B, R9B, R10B, R11B, R12B, R13B, R14B, R15B. Previously, there was no equivalent of SIL, DIL, SPL, and BPL. [https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/windows-hardware/drivers/de...](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows- hardware/drivers/debugger/x64-architecture)

<comment><USER12> AL, BL make sense. But now I need an explanation for why they switched from L to B for R8B...

Also if you could explain A-R15 that'd be super. Apparently they have learned absolutely nothing.

<comment><USER13> I had the same question about the suffix letters. My uninformed guess is:

      8 bits == byte       == B
     16 bits == word       == W
     32 bits == doubleword == D

<comment><USER14> I believe D for doubleword is mostly Microsoft C/C++ thing, though I'm sure it appears in other places too.

When it comes to the assembler syntax 32bit word, my guess would be, that 32bit words (e.g AT&T x86 syntax, m68 assemblers) are mostly indicated as l (for long).

movl (at&t's x86) or mov.l (m68k).

Edit: Ah.. yeah, also intel x86 asm syntax uses it, so I guess that's where the idea of using D for 32bit values originates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Most people list the registers in alphabetic order, but numerically they are encoded with the B registers in the 4th place: EAX=0, ECX=1, EDX=2, EBX=3, ...

If you ever find yourself writing an AMD-64 assembler, it really feels like you're digging through archaeology with all of the weird quirks you need to implement. The SSE, AVX, and AVX-512 encodings add even more levels of, "why did they do that?!?" which don't make much sense except in the context of history.

<comment><USER16> _but numerically they are encoded with the B registers in the 4th place_

I've never seen an authoritative answer for that but I believe it comes from the fact that in the 16-bit addressing modes, BX is the only one of the 4 ABCD registers that can be used to address memory, and the circuitry for decoding is very slightly simpler to detect two 1 bits than one 1 and one 0 bit. The 4 other registers are, in order, SP BP SI DI.

 _which don 't make much sense except in the context of history_

That can be said for a lot of things...

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > B, C, D, E were completely generic and interchangeable.

I was under the impression that it went

Accumulator

Base

Counter

Data

I'm not sure about the D or E registers, but I _am_ sure I remember using B as the base address register for arrays, and using C as _the_ counter register for loops and such because the others couldn't be used that way.

It's been a while. Am I misremembering?

<comment><USER18> Yes, in the Z80 BC was a sort of counter register (e.g. for LDIR or DJNZ instructions), which is perhaps why BC became CX. In the 8080 there wasn't much difference between BC and DE.

The interesting part is that BX maps to HL, which explains the weird order AX/CX/DX/BX in the encoding of 8086 instructions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> E - extended, meaning from 16 to 32 bits.

A - <USER2>

X - wildcard for both upper and lower 8-bit parts, this becomes redundant b/c of E prefix

</comment><comment><USER20> > I'm afraid there's no short answer! We'll have to go back to 1972…

No we don't ... the E stands for "extended".

<comment><USER21> And the X also stands for extended.

<comment><USER22> Alternatively the X is a very old assembly notation for "pair". 8-bit registers on 8080 processors could be paired together to work as a single register. Operations performed on these register pairs used the letter X.

You can look here at the original 8080 reference manual:

[https://altairclone.com/downloads/manuals/8080%20Programmers...](https://altairclone.com/downloads/manuals/8080%20Programmers%20Manual.pdf)

For example page 4 lists the name of instructions, INR is "increment register" while INX is "increment register pair", similar notation is used for several other instructions where the X is the register paired version of an instruction.

In the case of the AX register, it likely just refers to the pair of AH and AL registers.

At any rate, it's really interesting glancing over the various 8086 reference manuals. Gives me a deep sense of appreciation for how far things have come and how things have managed to build upon what are otherwise some very simple and fundamental building blocks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I was wondering if it was going to cover RAX/amd64, and it does. Nothing terribly new here but it's a nice dive into an interesting microcosm of intel architecture.

I do somewhat wish AMD managed to get R0-R7 as the standard, though :p oh well.

<comment><USER24> The R0-R7 naming is pretty widely supported. For example by LLVM's assembler, so you can use it in Rust or C(++) inline assembly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love the x86 registers and their names and special roles.

