Tbox: A GLib-like cross-platform C library - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/tboox/tbox <comment><USER2> They've got a bunch of other cool projects, too: [https://tboox.org/project/](https://tboox.org/project/)

I wouldn't have thought to look, but I saw something about xmake the other day (by the same people). I still am probably going to stick with cmake (inertia), but cool stuff.

</comment><comment><USER3> I see " _Micro: compiling micro library (~64K) for the embed system_ ", now that caught my attention!

Should I then assume that the compatible platforms are actually more than the listed Windows, Linux, Mac, and mobile OSes?

I'm on the front of AVR development, and cool new things always arrive late (understandably, if they arrive at all...) to our little corner of the world :(

But I assume that "embedded" here will mean mainly ARM.

(similarly, I'm still excitedly waiting for more progress on the Rust front :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Your source files contain the following in the commented header:

"Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements."

Did you in fact specifically license it to the ASF? Or are you just licensing it under the Apache license?

<comment><AUTHOR> I just used the Apache license.

<comment><USER5> Apache committer here - you've got the wrong header there. That one's for source which has been committed to ASF repos under a CLA.

You want the header for non-ASF code which can be found here:

[http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#apply](http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#apply)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, got it, I will modify headers.

Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think that if you're going to compare your library to GLib, then at least a basic comparison of features, side by side, should be available

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Provides stream, container, iterator, algorithm, coroutine, database .. modules.

And we use xmake to build it.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm working on a compiler right now that generates C. Should I use this for the generated code? (Or should I use glib, musl, or uclib?)

A comparison chart would be helpful! Similar to: [http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html](http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html)

<comment><USER8> To solve the problem in a robust way, the C library has to be part of the target. For example on Debian Linux, glibc is the native libc. On Alpine Linux, musl is the native libc. In LLVM terminology, this is the "C ABI environment" part of the "target triple".

If your compiler supports cross compiling, you might look into the strategies that Zig does[1]. If it only supports native builds, you probably want to detect the native libc. Again here it might be useful to look at what Zig does[2].

[1]: [https://ziglang.org/download/0.4.0/release-notes.html#Zig- sh...](https://ziglang.org/download/0.4.0/release-notes.html#Zig-ships-with- libc) [2]: [https://ziglang.org/download/0.4.0/release- notes.html#Libc-D...](https://ziglang.org/download/0.4.0/release- notes.html#Libc-Detection)

<comment><AUTHOR> That is the standard library, TBOX is just a third-party library, providing some easy-to-use cross-platform modules.

<comment><USER9> Any plans to do a Libc too? A lot of embedded systems like ESP32 could really use a good Libc without having to pull in Linux.

<comment><AUTHOR> I haven't got this plan yet., but the tbox has a lightweight and compact libc implementation built in. The interface name looks like this: tb_snprintf, tb_strlcpy, ...

You can see [https://github.com/tboox/tbox/tree/master/src/tbox/libc](https://github.com/tboox/tbox/tree/master/src/tbox/libc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Congratulations on an absolutely massive achievement! I love seeing high- quality C libraries appear. What version of C does it target?

<comment><AUTHOR> c99

<comment><USER11> Not supporting obsolete versions of C is utterly awesome.

<comment><AUTHOR> C89 is too old, too many grammar restrictions. And now the mainstream compiler basically supports c99.

<comment><USER12> What grammar restrictions? I've converted a few C99 libraries to C89 (since i prefer that one and i often work with older compilers because they are faster) and 99% of the time the reason a library uses C99 is inline variable declaration (which IMO is a bad style, but that is subjective) and // comments (which most C89 compilers support as an extension anyway).

The versions do have other differences, of course, but they're rarely used (the next most common one is designated initializers, which for me are the most annoying to convert).

I mean, it is your code, i just found the grammar restrictions part weird since really there isn't that much of a practical difference between C99 and C89 to the point i personally never felt the need to use C99.

(note that i focus on the language bits, C99 provides some extra library functionality but even then the most useful part is stdint.h which can be implemented in almost any C89 compiler anyway)

<comment><AUTHOR> C89 cannot mix variable declarations and code.

        printf("Hello World!\n");
        int x = 7;
        printf("%d!\n", x);
        return 0;

This is a very serious restriction for me.

<comment><USER12> Yes, that is what i meant with "inline variables". IMO this is usually a sign of code that is too long to be readable and if you really need that you should either split the function to make it more readable or, if that cannot be done, enclose the affected code in their own brackets (with a comment that makes it easy to distinguish). Brackets also make sure that the variable wont "outlive" its context (although again that is a sign of code that is too long).

Of course that is my opinion (and i'm generalizing of course), but that comes from my experience with working with others' code.

<comment><AUTHOR> Even if the function code is very short, I still like to define and declare variables nearby.

Unless a function has only two lines of code.

<comment><USER12> Right, that is your style, but i wouldn't call that "too many grammar restrictions" :-).

<comment><USER13> It's too many grammar restrictions _for this person_. That's obviously what's implied by the person's original comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> how does it handle u_128 (IPv6 comparison/sorting/hashing)

two u_64 is .. sad (sometimes unavoidable)

no bzip2 but other good modern compressors which I guess is about what you _need_ for jar and zip files.

openssl compatible crypto .. oy vey the chain of "who audits the code is now a mile long at the microphone"

<comment><AUTHOR> There is no support for u_128 yet, but I can consider it.

<comment><USER14> If you think about radix tries and other data structures (AVL) it would be useful to be able to code good x>y tests against the binary state of IPv6. If you have to segment into two u_64 then shift-and-mask stuff becomes harder. So, purely for IPv6 (and I work with internet addresses a lot so my bias is showing) I think this makes sense.

But I totally get it may not be in your use case or first pass. Tiny home router builds? they'd want this. Anything doing IPv6 packet work testing or finding IPs in a structure will want this unless people code to the /64 model.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Congrats on shipping! This is really good advertisment for Xmake btw :)

</comment><comment><USER15> What does "modern" mean in this context?

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, Now the title has been modified, maybe the previous title is not reasonable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm not seeing tests anywhere. Am I blind or are they hidden away or non- existent? Thx in advance.

<comment><USER17> > _I 'm seeing tests anywhere. Am I blind or are they hidden away or non- > existent? Thx in advance._

While this might be a valid point, I really don't like the manner in which it is expressed. Feigned surprise, pretend humility and, most importantly, lack of basic respect towards fellow developer(s).

<comment><USER16> Wait, you cited my text and changed it from the original dropping a key word and then attacked me for it. Not cool. There is no feigned surprise or lack of respect either implied or actually present in my inquiry about the lack of tests.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> why didn't you build off musl?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't want to have any third-party library dependencies.

<comment><USER18> oh no I thought you were talking about a glibc replacement (making your own libc) while this is about glib as in gnome, sorry

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why was it written in C instead of Rust/C++?

Additionally why are there a bunch of generic sounding Chinese names in the comments with dead comments? Bot comments/SEO?

