Half-Earth - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/essays/half-of-the-earth-must-be-preserved-for-nature-conservation <comment><USER2> Another user has already (unapologetically) advanced population reduction arguments. I want to preempt that discussion by condemning it as lazy, selfish thinking. Controlling population as a solution to economic, environmental or similar issues of resource contention is a morally hazardous slippery slope; it should not be welcome in the realm of innovation and ingenuity specifically because it is not innovative or constructive at all. Design solutions around population growth or exit the conversation.

Each of us can look towards the sky and see the sprawling space and resources available. We have companies today organized under the premise to go out and mine asteroids, explore other planetary bodies and much more. Yet, some continue talking as if the Earth were more valuable than the only thing (humans) that can ascribe it value. Gaia worship and similar propaganda should be exposed for the anti-human agenda it is. I sincerely despise this line of thinking.

Whether we like it or not, humanity is the steward of this Earth. Being good stewards of our resources SHOULD NOT first appeal to last-ditch efforts like controlling the population. We all have imaginations; along with the ability to create solutions to problems. Stop perpetuating the idea that future generations are evil, bad, doomed or unwanted; they are very welcome and wanted. Now, and always. Our parents did not put our generation to slaughter for selfish reasons, so we have no justification for it either.

Instead of proposing anti-humanist goals of little thought or substance, set your mind to work and stop being intellectually lazy. We already have hints from various nations who have tried to control populations, with evidence of detrimental and unintended side-effects. I am by no means saying there are simple fixes. But immediately jumping to population control is pure lazy thinking.

<comment><USER3> _Each of us can look towards the sky and see the sprawling space and resources available._

Except there isn't a sprawling amount of resources for an exponentially growing population. Let's say we reach the resource limit of Earth and start reaching for the stars to find new places to live. If we can colonize one Earth-like planet around every single star of the 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, we would run out of places to live after 2685 years if the human population kept growing at a rate of 1 % per year. That isn't even enough time to reach all places in the Milky Way even if we could travel at the speed of light. Actually you could barely cross 2 % of the diameter of the Milky Way in that time. Exponential growth is unsustainable. Period.

<comment><USER4> _...an exponentially growing population._

Which population is that? Certainly not humans.

<comment><USER3> Of course humans [1][2]. With a few exceptions the population increased by some factor every year for thousands of years. The factor was admittedly small for long times, 0.1 % per year since 1000 BCE and even smaller before, but the factor increased over time and surpassed 1 % per year in the early 20th century. So depending on the reference point the population growth can even be considered superexponential. And while a growth factor of 0.1 % per years seems pretty small at first, it only increases the doubling time by a factor of 10 from 70 years to 700 years.

[1] [http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/17465/yearly- popu...](http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/17465/yearly-population- growth-rate-throughout-history)

[2] [http://faculty.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/210a/readings...](http://faculty.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/210a/readings/kremer1993.pdf)

<comment><USER4> The UN chart at the first Google result [0] seems to indicate a negative second derivative. This would imply that human population, like all other populations of all other organisms, exhibits logistic, not exponential, growth. Of course, portions of logistic charts can appear exponential.

[0] [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140918-popul...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140918-population- global-united-nations-2100-boom-africa/)

<comment><USER3> The population growth rate peaked in 1962 at 2.2 % per year and is now back to 1.1 % per year. There is no way for a population to grow exponentially for a long time, the growth will hit some resource constraint sooner or later and then the growth stops. Therefore also the human population can not and will not grow exponentially forever. But the important point is that you don't want to get stopped by hitting a resource constraint, that is always going to be an unpleasant experience. And the slowdown of the growth of the human population is not due to hitting a resource constraint as it happens in animal populations, it is because of a conscious decision to have less children and having the means to do that. And that's a good thing.

<comment><USER4> Sure, the demographic transition is a benefit to humanity, and we've seen enough of it to know that while the timing might vary it will eventually happen everywhere, and certainly by the end of this century. Since we agree, I guess I don't know why the supposedly-but-actually-not exponential nature of human population growth was ever mentioned in the first place.