On the one hand, it's gross that x86 still has this legacy.

On the other hand, it's a good thing that it's possible to maintain compatibility so far back while still having such good perf. I find that aspect of modern x86 to be super impressive.

</comment><comment><USER25> Interesting how much early processor history was driven by Intel project delays.

<comment> Tuna-Fish IMHO the story of the iAPX432 really is the whole industry in microcosm.

Intel hires the best of the best, the true cream of the crop to design them an ISA that is meant to crystallize everything that is known about ISA design into a single completely new design that discards all the broken crap of yesterday and will be futureproof for decades if not forever, and a chip to implement it.

Everything is going to be great forever, but it turns out it's a bit hard to get done, so they just have the B-team whip up something quick to sell in the meantime. This something was the 8086, which gets adopted into increasingly successful products, but no matter, the new shiny thing is going to displace all of that when it finally ships.

Then it does, and it actually has a hard time competing in performance with the much older stopgap product. It turns out that the team of superstars they hired was very theoretical, and built an ISA that was a dream to program against, but did not really understand what it took to build something that was going to be fast when implemented in hardware. (Also, the system was meant to be used mainly with high-level languages, and the compilers really were not there yet.) Being more expensive, much slower than the competition and with 0 market penetration, the iAPX 432 was dead on arrival in the market.

Luckily, the B-team had been busy working up on another extension of the stop- gap product, the 80286, which is again a runaway success, and only partially because of backwards compatibility with the existing x86 ecosystem. It was also quite fast for it's time.

<comment><USER26> I recall the iAPX432 came out years later than the 8086, was a 'capabilities machine' and took 500 memory cycles to execute "JMP ." e.g. jump to self, potentially the simplest possible operation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> So cool. Kinda disappointed at my hacker side of things because I never questioned why EAX register is actually named "EAX". Wondering what else I take for granted now :p

</comment><comment><USER28> A is the A register, first letter of the alphabet.

Under 16 bits, it has a high and low part, AL and AH. The 16 bit whole got called AX, because X gets used a lot as a wild card.

EAX is extended (to 32 bits) AX.

<comment><USER29> Then you could have kept calling it A.

<comment><USER30> No. because you still have the opcodes that operate on just 64/32/16/8 bits of the register.

<comment><USER31> Aren't those AL and AH? When we rename A to AL, why do we need to permanently retire the term "A"? The L in AL stands for "low"; what does the A stand for?

<comment><USER28> The A stands for AL, in a snippet of 8008 assembly code that you're supposed to be able to use in the middle of 8080 assembly code, and dwhich is written in a language that knows nothing about AL or AX. Or that was the idea.

<comment><USER31> Thanks. So it's not so much that "you still have the opcodes that operate on just 64/32/16/8 bits" as "ASCII assembly code for any CPU is expected to be source-compatible with ASCII assembly code for any later CPU"?

Is there any indication in the source demarcating the 8008 assembly from the 8080 assembly?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I LOVE this kind of technical computer history! Anyone knows of other recommended resources?

<comment><USER33> If you're visiting the Bay Area, be sure to visit the Computer History Museum in Mountain View. It's the Mecca of computing history. Also, for early internet history, I'd recommend Katie Hafner's book: Where Wizards Stay Up Late.

<comment><USER32> I did and I loved every moment of it :) Also in meatspace, enjoyed Bletchley Park in the UK.

Re: books, I liked Robert X. Cringley's Accidental Empires, but it covers only until 91 (or 93 if IIRC for the 2nd edition) of the PC industry and not really technical.

edit: also, of course: [https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/](https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/)

<comment><USER34> The Bletchley Park museum is about ten times better and has lots of running computers, knowledgeable staff, and stuff to play with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Excerpt:

"You might think—gee, seven is a very odd number of registers—and would be right! The registers were encoded as three bits of the instruction, so it allowed for eight combinations. The last one was for a pseudo-register called M. It stood for memory. M referred to the memory location pointed by the combination of registers H and L. H stood for high byte, while L stood for low byte of the memory address. That was the only available way to reference memory in [an] 8008."

</comment><comment><USER36> Now I want to define an architecture just like the 8008, only with each register 64-bits and only 64-bits.