<comment><USER20> It's a C library. If it were a Rust or C++ library it would be written in those languages.

<comment><USER21> That does not always _necessarily_ follow. The VC runtime, for the C portion of the library, is now written in C++ internally.</comment></comment></comment>


Oil Companies Will Dominate BTC Mining in Five Years: Marty Bent - <AUTHOR> https://cointelegraph.com/news/oil-companies-will-dominate-btc-mining-in-five-years-marty-bent <comment><USER2> If you can use that energy to mine bitcoin, why not use it to power a data center or put it into the grid? Theres nothing unique about crypto here, its just one potential way to use recaptured efficiency, and not necessarily the highest ROI method either. Especially for oil companies, where this is outside their core competency and not something they would likely want complicating their balance sheet with all the mark to market requirements and all that would make holding crypto a particular sort of pain</comment>


Jerome Svigals doing an AMA on Reddit right now - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/h5kby/my_name_is_jerome_svigals_in_1950_i_became_one_of/ Who is he?<p>Born in 1926 in the Bronx, New York, Jerome Svigals attended City College of New York. In 1950, as second lieutenant in the U.S. Army, he worked on developing the first electronic computer, becoming one of the world's first digital programmers. Starting with IBM in 1954, Svigals was the company's first employee hired for marketing the professional computer. He devised the strategy of selling computer support services and eventually ran IBM's global marketing system. In the mid-1960s, he conducted initial research on a machine-readable storage medium and became project manager for magnetic stripe cards. Regarded as the "father of mag-stripe cards," Svigals brought the technology to the air transport, mass transit and banking industries. Thereafter he became the key figure in establishing national and global standards for magnetic stripe data storage. He has authored 25 books on card technology and banking, and is a leading consultant to the financial industry. <comment><AUTHOR> He worked on developing the first electronic computer, becoming one of the world's first digital programmers. Starting with IBM in 1954, Svigals was the company's first employee hired for marketing the professional computer. He devised the strategy of selling computer support services and eventually ran IBM's global marketing system. In the mid-1960s, he conducted initial research on a machine-readable storage medium and became project manager for magnetic stripe cards. Regarded as the father of mag-stripe cards, Svigals brought the technology to the air transport, mass transit and banking industries. Thereafter he became the key figure in establishing national and global standards for magnetic stripe data storage. He has authored 25 books on card technology and banking, and is a leading consultant to the financial industry.

</comment><comment><USER2> Mr. Svigals called me out of the blue about FaceCash a few months ago. He introduced himself as the father of the plastic payment card, which he developed at IBM. It sounded to me like he wanted a seat on our Board of Directors. This seemed strange because he hadn't even signed up for the product, but I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and at least meet with him.

After meeting Mr. Svigals, who was quite dismissive of everything we were doing, I did some more research into his claims. He may have authored 25 books (Amazon.com lists 17 of them), but none of them are available for purchase in stores, and many are no longer in print. The vast majority are more like updated pamphlets than books, and they are mostly about smart cards. See [http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_seeall_2?rh=k%3ASv...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_seeall_2?rh=k%3ASvigals%2Ci%3Astripbooks&keywords=Svigals&ie=UTF8&qid=1304700061), which have not become prevalent in the U.S. despite his predictions (which seem to go back years).

Mr. Svigals also did not single-handedly invent the plastic payment card, though I'm sure he played a supportive role at IBM. He has edited the Wikipedia entry on the subject to insert himself into the card's history, but it's very hard to tell if his description is accurate without independent verification from someone else at IBM at the time. As best I can tell he worked in the Asia Pacific division but was not on the core team developing the technology.

I wish him well, but would warn people that he has a tendency to inflate his claims, which shouldn't be necessary given all that he knows anyhow.

</comment><comment><USER3> In 3 hours after submission he didn't answer a single question. But he was confirmed by a mod/admin.

<comment><USER4> Or the comments are getting lost. Reddit seems to be having some database corruption problem right now.

In a thread in /r/linux, I replied to a comment. Then I submitted a new comment. Then I deleted the new comment.

A little later, checking my overview, the comment I had NOT deleted was missing--and a comment from a different user (properly attributed to that user) was listed in its place. Going manually to the /r/linux thread and finding where my comment was supposed to be, I find that it has indeed been replaced by that other person's comment.

Back in my overview, if I click his comment to be taken to it in context, I'm taken to a /r/sports thread, where that user has several comments and where his comment that is now in /r/linux would make sense.

I submitted a ticket to let them know about this.</comment></comment>


How well do you know HackerNews ? a Quiz - <AUTHOR> http://www.quiznightchief.com/Trivia-Quiz-Questions/HackerNews.html

<comment><USER2> I adblocked that "Green Certified Site" nonsense a while ago. Did you know that it sends information about your machine back to their servers whenever HN is open in any tab... every five minutes or so?

It is also really invasive; your pointer goes anywhere near it, and it starts pulsing like crazy. That thing is the epitome of annoying malware.

<comment><USER3> "I adblocked that "Green Certified Site" nonsense a while ago. Did you know that it sends information about your machine back to their servers whenever HN is open in any tab... every five minutes or so?"

Whoa thanks. Just adblocked the sucker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Mmm, a better quiz would be how much do you read hacker news and include answering questions about a heap of the bigger threads.

</comment><comment><USER5> I missed two. I typically interface HN via RSS, not the main "news" web UI, and never bothered to count the number of items on the first page. I really had no clue what language it was written in. Not too bad, I suppose, for signing up considerably less than a year ago.

Good quiz, though.

</comment><comment><USER6> I had to make some lucky guesses on #7 and #8, but I'm a bit embarrassed by my perfect score. It's a sign that I'm succumbing to the hive mind :(

Probably time to turn on noprocrast.

</comment><comment><USER7> Patting myself on the back for 8/10. I figured this submission would receive "Enough" votes, and obviously never took in the Green certification note.

</comment><comment><USER8> I got 3 wrong - I'm ashamed <g>

</comment><comment><USER9> pi*sqrt(5) out of 1010

</comment><comment><USER10> 6/10

</comment><comment><USER11> 8/10. I thought the last question was a trick, but the top bar IS orange so whatever.

<comment><USER12> When you have enough karma there is a setting to change it.

Thus: "Whatever I want it to be"

<comment><USER11> Well then I did answer it correctly for me, so the question is bad. I thought there was just some way to change it that I was aware of.

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah probably a bad question then. Apologies.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Build Your Own Product Hunt in WordPress - <AUTHOR> http://rankitwp.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> After all the discussion yesterday about Product Hunt, I figured this might be interesting to the community here. I launched this at the beginning of the year and it's done fairly well for something without any marketing behind it.

Fortuitously, it was posted by someone straight to the front page on PH [1] (I have zero pull or influence on that site, only commenting rights because I'm a creator there) and that has kicked off regular sales ever since. I'm not going to be retiring or anything but it made it worth the time at least. Plus I've met some great folks building some very cool community sites, which is definitely the best part overall.