<comment><USER3> My first comment was meant as an argument that technological advances can not be a substitute for preventing an unchecked population growth, but the comment did a bad job expressing this. A bit down the thread is another comment making things a bit more clear. I also think it is not a clear-cut issue, in some sense we are actively doing population growth control when we promote birth control. The motivation may primarily come from other reasons like avoiding sexually transmitted diseases and not necessarily to avoid overpopulation, but at least in some regions population growth control is part of the motivation.

And, because you mentioned the end of the century, there is still »The Limits to Growth« and it predictions. I am actually not sure on which side I am here. I can't really imagine a collapse of society as we know it in the second half of the century but I am also aware of the sudden and unexpected behavior of complex systems and how hard it is to counteract a system with a lot of inertia. But if the predications come true, population control may become an issue sooner than we like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To me, this reads like a fairly transparent play to expand the Overton window[1]. There is an almost total lack of evidence for the merits of his argument, just bald assertion and a lot of buzzword-rich waffle.

Half the earth is both outrageously huge and within the realms of possibility. If we debate the merits of it, then we're more likely to entertain more modest proposals.

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

</comment><comment><USER6> They already are allocated that way, just not in a nice, organized manner. Humans take up much less space on planet earth than you'd initially expect.

<comment><USER7> If you only count individual human beings you are severely undercounting

In addition to agriculture & food production, transportation (road+rail), strip/open pit mines, and you have just take a look at

[https://karolinanwk.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/garbagepatch...](https://karolinanwk.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/garbagepatch.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> What's needed to realize Wilson's vision is an institution that glues allocated land together and networks with other land trusts towards the half- earth goal. The land wouldn't always need to be contiguous, though connecting corridors would be a priority. There's various living park models that could form an unbrella and provide limited use for tourism and other non-invasive uses. You'd want to engage in land swaps and raise money from wealthy donors to support the foundation. I can imagine there'd be support from the valley and others in the form of technical support and gifting towards a goal like this. If anyone's interested in discussing starting this as a YC nonprofit, I setup a slack channel at halfearth.slack.com . Just email me at firstname.lastname@example.com for an invite.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is completely speculation. We should rather leave the conservation of Biosphere to Science and Technology. I refuse to believe that Humans are going to continue making such a waste of resources in near and far sighted future. These theories always reek of nihilism to me.

</comment><comment><USER10> Up until 10,000 years ago there were no more than 5 million humans on the entire planet. If we could go back to that maybe we can live another 10,000 years. But the cretins keep cloning and feeding. More humans destroy the value of humans to other humans. Just go to India, or hell go to America, see how little people value each other. The reason is too many people. They shit over everything, eat all the food meant for animals, and their desires destroy all nature and convert it to acreages, houses, and cities. The number of humans is too damn high, vote for the human population reduction party.

<comment><USER11> The biggest problem is not how many but how we are living.

From our mostly meat diet to our inefficient mostly individual transportation systems to our consumerist society that produces tones of useless garbage all of these with very high carbon footprint, pollution and big environment impact.

And all of this just to satisfy some old human habits that are no longer possible at this scale without irreversible damage to the ecosystem.</comment></comment>


Ernesto Posse: Computer science: neither a science nor about computers - <AUTHOR> http://ernestoposse.blogspot.com/2012/06/computer-science-neither-science-nor.html <comment><USER2> I suspect that the author of this post simply paraphrased Hal Abelson's introductory lecture to MIT's "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" class.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYKRVNQ_MqE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYKRVNQ_MqE)</comment>


10 Laws of Building a Saas Company - 51 minute webcast - <AUTHOR> https://admin.acrobat.com/_a13852757/buildingasuccessfulsaasco/ <comment><USER2> Summary if you don't have 50mins to spare is available at their website:

<http://www.bvp.com/saas/default.aspx>

Addition information on some of the laws that you don't get from the website:

1\. They say there is a white paper on CMRR, but I couldn't find it. The presenter has a summary on his blog though: [http://cracking-the- code.blogspot.com/2007/07/saas-business-...](http://cracking-the- code.blogspot.com/2007/07/saas-business-metrics-why-do-they-need.html)

4\. Separate Hunters from Farmers - Rule of thumb, every one additional $ of CMRR is a $ of bonus.

5\. Focus your Business Development on Business Service channels, not IT ones. You need to partner with ADP, E&Y - not IBM, Oracle, etc. As this is a new set of partners, it is not easy to ramp up.

6\. Part of what being good at online marketing means is automation, integration, using technology to make this work well.