<comment><USER37> Defining an architecture is easy! All you have to do is write up a document with instructions and their encodings, and boom! You've created a new architecture. Here's one I made earlier this year for a class I was teaching, for example: [https://github.com/regular- vm/specification](https://github.com/regular-vm/specification)

<comment><USER36> Well, yes, but that would be in order to emulate it or maybe implement it on an fpga or something.

<comment><USER37> Yes, that's what we did. Did you have something else in mind?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Assembly mnemonics and their cousin pin names are so excessively terse. I wish it was mandatory to expand acronyms in a dedicated field in datasheets. So often you'll find pin names like "NCE" where you're just expected to know a priori that it means "active-low Chip Enable" and it's so counterproductive.

<comment><USER39> Assembly mnemonics I think are terse to make it dirt simple for assemblers to read them, which themselves had to be hand-entered via hex until they became "self-hosting." Assemblers could not be on the same level as compilers. This was definitely very needed when these CPUs were new in the 70's and such.

I've always liked how 6502 neatly has everything in 3 letter opcodes. But that's not scalable given modern CPU capabilities.

<comment><USER16> ...and for humans to read and write them, because what could be a single symbol in an HLL ('+') turns into several latters ('ADD') in Asm.

Some companies experimented with "symbolic Asm" which was even terser, and made it look more like an HLL.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> More interestingly why are FS and GS registers called so?

<comment><USER41> Maybe because they come after DS and ES.

<comment><USER42> CS, DS and ES also have letters in alphabetical order, yet they are treated as acronyms. Wondering why is there no meaning (even if fabricated) attached to FS and GS?

<comment><USER43> Not really sure what your question means, but originally CS for "code segment", DS for "data segment" and SS for "stack segment" had distinct use cases. They weren't general purpose segment registers at all. ES was an "extra" data segment register. When FS and GS were added later the alphabetical ordering of CS, DS, ES, FS, GS was natural (with SS still being the odd one out).

<comment><USER42> Precisely what you wrote: CS is "Code Segment", DS is "Data Segment", ES is "Extra Segment" (even here it feels a bit manufactured), but FS and GS lack any semi-reasonable expansion.

<comment><USER44> Because the purpose of FS and GS was not specifically defined at the hardware level, they're segment registers but not specific purpose.

And I guess the complete lack of dedicated purpose of FS and GS is why x64 keeps them available.

<comment><USER45> So, are they faint and generic segments? :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Hmm I guess I'm getting old. ehhh senior

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> [https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fm2xb9/heres_w...](https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fm2xb9/heres_why_the_eax_register_of_x86_is_called_like/)

</comment><comment><USER26> The iAPX 432 was long after the 8086, not before.

And the 80286 predated the 80386 as a 32-bit processor, so the 80286 was Intel's first 32-bit offering. It was still segmented, missing the paging hardware. I helped write an operating system for it. Short-lived.

<comment><USER47> The iAPX 432 project started in 1975, but took many years to deliver anything. The 8086 was indeed intended as a stop gap while the '432 was under development.

The 80286 by most definitions was a 16-bit CPU, having a 16-bit data bus, 16-bit general purpose registers and 16-bit segments. It did have a 24-bit address space though, up from the 20 bits of the 8086.

EDIT: Even Intel called the 286 a 16-bit CPU, see the Preface of [http://bitsavers.trailing- edge.com/components/intel/80286/21...](http://bitsavers.trailing- edge.com/components/intel/80286/210498-005_80286_and_80287_Programmers_Reference_Manual_1987.pdf)

<comment><USER26> Oh of course! Thanks. The 24-bit address space changed operating system designs to use a LONG to store physical memory addresses, which I guess confused my memory of the whole thing.

It had 'real mode' which was the ordinary 8086 addressing mode (capable of 20-bit addressing to 1MB) and 'protected mode' which we called 'imaginary mode' since nobody used it.</comment></comment></comment>


Is it illegal to own a rabbit in Queensland unless you're a magician? - <AUTHOR> https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39758/is-it-illegal-to-own-a-rabbit-in-queensland-unless-youre-a-magician <comment><USER2> Answer:

> From Queensland's Department of Agriculture and Fisheries brochure Can I > have a pet rabbit?,

> Why are pet rabbits illegal in Queensland?