[1] [https://www.producthunt.com/tech/rank-it- wp](https://www.producthunt.com/tech/rank-it-wp)</comment>


Uber has been built directly into Google Maps - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/01/uber-has-been-built-directly-into-google-maps/ <comment><USER2> It would be pretty sweet if Google made this kind of integration a generally available API.

Craigslist, AirBnB, Open311, there are a _lot_ of location-based interactions that could be accomplished with very little friction.

</comment><comment><USER3> I haven't updated to a Google maps version with this feature, but my current version does give me Uber fare estimation and a link to the app and these are labelled as advertisement, so I really do wonder what Uber is paying for this sort of integration.</comment>


In Defense of "The Big Bang Theory" - <AUTHOR> http://ideonexus.com/2013/02/04/in-defense-of-the-big-bang-theory/ An extensive response to geeks and nerds who are highly critical of a show that is actually fairly progressive and highly erudite in its humor. <comment><USER2> Apparently nerds are too self-conscious to be parodied and find it more offensive than the Hitler jokes they post on Reddit all day. The fact that I just stereotyped them (and by them I mean "us") probably has several scrambling for their rage comic generators already. It's incomprehensible that anyone would ever joke about their quirky, endearing traits or the fact that they're passionate about unconventional things.

Adrock's quote is the perfect example of this:

> . . . the main difference between Sheldon and Abed is that Abed is treated > as a hero. . . Community tells us it's cool to be a nerd. If Abed is better > then we are better. Community is a warm hug of acceptance whereas The Big > Bang Theory is a pantsing and a punch in the face.

This is just sad. Nerds insist that you coddle and pander to them because their egos are too delicate to handle a joke? Please, that generalization is far more insulting towards nerds than any joke TBBT has ever made.

As a nerd and a geek, the thing I find most offensive is the way other geeks and nerds react to The Big Bang Theory. It's almost embarrassing to be associated with people who behave like such spoiled children.

<comment><USER3> I agree.

> As a nerd and a geek, the thing I find most offensive is the way other geeks > and nerds react to The Big Bang Theory. It's almost embarrassing to be > associated with people who behave like such spoiled children.

I know what you mean, but I actually often laugh about this about as much as I laugh at the actual show. Knowing how many of the real geeks around the world would collapse into a Sheldonesque tizzy fit about a scene is half the fun of the scene.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is the first time I'm hearing anything about TBBT but even watching the show for around 60 seconds (Brian Greene in the coffee shop) made me think that it was terribly, terribly written and terribly, terribly acted. I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm tooting my own horn, but at this point _Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality_ probably _is_ the most popular HP fanfiction ever written and that probably _does_ make me one of the world's leading authorities on how to depict the inner mental life of nerds. _This is not how you do it._

I can't imagine writing a scene where HJPEV is laughing with Hermione over someone's terrible popular explanation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty. They'd never go to a comic-book store just to laugh at it. It would violate their character identities completely. In a story where Harry Potter has to be rescued from certain death at the hands of a yaoi fangirl horde (Ch. 42, and you didn't even notice) a scene like the one in TBBT would be just too unrealistic. And if somehow anything like that _did_ happen in a scene, if some wizard _did_ undergo a comic misunderstanding of quantum physics, it would be after I'd done whatever it took to explain correct-Heisenberg to the reader so that they would be laughing (and commiserating) right along with the protagonists. If you don't explain Heisenberg, what's the point? There's nothing left but empty feelings of superiority.

<comment><USER5> You are mistaken to think this show is supposed to depict the inner mental life of nerds.

It's absurdly common amongst people of our kind to assume TBBT is written for us, when in reality it's written as a caricature of us, _for_ the general public. Much like Fraiser is not written for radio hosts, and Friends is not written for New York living twenty-somethings, TBBT is not _supposed_ to be for nerds.

It's just not a big enough audience, yet, to cater to.

<comment><USER6> >It's absurdly common amongst people of our kind to assume TBBT is written for us, when in reality it's written as a caricature of us, for the general public.

Anecdotally, every recommendation I've encountered for the show has come from self-described nerds who feel the show does speak to / for them.

I think you might be underestimating the number of people who will relate to and even try to emulate a popular caricature of themselves.

<comment><USER7> Describing one's self as a nerd has been a growing trend lately ever since geek became chic.

I personally know multiple people who after watching BBT now identify as a nerd despite not having any sort of hobbies or technical experience.

<comment><USER8> How dare they.

 _How dare they._

<comment><USER7> How dare they associate with a cultural identity that they don't understand!

Besides, it's only the nerds of yesterday who had to deal with the endless bullying and loneliness! Future generations should get a free pass to associate themselves with the identity just because they watched some stupid sitcom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The beauty of the way how the TBBT is written is that geeks understand the science and laugh with the show, but the jokes are delivered in a way that non-geeks can still laugh at the punch line as well. Having a show that doesn't dumb down the humour, while still entertaining people like ourselves, would isolate nearly everyone else.

A good comparison would be between Frasier and TBBT. Frasier used very highbrow rebuttals delivered in a slapstick way. So even if you've never watched Opera, didn't drink wine and generally understood little about the interests of protagonists, you could still enjoy the slapstick jokes and silly situations that Frasier and Niles Crane would often create for themselves.

And this is why TBBT is such a great show - because it's nerdy _and_ my wife still enjoys it.

Furthermore TBBT has a lot of subtlety that only a geek or someone living with a geek would notice. Things such as background props (eg desktop computers with the side panels missing). That level of detail only comes from a crew of people wanting to pay homage to nerds rather than ridicule them.

So while TBBT does play to the stereotypes a lot and while there are undoubtedly some cringe worthy moments, do think it's a well rounded show if you look at it as a whole.

<comment><USER10> Subtlety.

To me, given how the show is written, that feels more like pandering. "Oh look, LEGO Millennium Falcon, this show _GETS_ _ME_"

<comment><USER9>
        > Subtlety.