8\. Rule of thumb: Need more than $2Mill of CMRR before 2nd datacenter.... How this works High-Availability wise I'm not sure. Apparently SalesForce.com was single datacentre until post-IPO.

9\. SaaS isn't software, it's a Service. So you need to Monitor, Gather Feedback and Benchmark your Service as a Service.

10\. "Be prepared to cross the desert". SaaS requires R&D and sales expense up front. You need enough invesment to fund 4+ years of runway. SaaS companies have historically raised average $30-65mill before IPO. That said, capital costs are coming down, but it's still a big number.

</comment><comment><USER3> I waited 30 seconds, and the Camtasia thingie was at "2% loaded." Thus demonstrating rule number one about SAAS - users have an itchy back button.

<comment><USER2> It also breaks another law and resizes your browser window.</comment></comment>


How to dual-boot Windows Mobile and Android on your phone - <AUTHOR> http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=623792

<comment><USER2> Why on earth..</comment>


Web Hosting for App Developers - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/2014/03/27/web-hosting-for-app-developers

<comment><USER2> > AWS, Azure, Heroku, App Engine, Parse, and similar services aren't free, > easy, or automatic.

I don't know why he lumps in AWS with Heroku. At least when I read AWS, I think of EC2, which is very similar to Linode or Digital Ocean (which he is complimentary of). I suppose there's also Elastic Beanstalk, which is more similar to Heroku, but I doubt that's what most people think of when they read 'AWS'.

> Ideally, your servers should be disposable and easily recreated. The only > backups you should need are your source code (which should include any > required server-setup scripts) and your database's data.

Ugh, _please_ don't mix server-specific setup scripts in with your app source code. Now when you want to switch from CentOS to Ubuntu, you're hosed. The server environment should be able to host your app without any modifications to the app itself, and the code that makes this environment ready to host an app should be separate from the app code, so that you can drop it into a different kind of environment at any time. This is one of the main ideas behind [http://12factor.net](http://12factor.net).

<comment><USER3> He's not really saying it should be mixed with your app's source code (He's talking more about mobile apps with a server backend rather than web apps). More that it should be hosted in source control alongside your application code.

Want to switch your server to a different platform? Add a new setup script for that platform to your 'setup' folder in source control.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I know way too many developers whose understanding of server infrastructure only extends as far as the API for S3. Marco's advice is dead-on: learn the nuts and bolts rather than becoming reliant on a leaky abstraction. You can always specialize to a specific cloud host after you understand the basics... much harder to go the other way if you've made your app reliant on Amazon or Rackspace-specific services.</comment>


How 'Authentic Relating' Made Vulnerability a Movement (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/11/the-club-where-you-bare-your-soul-to-strangers/545786/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> Made me think of some of my own experiences with 12-step meetings. I have seen that it's possible to share vulnerably, and to do it with dignity and grace. I've also seen first-hand what acceptance and honest sharing can do for a person's sense of self-worth. It's too bad this kind of interaction with others is so hard to find. I don't know that I would have ever found it, if I felt I had another choice.

<comment><USER3> I find most people will be vulnerable if you start the conversation that way by exposing your own vulnerability.

The book Conscious Loving touches on "telling the microscopic truth" which provides a lot of tactics for telling messy, complicated feelings. It's a wonderful read and will improve your relationships.

<comment><USER4> Exposing vulnerabilities is also how con artists and cults build rubes' trust.

<comment><USER5> That doesn't seem to disprove the thesis.

<comment><USER6> That is true, however I think the point GP is making is that the failure mode is too catastrophic to actually entertain it as a possibility (I'm not saying I agree)

<comment><USER5> I guess I find "never seek closeness with anyone at all because they may attempt to cheat you" a worldview too depressing to really adapt for myself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Many years ago I used to listen to Lino Rulli on the Catholic Channel (XM radio). I considered myself a christian at the time, but not catholic. Nevertheless, his show was hilarious and I tried to listen as often as possible.

They had this segment called 'minor confessions' where people would confess things that were pretty inconsequential, but still honest.

Around that time I was on a road trip with some friends and I thought it'd be fun to play the game. I figured it'd be goofy and kill a few minutes while we waited for a 'Q'. It didn't take long before the game turned into one of the most genuine and honest experiences of our relationship together. It was surprising how quickly we skipped past the minor and got into some pretty heavy stuff.