> Rabbits are Australia's most destructive agricultural and environmental > introduced animal pest, [...]

> Can I get a permit for a pet rabbit?

> A permit cannot be issued for keeping pet rabbits of any variety for any > private purpose.

> A permit to keep domestic rabbits in Queensland can only be approved if the > animal is being kept for an approved purpose:

> certain forms of public entertainment (e.g. magic show and circuses)

> scientific and research purposes

So you could be a magician OR a scientist

<comment><USER3> Any sufficiently advanced scientist is indistinguishable from a magician

<comment><USER4> The difference being one takes brains and the other takes dark eyeliner

Edit: I was making a tongue and cheek joke for all the rick and morty fans out there sorry if that was out of line

<comment><USER5> FYI, I believe you may have meant "tongue in cheek": [https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/tongue-in-cheek](https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/tongue-in-cheek)

<comment><USER4> I did, thank you.

Again, I can't delete it, and I stand by having fun every once and awhile. I however apologize again if I was simply detracting.

<comment><USER3> I stand by your stand by. Negative karma isn't a crime once in awhile (seems you get a 2nd nit in this thread on wordisms: 'once and awhile' is 'once in awhile')

<comment><USER6> I would even say that negative karma is _never_ a crime, or even a bad thing. Just because an opinion isn't popular, doesn't mean one shouldn't voice it. (As long as it's not against the community guidelines or an _actual crime_ )

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This led me to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia#Biologica...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia#Biological_measures), which is fascinating: it turns out that Australia has been trying to eradicate rabbits with viruses for decades. Surprising, I guess, because of how scary the same thing for humans would be.

<comment><USER8> Funny how Australia's own wildlife hasn't taken care of the Rabbits

Reproduction beats predators apparently

<comment><USER9> Australia actually lacks large inland predators.

Because of this rabbits actually support invasive predators as well (foxes, cats, etc...)

The only real "native" predator it has is the dingo, but those too were introduced by humans (only they were introduced thousands of years ago so they've been naturalized to the environment).

<comment><USER10> >> ...were introduced by humans (only they were introduced thousands of years ago...

That is a systemic problem in conservation: where in the timeline do we say that the "natural" state existed? In Australia and similar countries we place that mark not at the point that humans arrived, but at the point white people showed up. I live in the pacific northwest where we do the same. This practice almost equates indigenous humans with animals, both being "natural" in that the do not negatively impact "their" environment. The reality is that native populations radically altered ecosystems, that any non-human state only ever existed in deep history.

On long-inhabited island nations (Japan, UK Australia etc) the predator issue is a big deal only because of human efforts. Each wiped out their large predators long ago. Japan should have tigers and bears. The UK should have wolf packs. Australia too should have its big predators, but they were wiped out long before Europeans arrive. So we call that "natural". Something as simple as setting a date is in reality a twisted conflation of race, religion and political histories.

These would take care of the rabbits: [http://earthsky.org/earth/early-humans- wiped-out-big-animals...](http://earthsky.org/earth/early-humans-wiped-out- big-animals-in-australia)

<comment><USER11> > This practice almost equates indigenous humans with animals

I feel like you're introducing a racist element where there needn't be one.

The key factor to a species adapting to its environment is time, and the timeframe that European colonisers have been in Australia, America and similar nations is a tiny blip on an evolution scale timeline.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, the racist element is certainly seeing something that is not there. Drawing the line at invasive species or "naturalized" species is almost entirely biological...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Rabbits are a scourge in Queensland. When I bought my Akubra hat at the Victoria market in Melbourne the vendor confidently told me it was the only good use for a rabbit. (the hats are rabbit felt).

Does any agency offer a bounty on rabbits? For example in some lakes in Colorado you can get a bounty for catching and killing non-native northern pike[1]. Does Australia have a similar system in place? There is lots of data about how much of a pest they are [2] but other than dogs and foxes I don't see a bounty program. Trappers decimated the American west of Beaver because they could sell the pelts, perhaps a market for rabbit pelts would be enough incentive to encourage trappers?