Thanks for the correction. Post edited :)

        > To me, given how the show is written, that feels more like pandering. "Oh look, LEGO Millennium Falcon, this show _GETS_ _ME_"

That would be the pessimistic view of things, but personally I can't see the issue with that. I'd sooner see facets like that celebrated on popular shows rather than hidden away on niche programmes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here is the most complete and eloquent explanation of Big Bang Theory hate that I have read:

[http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-p...](http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the- problem-with-the-big-bang-theory)

I recommend reading the whole thing. The snippet that pulled me in was the perfect comparison to Community:

"There's a saying which made its rounds in geekdom recently – "Real nerds watch Community". Now I take issue with the idea of "real nerds" but the sentiment still stands. Whereas The Big Bang Theory sees nerd culture as an object of ridicule, Community celebrates it. Community's laughing with you whereas Big Bang is giving you a wedgie and laughing at you. When TBBT makes a pop culture reference it uses it as a punchline, it names a show like Firefly and asks you to laugh at it. When Community makes a pop culture reference it commits. Community makes a whole episode based on a trope or a genre, it doesn't just use paintball as a plot device it takes paintball seriously and bases two season finales around epic battles of paint. Community doesn't laugh at the idea of playing D&D it bases an episode on it. Parallels can be drawn between the characters of Sheldon in Big Bang and Abed in Community. Abed too has trouble reading sarcasm and emotion, he has obsessions with routine and structure as well and disruptions in routine cause him considerable distress. Abed sees everything in terms of television and film tropes. This is how he understands the world around him and how he figures out how best to react. Unlike Sheldon, it is often confirmed that Abed does have mental difficulties, most likely Asperger's Syndrome. But, crucially, the main difference between Sheldon and Abed is that Abed is treated as a hero. In the pilot episode Jeff Winger, arguably the most conventionally "cool" member of the group says this: "Abed is a shaman. You ask for bread and Abed gives you soup because soup is better. Abed is better". In one episode Abed is literally treated as a god. Yes, his neuroses do at times inconvenience the rest of the group but his belief that they see him as a nuisance is dismissed as his own insecurity rather than the truth. Community positions us, its audience, as Abed. It knows that we are knowledgeable about the things we love, it knows that we understand tropes and genre conventions, it gives us the benefit of the doubt and treats us as intelligent human beings who will not only understand the meta pop culture references, but will find them funny and love the show for it. Community tells us it's cool to be a nerd. If Abed is better then we are better. Community is a warm hug of acceptance whereas The Big Bang Theory is a pantsing and a punch in the face."

<comment><USER2> So nerds only like shows that cater to their superiority complex and idolize every aspect of their existence?

That sure sounds a lot like the superficial, narcissistic plebeians from whom nerds constantly strive to differentiate themselves. Not to worry, though, I'm sure they're all smart enough to detect the overwhelming irony.

<comment><USER12> TBBT makes fun of being a nerd (or a geek) at the expense of nerds and geeks. The audience is never the nerd or geek themself; it's everyone else. TBBT does not intend for you to emphathise with the nerds, they are there for your enjoyment. Essentially, TBBT makes nerds into the new samba blacks.

There is nothing smart about the jokes; the punchline (and frequently, the entire joke) is usually [something vaguely nerdy sounding that most people don't know]. Basically, TBBT just randomly says "quantom superstring theory" and you are expected to laugh at it because the phrase sounds ridiculous; there usually isn't any more context to it than the utterance of the nerdy- sounding thing.

In contrast, Community takes the concept and builds into something substantial. They'll take "quantum superstring theory" and, for example, turn it into an episode where the vibrations of silly string perfectly predict events going on elsewhere on campus.

<comment><USER13> BBT has a UCLA processor on staff as a fact-checker who fills in the realistic science parts: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Saltzberg> \-- when interviewed he said his fellow scientists were at first wary of the show but then wildly enthusiastic after actually seeing the first season.

Mayiam Bialik (a minor but recurring character) holds a PhD in neuroscience (taken after playing Blossom so many years ago) and there's been quite a show of renowned scientists as guest stars (at last two Nobel prize recipients, Hawkings and George Smoot). I think they'd disagree with with your dismissal of the scientists portrayed as "new samba blacks".

On the 5-season Bluray set they show how the show is taped -- I think it took 4 hours to get the 25ish minutes done, all in front of a live studio audience, and an incredibly engaged one. In the breaks the interview some of the audience -- one was a female rocket scientist from Texas.

I personally found "Community" rather dull, and far less engaging than other in the new wave of non-laughtrack comedies/mockumentaries a la CYE, Modern Family, Veep, Parks & Recreation and Arrested Development.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's quickly mentioned in the article, but the laugh track in the show is what makes me HATE "The Big Bang Theory". It drives me crazy, it ruins ever joke for me, and it also makes it very hard for me to follow the plot of the episode when there is a " _laugh pause_ " after every 1-5 words in the dialog.

I find much more humor in a show that has hilarious jokes/PUN's and doesn't need to stress them so much. For example, Arrested Development, is one of the best comedies ever done (in my opinion) because the complexity in their jokes and there is no need to stress the idea of _when to laugh_.

If "The Big Bang Theory" goes by the idea that the laughing from the live audience helps them determine what to cut parts of the episode, they should just film it without the live audience then air it to a screening crowd separately to decide what to cut and keep. Why dilute the show for other viewers not watching it live with that extreme annoyance of constant laughter? I just don't get it.

<comment><USER15> Laugh track removed:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKS3MGriZcs>

It goes from annoying to awkward.

<comment><USER8> Of course it's awkward. The timing is still left in their for the laughs to happen but replaced with silence. It's like blanking all the comments out of source code and then complaining that it uses whitespace awkwardly.

<comment><USER16> Jokes on you, my code still looks exactly the same!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't get the hate either, even if it _is_ true that they are "laughing _at_ us". I can laugh at myself for being weird.

According to my friends, Sheldon's tireless and obnoxious pedantery is a perfect caricature of me. When he drops some furniture he is carrying to debate the point that pulling it up the stairs would reduce the required vertical force by _exactly_ fifty percent and not _about_ fifty percent, he is doing something weird and nerdy that I could also see myself doing. It is still funny.

<comment><USER8> _even if it is true that they are "laughing at us"._

For lots of geeks that brings back really painful memories. I can easily see myself, at another point in my life, hating TBBT.

People always tell me that I'm like that kid on "Real Genius" and don't I love that movie? Well, no, I don't, I hate it, and the end of OP's essay goes into it: because it doesn't show the pain of being the geek, and it shows that it's easy for the geek to get the girl without moving out of his safety zone.

I enjoy TBBT, but I'm sure some of that comes from the fact that I watch it with my geek wife. If I was 15 years younger I might think it's just another boulder that society has nonchalantly placed on my shoulders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I stayed away from it for years because of the "controversy". Recently my wife got the first season, and now we've been mainlining it; we're almost up to the current season.

First, while I don't know a Sheldon, I have known someone who trended in that direction. It is not a shock to me that someone like that could exist.

Second, for all that you may complain about the geeks having "limited romantic prospects", they've all "gotten some", and by the fifth season three out of four are in relationships and one is engaged. Actions speak louder than words.

Third, accusations of stereotyping geeks are more limited when there are four main geek characters and several other ancillary ones, spanning all sorts of spectrums. The characters are Hollywood'ed up, but given that, reasonably realistic.

Penny started the series as a flat-out dufus, which concerned me. She got upgraded to an average person after about 10 episodes, who may not be able to keep up with the math (who can, after all?), but is no longer actively _stupid_. A bit o' bad judgment perhaps, but who doesn't have that?

I do wish the laugh track would go away.