[1] [http://www.gameandfishmag.com/conservation- politics/20-north...](http://www.gameandfishmag.com/conservation- politics/20-northern-pike-bounty-offered-at-colo-lake/)

[2] [http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/pests-diseases- and...](http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/pests-diseases-and- weeds/pest-animals/a-z-of-pest-animals/european-rabbit)

<comment><USER13> I recall the Brits offered a bounty on some venomous snake in India with the effect that people bred those snakes for the £££

<comment><USER14> On the assumption that rabbits are difficult to breed, the bounty program should be fine.

<comment><USER15> I gather you've never heard the term "breed like rabbits".

Rabbits can have up to 1,000 offspring in their life.

<comment><USER16> Thus, the point of the joke.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Have wild rabbits been mostly dealt with in Queensland? Because if not, it's not obvious to me how a relatively tiny additional source of escaped/released pet rabbits would make a difference?

<comment><USER18> I've lived in Queensland my whole life and I've never seen a wild rabbit. I do a lot of country driving now and I see wild hares at night, but I'm not sure if they're a problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Too bad. Rabbits are the best small-scale meat animal.

<comment><USER20> Oof. No, farming them for meat means breeding them which practically guarantees their escape into the wild as an invasive pest.

I could see the argument for keeping a fixed one as a pet because there's no risk if a fixed one escapes... But even then, that would still create cottage industry of breeding them, and that's bad.

<comment><USER21> This doesn't pertain to Australia, but if you have served in the peace corps(unless something has changed) rabbits used to be fairly popular animals to give people in third world counties. It produces lots of offspring(if you are lucky enough for them to breed) which is probably its biggest benefit.

<comment><USER22> > if you are lucky enough for them to breed

Lucky? How do you stop them?

<comment><USER23> Cut off their feet, that reduces their luck.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Is it illegal to bring a dog into Australia unless you are Johnny Depp?

Answer: Australia has very strict bio-security laws.

</comment><comment><USER20> A shame. For vegetarians/vegans they're one of the few pets that can be nice, social animals and don't have to eat meat. A pet would be fixed, so there's no risk of escape into the wild... But pets have to be bred so the risk is still there.

Maybe some system where rabbits could be certified as "imported fixed" and tagged as such? So only intact animals could be legally imported?

<comment><USER25> For non-vegetarians, it is also a shame, because rabbits are really delicious.

This makes me wonder: I saw no exemption in that article of owning rabbits for meat production, so does that mean that down under, there is no rabbit on any restaurant's menu?

<comment><USER26> Pretty sure I've eaten rabbit in a restaurant in Australia, but I am sure it was wild rabbit.

I remember as a child in Australia eating a lot of rabbit. My father would hunt them and Mum's speciality was curried rabbit. I used to love it.

They really are vermin in Australia. Ever time I see a rabbit in Europe I have an almost visceral desire to kill it. Growing up in rural Australia I've seen first hamd the damage they can do if left unchecked.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is Apple intentionally holding the web backwards? - <AUTHOR> They don't support many of the standards. <comment><USER2> Which standards are you thinking of in particular?</comment>


Ask HN: Did anyone just get prompted by Google Chrome with a privacy form? - <AUTHOR> Here's the screenshot[0] of the survey widget Google just sent me to. Did anyone else here just get a "Privacy Checkup" notification in Chrome for something like this? I think it happened when I opened a new tab.
I was a bit upset to find out that Google ignored my request to turn off tracking my location, which I remember disabling a few weeks ago. I don't recall ever turning these settings on.
In the lower right corner, they asked me a bunch of questions about how I think they are handling my privacy.
[0] https://imgur.com/Esgtwlp <comment><USER2> I got it b/c I think I'm on a VPN and had to use Chrome (which I rarely do) when a page I needed wouldn't load properly on my preferred browser. I assume it's a way for Chrome to get you to log in, as I wasn't logged in to Chrome at the time.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm always surprised with how much people get surprised about google spying on them. Or about google ignoring privacy options in platforms they own (chrome, android).

<comment><AUTHOR> The only thing that surprised me was when I learned that Google was tracking my location, given that I explicitly disabled that a few weeks ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I remember getting this every few months for a year or two.

</comment><comment><USER5> Get it every now and then. I don't see an alarm here, they could be saying nothing at all and keeping you completely in the dark.

<comment><USER6> ...

 _We don 't really care what you say or do because we're going to collect the data anyway. But hey, at least we're honest!_

And you don't see reason for alarm?

What exactly qualifies as reason for alarm for you out of curiosity?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hmm, I haven't seen this pop up yet. Did you navigate to gmail or some other google service to get this to show up?

<comment><AUTHOR> It was either triggered right when I opened a new tab or right after I opened a new tab and did a (Google) search in the URL bar. This[0] is what the popup looks like.

[0] [https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-dR9upJLiSgQ/Wv2K8LA3b-I/A...](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-dR9upJLiSgQ/Wv2K8LA3b-I/AAAAAAAABj8/mxeg3VgUIPYJqawVy2AQGBAhT0O_slYygCLcBGAs/s1600/Take_Your_Privacy_Checkup.JPG)

<comment><USER8> I saw this recently but don't recall the context.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Oddly enough, it happened when I was using Chrome to download Firefox to replace Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER10> I get it everytime I log into Google through a VPN.

</comment><comment><USER11> No did</comment>


The Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities - <AUTHOR> http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54746167130

<comment><USER2> Facebook's blog is down for me right now, here is the Google cache. [http://188.8.131.52/search?q=cache:nLCrsouWRTsJ:blog.facebo...](http://18.104.22.168/search?q=cache:nLCrsouWRTsJ:blog.facebook.com/+facebook+blog&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a)</comment>


Heat Wave to Hit Two-Thirds of the U.S. Here's What to Expect - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/us/weather-heat-wave.html <comment><USER2> So I get that the infrastructure isn't as well in place to deal with things like this but where I live 100+ isn't that absurd, and that's nothing to say for places like Arizonia which is two blocks away from the sun and 90 is considered cool, with 100+ being a common occurrence. So what makes this particularly bad?

<comment><USER3> The humidity amplifies the effects of the heat. I remember the first time I travelled to Arizona and was expecting to suffer when I saw the forecast temperatures were 100+, but the dry heat was - I hesitate to say comfortable - but very different from a 90 degree day on the East Coast with high humidity. An extended period of extreme heat + humidity can be brutal on the body, particularly those already vulnerable or without adequate air conditioning.

<comment><USER4> Yeah humidity is no joke.

I'm in NY and when it's ~90f degrees out with high humidity, it's an unescapable heat unless you have an A/C.

I'm in ok shape I guess. I walk 3-5 miles a day in all types of weather ranging from about 10f to 100f degrees but when high temps hit with high humidity my skin immediately glazes over and I know to take it easy. My arms will be dripping wet in less than a minute just standing outside doing nothing with a ~60 BPM heart rate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We see a lot more weather hype in the news than we used to. Winter storms have names. We get "arctic vortexes". And normal summer temps are flogged as a massive heat wave.

Someone in the biz was telling me that the reason is that many 'news' orgs would rather have an article about the weather than about a lot of other subjects, so they've steadily increased the number of weather related coverage.

<comment><USER6> Also extreme weather events are increasing in both quantity and severity. [https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report- findings/...](https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report- findings/extreme-weather)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Now NYT disables reading from incognito. Lame.

[http://archive.is/cF01U](http://archive.is/cF01U)

<comment><USER8> Logging in sort of defeats the point of private mode.

<comment><USER9> Most people were using private mode to read more articles than they paywall allows without paying for a subscription.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Slow news day? Not like this is the first heat wave to ever hit more than a couple states. Drink lots of water, move slow, go to work early and leave late (its cooler and less people to get edgy with!)

<comment><USER10> No clue why the angry downvotes - from the subheadline of the story: "Dangerously hot temperatures are predicted from Oklahoma to New England. Here's the forecast, with some tips on staying safe." I add to their list of things that can help, get downvoted, but people complaining about blocked incognito mode, all ok?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What was the original "in browser editor"? - <AUTHOR>

CodePen is very new... was jsFiddle the first? <comment><USER2> Netscape Communicator or Amaya, unless there was an earlier one.</comment>


How Reddit Was Built. Alexis Ohanian Interview - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mixergy.com/no-reddit-didnt-copy-digg-heres-how-it-was-built-with-alexis-ohanian/

<comment><USER3> I never knew there were people out there who thought Reddit copied Digg. In fact, I'm not sure anyone can copy anyone in this case. It isn't like having people vote a news item up or down is a revolutionary idea in and of itself. What makes Digg, Reddit and yes Hacker News special is the community that was built around them. That, imho, is the innovation in these sites. Founders creating an enviornment in which a vibrant community can flourish.