And finally, at the risk of being a pedant, I can add to one more bit of _shocking, shocking!_ inaccuracy in the show... but, bizarrely, it has nothing to do with science or geekdom. _They play Jenga wrong!_ Consistently! The rules of Jenga are that you must complete all three pieces of the top row before you start the next one. You can not put a piece on each side, then start building across the gap! Argh! Of all the places to screw up... (I have not yet seen all Jenga episodes; my wife reports there's one where they play a very large version in the season I have not seen yet. But all two or three times I've seen it to date they've played it this way! NERD RAGE!)

I recommend going into it with an open mind, and bearing in mind that in first few episodes, as is always the case, the characters are still coming into focus.

</comment><comment><USER19> I hate the big bang theory, and for the longest time I've tried to put my finger on what it is I don't like about it. I think it comes from a mixture of two things.

The writing making the characters repeatedly try and display how smart they are (which I'm aware is integral to the show) but to me makes them totally and desperately unlikable. That, coupled with the general tension building component of most sit-coms where all too frequently characters do what is _clearly_ a bad idea, followed by some form of "make it better" set of actions.

I know that if they [the characters] made a mistake and just repaired it in a very mundane way this would not be good television, but I find it incredibly jarring that these unlikable characters have one thing going for them, their intelligence, yet seemingly couldn't find their way out of a paper bag.

(EDIT: This reflects the relatively few episodes I've seen, but every time I see one I feel exactly the same)

(EDIT2: Perfect example from a comment below,

"When he [Sheldon] drops some furniture he is carrying to debate the point that pulling it up the stairs would reduce the required vertical force by exactly fifty percent and not about fifty percent, he is doing something weird and nerdy..."

Debating yes, absolutely, but scientific debate by itself isn't funny to the general population (Deestan would enjoy it, I might enjoy it, but Joe Bloggs on the street probably wouldn't care) so he _drops it_. That's not smart. If the show was consistent he'd then point out that the loss of energy from dropping it far outweighs the benefit of moving it around, or he'd break his toe.

It's this orthogonal slapstick which seems _totally_ incongruous with Sheldon's typical behavior which annoys me.

<comment><USER20> I think you miss the point of the jokes. In all honesty... there is a large component of "nerd behavior" which is captured well in it. There is a tendency amongst us, which I have as much as anyone else, to ignore the practical, common sense aspects of every day life, in the favor of theoretically perfect. The joke isn't about being logically or internally consistent, the joke isn't about slapstick schadenfreude, the joke _is_ that in worrying about the energy optimization he forgets or fails to just accomplish the actual task, and undoes any possible gains (it doesn't need to be stated, because _everyone_ gets it).

And it isn't unrealistic - I've watched teams get into debates over how to perfectly optimize some corner of code, and ignore the fact that it doesn't matter for the use case, because that bit is rarely run or happens fast enough that it isn't a bottleneck anyway. At my makerspace I've seen people go down crazy design rabbit holes and come up with overly-complex designs to do a task when there is a simple practical solution that they are over-looking (e.g lets figure out how to 3d print this internal piece to snap in and stay fixed permanently, and spend hours on it, instead of just using the super-glue we need for other parts anyway to hold it in place).

It is fun to go down these rabbit holes sometimes. It is also annoying and humorous when we do it and waste a bunch of effort on it, and there is a simple, common sense solution staring us in the face.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is a kind of typical dialogue from an episode:

        Sheldon: Leonard, where do you stand on the anthropic principle?
        Leonard: Interesting question. On the one hand, I always thought…
        Sheldon: You don't even know what it is, do you? The anthropic principle     states that if we wish to explain why our universe exists the way it does, the     answer is that it must have qualities that allow intelligent creatures to arise     who are capable of asking the question. As I am doing so eloquently right now.
        Leonard: I know what the anthropic principle is.
        Sheldon: Of course. I just explained it to you. Now, where do you stand on     it?
        Leonard: Where do you stand on it?
        Sheldon: Strongly pro.
        Leonard: Then I believe that God created the world in six days, and on the     seventh he made you to annoy me.
        Raj: Hey, guys.
        Leonard: Hey.
        Sheldon: Yeah, wait, Raj, where do you stand on the anthropic principle?
        Raj: I'm all for it.
        Sheldon: Attaboy!
        Leonard: Well, hang on. Why do you believe that he knows what it is and I don't?
        Sheldon: Oh, Leonard. Let's not take a saw to the branch we're sitting on, shall we?

Why is Sheldon such a douchebag? He is socially incompetent but does he have to be an asshole too? Why doesn't Leonard or anyone else ever want to discuss science with Sheldon when it's supposed to be their biggest interest? It's like they are ashamed of being smart people.

<comment><USER22> It's never confirmed that Sheldon is the smartest of them. You only have his words for that. He's always working on sth big, but never delivers. And there are dozens of other smart people and geeks in the show, most of them likeable. I don't have a problem with show full of geeks, in which one of them is asshole. Seems fair.

<comment><USER18> I do think that's actually a hole in the show. One can infer socially that Sheldon really must be all that or he'd be long-since fired, but it would be helpful to be a bit more direct in occasionally showing it.

I've also noticed that for all they dump on Howard, he's the only one in the show who they show accomplishing things (plural!); I have not yet figured out if this is dramatic oversight or something they are doing on purpose. I'm assuming accident; neutering your main characters like that isn't a good narrative move, unless they're being _really_ meta (which I doubt in this case).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The author read this:

 _"My friend who works at a school for autistic children believed he had Asperger's Syndrome [...] She told me that [Sheldon] was a totally accurate portrayal of someone on the autistic spectrum and had many characteristics of someone with Asperger's – specifically the inability to recognise sarcasm or understand human emotion as well as the obsession with "his spot" and his distress when routine is changed."_

And then wrote this:

 _"If you think Sheldon is autistic, then you have never met an autistic person. We had an autistic kid who hung out at our shop on Saturdays. It was tough. He would bring boxes of toys in with him to pile up on one of the tables. The slightest thing could set him off into a screaming rage fit. [...] When you argue that Sheldon is a "totally accurate portrayal of someone on the autistic spectrum," then you have broadened the definition of autism to the point where you have rendered the word meaningless."_

The author obviously has no grasp on the Autistic spectrum [1], didn't take five seconds to Google 'Asperger syndrome' or 'high-functioning autism', but that doesn't stop him from ignoring an expert's opinion. Lazy and arrogant, but it gets worse:

 _"[Claiming Sheldon is a totally accurate portrayal of someone on the autistic spectrum] seriously offends me. It offends me on behalf of the mothers and fathers who are living with autistic children who are now adults and still require constant supervision, are still in diapers, or still have violent humiliating outbursts in public. Go listen to this account of the daily trials of two parents living with an autistic child, and you'll understand how ignorant and disrespectful it is to compare the quirky physicist on a sitcom to someone with a seriously debilitating mental illness that consumes the lives of those caring for them."_

The author is basically saying that there is no such thing as high-functioning autism and that those who pretend it exists are offending sufferers of 'real' autism and the ones with the misfortune of having to deal with them.

Talk about offensive.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum_disorders>

</comment><comment><USER24> > When you argue that Sheldon is a "totally accurate portrayal of someone on > the autistic spectrum," then you have broadened the definition of autism to > the point where you have rendered the word meaningless.

How so? It's called the "autism _spectrum_", after all, so it's natural that there are varying levels of severity among those affected. Sheldon having high-functioning autism doesn't somehow invalidate anyone else from having more severe autism.

> That seriously offends me. It offends me on behalf of the mothers and > fathers who are living with autistic children [...]

To me, this smells like a pre-emptive ad hominem against those with an opposing viewpoint. If you disagree with me, then you've offended me, you're disrespectful, you're ignorant. If you want to argue that Sheldon doesn't have autism, that's fine. But if you do, then keep in mind that part of your audience _does_ think he has autism. Why would you attack the people you're trying to convince?

<comment><USER8> I know someone with an Asperger's son she couldn't figure out, and she was told to watch Sheldon for a few episodes. She came back and said, "okay, I understand what's going on in my son's head a lot better now."

I'm sure that would make some people fly into a rage, but the depiction helped her figure things out from his perspective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> > So it comes as a shock to me that there is a lot of hate for BBT in geek > culture.

I didn't realize this was a thing.

Just because you can google for "Big Bang Theory Sucks" doesn't demonstrate that there is lots of hate for BBT "in geek culture".

I can also google for "Puppies Suck". Okay, you only get two results of relevance. But still.

There are haters for every TV show in the universe. Haters are always louder than those who love the show. And easily googled. This doesn't mean they're numerous.

<comment><USER26> It's not a "thing"; one of the most cogent (and informative, and insightful) criticisms of BBT is given barely any notice as a link entitled "Sheldon is autistic", which just goes to show that the author probably didn't read it all (there is _so_ much more than autism issues in that article; it's at [http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-p...](http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the- problem-with-the-big-bang-theory)).

The question is not "should I hate this because everyone else does?" but "is BBT really a champion of geek culture, or is it pandering to the anti- intellectuals like every other show out there?" Read the article I linked and decide for yourself.

<comment><USER27> As an aside, it find it really hard to read black text on a "brown paper bag" background.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Like most entertainment, BBT is a parody, exaggeration, and simplification of real life. I find a lot more relevant humor in it than in any other sit-com I've watched -- to the point where I could anticipate the joke because I had had the exact conversation with my friends.

In the episode where the female characters go to the comic store (described in the OP), they then have an episode long argument on exactly who can move Thor's hammer, which I'm sure rang true to any comic reader.

</comment><comment><USER29> >> If you think Sheldon is autistic, then you have never met an autistic person.

>> When you argue that Sheldon is a "totally accurate portrayal of someone on the autistic spectrum," then you have broadened the definition of autism to the point where you have rendered the word meaningless.

No true Scotsman much? The arrogance to accuse people of mis-labeling while seeming to have such ignorance of the realities of the autistic spectrum left me slightly gobsmacked.

</comment><comment><USER30> Oh for the love of Pete. I love Sheldon. Heck my girlfriend has repeatedly told me she would leave me for Sheldon. This idea that everyone is making fun of nerds must be due to some kind of insecurity. As a geek, I quite enjoy the show.

</comment><comment><USER31> Still not as good as 'The IT Crowd' in the UK. "Did you know if you type 'Google' into Google you will crash the internet?!"

<comment><USER32> "Don't talk about memory or RAM, okay?"

"Ha! Memory _is_ RAM!"

That's comedy for geeks. Not some odd tangent about string theory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I can't enjoy BBT. Just because you put smart words in a characters mouth, it doesn't make a smart comedy.

<comment><USER34> I agree. The Big Bang Theory is comedy _about_ smart people, not comedy _for_ smart people.

<comment><USER35> I don't deny that, but if I comedy for smart people is thin upon the ground, I'll take comedy about smart people over reality television that's otherwise permeating the airwaves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I don't like TBBT for the same reasons I don't like shows such as Mad Men: _they say very little about their subject matter_. A friend of mine tried to explain Mad Men by reminding me, "that was the way it was back then." I really don't need to be reminded of that. I'm not nostalgic for all of the sexism, racism, and I'm not really fond of the advertising industry. In a similar manner friends who explain TBBT to me need to remind me, "that's how things are." Geeks are infantile, weird, and still fun to laugh at. Nothing has changed since elementary school then at least.

I might enjoy the show more if its mocking and condescending overtones were at least met by one self-aware character. At least then there would be the chance for satire. Instead it's just a laugh track of predictable tropes: geek says something geeky about math or science that is completely disproportionate to the current, mundane situation. Normal character rolls their eyes. Audience laughs. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Add a dose of the usual, "normal," sexism once in a while and laugh at how "geeks," shrivel like flowers when faced with the objectification of their, "desires." Ha, ha.

The show is hardly any different than any other sitcom on television.

</comment><comment><USER37> Although TBBT is supposedly about Caltech staff, a more, shall we say, accurate view of students at Caltech is the movie Real Genius. The depiction is only slightly exaggerated. Many of the incidents in the movie are based on things that actually happened in the 70's at Caltech.

The extras in the movie were frequently real Caltech students, recruited because the art director for the movie was unable to duplicate the look :-)

</comment><comment><USER38> This Portlandia Nerd PSA makes a similar point to the one that the Community is good/Big Bang is bad people are trying to make. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ir3v5yDk9Ws)

</comment><comment><USER39> Given that the average sitcom writer's conception of a nerdy character is more like "Screech" or Steve Urkel, the complex, neurotic, and really quite well- researched characters on _Big Bang Theory_ are like a bolt of awesome from the blue.

</comment><comment><USER40> I like BBT for the neuroses. They're dead on.

</comment><comment><USER41> I don't like the show, and I have a single "geek" friend who also does not. Everybody else seems to enjoy it. Not just my other friends, but people in general. People I meet IRL, people I see on Facebook, people I stumble across online. "A lot of hate for BBT in geek culture"? I don't think so.

</comment><comment><USER42> As a former undergrad at Caltech, I actually think BBT is pretty great. (I'm only about 1.5 seasons in though, so it's possible it drops in quality later). It's definitely more extreme than reality for comedic effect, but it does actually remind me of my college years.

</comment><comment><USER43> Just pointing out the full hierarchy of the nerd scale:

Dork -> Geek -> Nerd -> Hacker -> (Ritchie || Wozniac || Tesla)

It does in fact go deeper, but its a little more controversial:

Jock <\- Madden Gamer <\- Gamer <\- Dork -> Geek -> ...

</comment><comment><USER44> is it alright to dislike TBBT just because it's really unfunny and lazy comedy?