<comment><USER4> Articles being voted up/down _is_ kind of a revolutionary idea, in that it could have been developed years earlier, but it wasn't. Why not? (maybe people tried it, it didn't take off and so we didn't hear about it)

<comment><USER5> One factor might have been ajax. Being able to vote without having to reload the page is a big deal, but it's only relatively recently that the techniques to do that have become common knowledge.

Not that that stopped slashdot from doing it with comments. It could probably have been made to work with articles as well; quite possibly everyone just thought editors were better at selecting interesting links to publish. The innovation was social rather than technical. (HN's system of articles selected primarily by voting, but with more than cursory editorial oversight, seems to be another social innovation. Did any earlier site do the same thing?)

<comment><USER4> I worked out how to do this with an invisible 0-size frame, over 10 years ago. From another frame, you put data in the invisible frame (in a form, or as an URL) and submit it; then read the data back. Of course, it was awkward, and maybe there were some cross-browser issues (I don't recall, but such issues were the norm).

But here's my point: I thought it was technically cool, _but I didn't do_ anything _with it_. Not even a demo. So this is a striking example for me that it really matters how familiar you are with a concept, before you can start using it as a basis of inventing something else. Progress takes a long time, and proceeds in steps. There's a tantalizing possibility that, maybe, knowing this could give you a simple way to leapfrog a decade ahead...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _Paul Graham, with all his knowledge of the industry, didn't know that Digg was out there either?_

It sounds kind of weird to me that he wouldn't... and yet, for my startup, I also wasn't aware of some very similar projects (and a good thing too, or maybe I wouldn't have started)

</comment><comment><USER6> The interviewers disbelief that food money is so important reminds me of my first experience with startups. When I was an undergrad I worked for a doomed startup, and I remember with all the various government and other sources of support out there, absolutely noone was willing to pay for rent or food. I mean the money had to specifically be for hardware or the like, but the biggest hurdle is the day to day money. Even living with your parents you need to buy some of your own food. It's not in the least bit trivial.

</comment><comment><USER7> Cool interview, some really interesting points. I'd be interested to know what Steve+Alexis think would have happened if Wired hadn't bought Reddit.

Would they have been bought by someone else? Would they have worked out advertising models etc and become a profitable business, or something else?

Did they have a 'plan B'? Get more funding and go after more users?

<comment><USER8> We'd become ramen profitable from our licensing work with Conde Nast before the acquisition and had enough to live (modestly) on for another year.

We were slow to put ads on reddit, putting FederatedMedia on only the comments pages, and generating a few thousand a month from just those pageviews (a small% of our traffic).

That said, if that deal had fallen through, we'd have likely just powered on. I can't speculate whether or not we'd have gotten acquired by someone else, but I'd been discussing the idea with a couple other properties.

Maybe we would have gotten serious about selling merch sooner ;)

For reasons I hinted at in the interview, it really was the right time for an acquisition.

<comment><USER9> Can you elaborate on the licensing work with Conde Nast? What was that and how did you get to the? Thanks!

Disclaimer: I read comments first before clicking the link, so haven't seen the video.

<comment><USER8> We built lipstick.com (now <http://weheartgossip.com>) for them. I received an email one day from their head of biz dev, he'd heard about reddit through a mutual friend. I called him that day and we spoke for a good while about an idea he had for a celebrity gossip version of reddit. I told him it sounded like a fun project to work on and things went from there.

We've never spoken publicly about the terms of the contract we signed with them, but it put us in good ramen-eating shape for the next year or so. In hindsight, this great deal was likely part of the wooing process. But it worked :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> i will watch this tomorrow, hope he explains how he faked the community at the beginning

<comment><USER8> I wasn't asked. But Steve and I had a bunch of usernames we'd log into for the first few weeks to submit cool links. I must have had about 10 that I'd cycle through (such is the life of the non-programming cofounder in the first month of a social news site).