<comment><USER45> No, you'll get in trouble for that. But in all seriousness, I do agree with you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> It's probably a coincidence, but the title and subject of this article are the same as last week's Ihnatko Almanac episode:

<http://5by5.tv/ia/58></comment>


Is Web Crypto Really Doomed? I Bet $100 - <AUTHOR> http://sakurity.com/blog/2015/10/17/crypto-doomed.html <comment><USER2> TLS might as well be SIGINT enabled from the outset, just like many have assumed GSM was weakened from the outset to allow for interception. The key insight from the crypto stories we have been hearing is that the NSA is always one step ahead. Always. That is their business model and modus operandi. If you are looking to stay ahead of them, you need their budget, which is not going to happen unless you have State-like capital like Apple. And yet even Apple can not successfully encrypt without much fanfare and fuss</comment>


5th Generation Project in Japan ($400M and Prolog in the '80's) - <AUTHOR> http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/5thgen.htm <comment><AUTHOR> The choice of Prolog:

        The Japanese Fifth Generation project was a
        collaborative effort of the Japanese computer
        industry coordinated by the Japanese Government
        that intended not only to update the hardware
        technology of computers but alleviate the
        problems of programming by creating AI
        operating systems that would ferret out what
        the user wanted and then do it. The Project
        chose to use PROLOG as the computer language
        for the AI programming instead of the
        LISP-based programming of the American
        AI researchers.

... and eventual failure ...

        A bold 10-year effort by Japan to seize the
        lead in computer technology is fizzling to
        a close having failed to meet many of its
        ambitious goals or to produce technology
        that Japan's computer industry wanted.
        After spending $400 million on its widely
        heralded Fifth Generation computer project,
        the Japanese Government said this week that
        it was willing to give away the software
        developed by the project to anyone who
        wanted it, even foreigners.</comment>


Standing desks considered harmful - <AUTHOR> http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/08/27/standing-desks-considered-harmful/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheEndeavour+%28The+Endeavour%29

<comment><USER2> I have seen the results of this from two family members who worked in factories where they had to stand all day. Bothe ended up with terrible varicose veins, crazy lower leg cramps, feelings of heat and water running down their legs. Blood clots and then taking pain meds because they needed to be back at work the next day to stand again. Both of them got addicted to pain meds which over the years affected their kidneys and one has died of kidney failure.

i follow a simple rule of thumb, too much of anything is not good for you, no matter how healthy people say it is.</comment>


FYI: private Github Gists are not as private as you think - <AUTHOR>

I e-mailed Github concerned about my private Gists being completely insecure, aside from a unique ID that is hard to guess. They responded quickly (+1 Github), though with a response I was afraid of -- security is a tradeoff, essentially (not sure I completely agree, as basic auth isn't THAT hard to implement in an API, and if I wanted to share a Gist, I'd make it non-private).  So, FYI -- if you know the Gist ID, even if it's marked private, you can view it. <comment><USER2> This is the standard public/private mechanism for most all pastebin sites. Private gists are private by the virtue of the fact that the URL is more or less unguessable. It's not actually authentication-restricted.

For example, pastie does this. Here's a public paste:

<http://pastie.org/3537377>

And I can see the public paste made before mine by decrementing the URL:

<http://pastie.org/3537375>

But I can make a private paste:

<http://pastie.org/private/sd1fh4m2zesdn6nzkpcfa>

And the URL is a value that's likely some sort of ID + salt digest, and has enough entropy that I couldn't effectively guess any other private URL.

Pastebin sites (Gist included) are specifically for the purpose of sharing code with other people. It's not intended to be used as a private clipboard for you to save snippets for later reference, though that's certainly a valid use of it, as long as you're aware that they aren't actually authentication- restricted.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. Just because it's standard, doesn't necessarily make it perfect? I guess I'm just looking for a versioned script repository that's authenticated and has an easy API to roll credentials. Is it too much to ask!? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is fairly common practise - for example pastie/pastebin, Skitch, Facebook - all have 'private' URL options.

I _thought_ it was obvious, but that's only because I immediately understood the implications of a shareable URL. That's not going to be obvious to everyone, and GitHub really should change the "[lock icon] Create Private Gist" to something like "Create Hidden Gist".

"Hidden" implies it's there if you find it. "Private" implies a whole lot more.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hidden makes a whole lot more sense!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> On the one hand if you can argue that someone can guess the unique gist ID, you could also argue they can guess your Github session ID, in which case authentication is moot*

On the other hand, because the Gist ID is in the URL, it is more prone to leaking.

One example: I uploaded a PDF (classification: public) to a web server and sent the link to a few people. It was not published anywhere, not communicated outside our group, there were no external links to it, so it could not be spidered. Couple of days later Google had managed to index it, and it was getting downloads. How did Google know it existed? Maybe someone used GMail, maybe they had Google toolbar installed which submits URLs to Google for indexing, who knows? I noticed Github has blocked Google et al from indexing all the Gists with robots.txt, which helps.

Either way, probably best to be careful how you handle the "private" Gist URLs, or just don't use them for super secret information.

*yes session ID is longer, and should have a finite life span, so it may be harder, but the same kind of issue.

</comment><comment><USER5> I thought that was pretty obvious, since you can just share the URL with anyone, with out any sort of auth.

<comment><AUTHOR> So, ideally, if you "shared" an endpoint, and the Gist was marked "private", you'd get something standard like "unathenticated". Why else make it private?</comment></comment>


T-Mobile, please fix your gateways - <AUTHOR> http://en.blog.viclone.com/t-mobile-usa-fix-gateways/ <comment><USER2> The original poster in the linked-to T-Mobile customer forum should really have spelled out the problem and most important clearly reproducible test- cases.

Are people really expecting customer-support-representatives that normally deal with "my facebook doesn't post on my android-iphone" problems to decipher "It's such is routing of web cache that your DNS has.", "I've tried to use the phone as hotspot and connect via pc and iPad and didn't works."

(1) I think the problem was not unambiguously described.

I _think_ that the user "rbianco" tried to convey that ICMP/ping and TCP connections to ports other than 80 worked quite well, only on port 80 was a connection redirected to a misbehaving/broken (not-so-)transparent proxy.

(2) The methods used to determine these facts, and to reproduce the observed problems were not described (or rather: information spread over several messages).

Some other user gave hints how to reproduce the behaviour with different invokations of curl, this, and maybe even a prepared test-file on the webserver for the support-staff to play with, would have been most useful.

<comment><USER3> A lot of mobile providers have shitty transparent proxies on port 80 and ignore problems unless it affects a large customer base in a visible way. They often barf on any fuzzing of a protocol, such as using LF instead of CRLF in HTTP requests (which causes more than one provider to actually skip its authentication checks and allow any request)

<comment><USER4> Even when working as designed, they are often doing things like lossy recompression of your images. That's probably a helpful bandwidth saver for some people, but I'd prefer you just serve me the site I requested, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I recently gave Tmobile a try and they've made me regret it immensely. Every single customer-facing part of their web services (activation, account management, etc) is riddled with pants-on-fire bugs, and their phone support is terrible.

When I tried to activate my new account online, I got to a form for payment that was demanding I fill out fields that didn't exist on the page. This is insane from a major carrier. I then had to call in to activate, and after having me on hold for half an hour, they made me verify with one of those things where they want to know a nearby intersection from where you lived six years ago - which of course I couldn't answer. I hung up on that guy, called again, and they let me verify my card through my bank. And now that I had an account, I tried checking out their account management site, and it was so broken as to be nigh unusable. And then I found out like the OP that a noticeable amount of sites are broken or just plain unreachable on their network.

I now understand why they can offer such a great-sounding plan for $30/month.

<comment><USER6> I've actually had really good experiences with T-Mo support. They have different tiers of "support" but if you get past what is essentially the "weed-out" tier, they are _by far_ the nicest and most helpful telco support staff I've worked with.

I came from AT&T and can't compare T-Mo to much else. Do any of the telcos have what you would consider to be _fantastic_ support?

<comment><USER5> Entirely possible I've just been unlucky. I should have maybe tried escalating. Virgin Mobile's service was good to me and their website at least worked even if it was simple, and Verizion was pleasant if overly expensive.

But when Tmobile forces me to call, which I was trying to avoid, because their web engineering is so completely terrible, and then I have to wait on hold for half an hour, and then the cust service guy acts like I'm a criminal when I'm going through all this pain to give them money - a saner person would've given up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I had a similar issue with T-Mobile and bogon filtering of 18.104.22.168/8:

[http://www.wordsforreading.com/blog/2012/07/19/let-bogons- be...](http://www.wordsforreading.com/blog/2012/07/19/let-bogons-be-bygones-t- mobile-filters-address-range-used-by-hetzner/)

<comment><USER8> That's crazy. Why isn't this a 5 minute fix that should be deployed "yesterday" already?!

<comment><USER9> Because they probably have tons of endpoints on the 18.104.22.168/8 range. BT does the same in the UK for their router management interfaces, just no a slightly different range.

<comment><USER8> That makes sense in a way. Wow, sucks to be them to have built their whole infrastructure on stolen IP addresses.

I wonder how their businesses would cope if for example facebook relocated to the 5.x.x.x range legitimately.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Seems like t-mobile has problems with routing to that data center / network segment ?!

Doing a little research on some internal tooling, I found an IP close to www.viclone.com (18.104.22.168), namely gemclotures.com (188.8.131.52) that is also unreachable over t-mobile's 4g connection (tried it myself).

They're both hosted by OVH.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I am sure there quite a few IPs in that range probably belongs to OVH. I think the problem is on T-Mobile's end as some of the other people complaining about 504s were not hosted on OVH.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> For the life of me, I cannot get an automatic monthly payment set up with T-Mobile. But at $30/month I'll continue to live with it!

<comment><USER12> I have the $30/5GB plan, and couldn't get auto payment to work via the web site after several tries. Finally I resorted to calling 611. Whatever the customer service agent did to my account finally made it stick.

Most large companies simply have no way to escalate a real bug report.

<comment><USER13> Are they still offering this plan?

<comment><USER14> Yes: [http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/prepaid-plans](http://prepaid- phones.t-mobile.com/prepaid-plans)

Only 100 mins talk time though, so its not for everyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I hope everybody understand our deception. We were in front an investor showing our amazing solution and we found that anything from our servers was reachable. We couldn't make the demo, also We couldn't show the product in the pitch. We thought ours servers crash or something... Very bad experience. From that moment past almost 3 weeks and still it's not working.

We contacted OVH, we have the private cloud there, they checked everything with our team. They couldn't find anything. Then I asked to other T-Mobile users and saw that the problem only occurs under T-Mobile networks... We were very very clear in the post, but the few responses of solutions were like "did you read my problem?"

</comment><comment><USER16> I just went to viclone.com on my Nexus 5 via Tmobile LTE and it connected fine.... [https://www.dropbox.com/s/c5s5pw4ydohhr4g/Screenshot_2014-01...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/c5s5pw4ydohhr4g/Screenshot_2014-01-31-12-46-04.png)

<comment><USER17> It might be because Nexus 5 is configured to connect through their IPv6 routing. (Not that viclone.com seems to have AAAA record, but it's looking like all traffic are routed through T-mobile's 6to4 so it might make a difference, too.)

<comment><USER18> It's a NAT64. 6to4 is for tunneling IPv6 packets over an IPv4 network.

<comment><USER17> Thanks for the correction. Those do get mixed up in my mind...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple is succeeding in its anti-competitive legal efforts to kill HTC - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/mobile/2012/06/apple-is-trying-its-best-to-kill-htc-and-doing-a-pretty-good-job.php

<comment><USER2> Even though I've done it before, it's worth beating this drum again.

The patent that might kill HTC is for a ridiculously obvious "invention": Find "interesting" items in some text using a regular expression and present them to the user as clickable actions [1].

As a non-lawyer why am I confident my patent summary is accurate? Because that's what the Android code at issue here (Linkify) actually does (plus HTC included the processor, memory and other components to run this on, of course). Apple originally applied for it based on some behavior of the Power Macintosh help system.

Examples of potential prior art (though I'll admit they didn't include the processor and memory):

Live URLs in Netscape Navigator 2.0b1

Highlighting misspelled words in Microsoft Word 95 (if Word 95 included the context menu for misspellings, which I don't remember)

Potentially impacts:

\- Every modern web browser (note that one of the things HTC has lost on so far is the behavior of their default browsers)

\- Every modern email client (detecting clickable anything in email)

\- Every word processor that lets you click on misspelled words and choose how to handle it (I guess Google shouldn't have added system-wide spell-checking to ICS)

\- The search-result sub-items Google generates for some sites

\- ...

[1] Whether or not alternatives can be presented is an open item of controversy, I believe. IIRC, handlers for file extensions were common at the time the patent was filed, though, which gets back to obviousness.

</comment><comment><USER3> There has been so much said already about patents and lawyers killing innovation, but if this is not a perfect case in point then I don't know what is.

<comment><USER4> imperfect. It doesn't follow that HTC's troubles are due to Apple's IP lawsuits.

It could just be that Samsung is better at the game.

<comment><USER2> HTC is specifically citing the US customs delay related to Apple's current lawsuit as one of the reasons they are lowering their guidance for the current quarter. I'd say that's pretty good evidence. There are consequences for lying to investors about this sort of thing, after all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> misleading headline

</comment><comment><USER5> On-point. Upvote.

</comment><comment><USER6> Please be careful about throwing around the "anti-competitive" phrase. It has a specific meaning that does not apply here.

Apple has every right (and obligation) to defend patents that were legally acquired. You can argue that the patents are invalid but that is a different story.

<comment><USER2> Anti-competitive doesn't mean illegal. It is perfectly reasonable to describe gaming the system to block your competition as anti-competitive. After all, that kind of behavior is, quite literally, opposed to competition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Even if I agree, please don't editorialize the headlines.</comment>