The day when neither of us had to submit anything was a great one - <USER2> happened during that summer and gave us hope that the damn thing might actually work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does the video mention Lisp?

<comment><USER12> No, it's mostly about what founders can learn about startups from reddit's experience.

<comment><USER13> Writing your WebApp in Lisp or another trendy languages like Scala, Clojure, Erlang, etc. is a nice story for viral marketing, because the communities around those languages are desperatly looking for "killer applications" and "success stories". That's a lesson i learned from reddit.

<comment><USER14> True, but this only works if you then switch to Python and get all the Lisp/Scala/Clojure/Erlang programmers' knickers in a bunch. (I'm not English, by the way; it's just that the Brits have a gift for odd metaphors.)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tests confirm that Germany's massive nuclear fusion machine really works - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencealert.com/tests-confirm-that-germany-s-massive-nuclear-fusion-machine-really-works <comment><USER2> _It 's not something that will happen tomorrow, but it's an incredibly exciting time for nuclear fusion, with W 7-X officially competing with France's ITER tokamak reactor - both of which have been able to trap plasma for long enough for fusion to occur._

ITER hasn't been built yet and although it is located in France it is an international project. Errors like this make me wonder about the quality of the whole article.

<comment><USER3> I saw this on Phys.org 2 days prior, but I think it's somewhat of a given that these science news sites are for all intents and purposes content farms - their primary utility is for surfacing interesting bits that you can do your own followup/research on. To their credit, they do link to the original open access report.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I saw this show up a few days ago as well. What's nice is that the original Nature Communications submissions is open access: [http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13493](http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13493)

There's a bunch more interesting visualization of what's going on, so worth a click if you want to see more.

One meta detail that's particularly interesting to me is that this paper was originally submitted back in March:

      Received: 22 March 2016
      Accepted: 07 October 2016
      Published online: 30 November 2016

So that's about an 6 months before it was accepted and about 8 months before it was widely disseminated, make me think about the implications.

Also, as a point of reference, the paper was submitted about a month and a half after the original live stream for "first hydrogen" (OP-1) February 3, 2016 - I believe they ran about a month of test runs, and no doubt started crunch numbers immediately after the first run.

</comment><comment><USER4> Just as a note, "working as intended" does not include actually generating electricity.

They just verified that the machine generates the magnetic field that the designers intended.

That's great, worth reading about for sure, but it is not "really works" in the sense of it's about to power Berlin.

<comment><USER5> Well, W7X isn't capable of producing power. Even if it can sustain fusion it's a research reactor, it doesn't have any generator infrastructure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> >And it produces no radioactive waste or other byproducts.

Well, not true. It's just that the waste it does produce is relatively alright, and becomes inert again within a century - as opposed to a few hundred thousand years.

<comment><USER7> The problem with this claim is that (generally speaking) material with a short half-life is very "hot" and will kill just about anything around it. Something that decays to one tenth of a percent of original mass over a century has a half-life of ten years. You don't want that anywhere around you, and a containment leak will be ugly.

<comment><USER8> > material with a short half-life is very "hot" and will kill just about > anything around it [...] You don't want that anywhere around you, and a > containment leak will be ugly.

This description fits a huge number of chemical industrial reagents used in factories worldwide. Being able to seal it in a barrel and render it harmless by submerging it in a pool for a few decades (which is well inside the operational lifetime of the reactor) are trivial challenges both compared to the usual cleanup problems at Superfund sites and compared to the problem of storing nuclear waste with half lives in the hundreds or thousands of years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In my student days I went to a talk from one of the scientists working on the Taurus in Oxfordshire (I think he went to the French project soon after) and they were having major problems finding materials that could withstand the heat and radiation produced. He described it as a machine that produced tons of melted and irradiated beryllium.

</comment><comment><USER10> Just to clarify: Wendelstein 7-X is a plasma research reactor, never intended to produce energy.

Enlightening (german) podcast about the topic with some of the researchers: [https://alternativlos.org/36/](https://alternativlos.org/36/)

</comment><comment><USER11> When this gets here: see ya later solar panel companies.</comment>