Years later I found myself in a booth at a pub with a bunch of dudes from church essentially having a doubt-group. A friend started out with questioning the divinity of Jesus -- and it carried from there.

Only a few years ago I was in a depression group therapy program provided by my local hospital --- and the same raw honestly and openness prevailed.

For me it was clear that early on I wanted this openness and honesty in my everyday life and not just a few times every few years and I've made a concerted effort to make it so. At first it was tough to overcome the fear or fear of shame, but once I got into the habit of it, I discovered that people value vulnerability and will often mirror this in the relationship.

There is also a line between being honest about struggles and stuff and being a whiner or a chronic complainer. I think it all boils down to your intention --- are you being open and honest for the attention or purely for the sake of something free and beautiful.

I truly hope that 'Authentic relating' catches on... but maybe without a formal title or 'movement.'

</comment><comment><USER8> I'd love to see more of these kinds of interactions between people with differences.

Can you imagine what would happen if people of different races or cultures did this? Or if a mix of Republicans and Democrats did this? I guess it might be harder to find common experiences, but there would still be some.

<comment><USER9> I've found one of the most common things to be "I was really down and depressed and was crashing on couches and didn't have a place to live, and I was helped by ______" \- for some people it was like, some christian charity or group, and others its like some social worker who took the time to help me out. That ends up being the difference between what side one is on later in political terms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have been with quite a few relating groups spanning a few countries. The author's experience reflects what most newcomers feel.

However, I find the demographic very surprising. The relating groups I frequent had more women than men, and very few people under 30.

</comment><comment><USER11> Throughout much of human history, extended family, shared locality(ie village), and/or religion used to provide people with a sense of community. With the breakdown of all three in the Western world, it is not surprising that commmunity and the intimacy that goes along with are are now being monetized.

<comment><USER12> Human weaknesses have been monetized, exploited and preyed upon by other humans through all the known history. Yearning for the community/intimacy is a weakness that religion for example has been exploiting all that time, and now others is getting a piece of that pie.

<comment><USER6> "Yearning for the community/intimacy is a weakness"

Do you seriously believe all human needs are just weakness? What will someone's life be like if all that 'weakness' was removed? To my mind, it'd be incredibly dull.

<comment><USER12> Not all needs, and even the same need can be either strength or weakness. For example - just being afraid of "dull" is kind of weakness where is curiosity and drive for exploration is more like a strength. The same for the community - needing it in order just to not feel lonely (basically to satisfy your own need) looks to be a weakness where is wanting/building community/team to achieve some goal looks more like a strength to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Those 'games' are Meisner technique acting exercises

</comment><comment><USER14> I think there is tremendous potential in baking in these sorts of games into some kind of chat application.

The creators of Chatroulette originally wanted an app that could connect people around the world, it just turned out become a platform for people exposing themselves over webcam. If you could avoid that, and build a platform that nudges people into building these intimate conversations across the world, you might bring huge value to a world where people are increasingly lonely.

<comment><USER15> Omegle used to do something like this. The random stranger chats often started with prompts (but I don't remember what they were).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This comes from religious perspective, and one probably not widely shared (idk), so I expect this to be taken with a grain of salt: (hopefully, it is still comforting)

God's purpose is not to make us comfortable or to make life easy. It is to make us better, and happier. As part of that setup and goal, there are a couple of ways we can experience hard times. It can be from our own actions, and even the actions of others. Other times, it can be because we are doing things right, and are ready to grow and push our limits.

My point is this: experiencing a hard time doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong - it can come just as easily to someone doing everything right as to someone doing everything wrong. And in both cases, it can feel much the same

Bonus Analogy:

When searching for the absolute maxima in a 3d plane, you can be at low point for one of two reasons - either you're not doing it right and aren't actually heading uphill, or you reached a local maxima, and need to go lower in order to reach higher heights.

Corollary: We don't get to judge others for their hard times :)

<comment><USER17> > God's purpose is not to make us comfortable or to make life easy. It is to > make us better, and happier.

I'm not religious and I don't think life has a purpose, but this sounds like a contradiction. How can life be good if it's not comfortable and easy ? You're basically saying she's making life better by making it worse. That makes no sense.

> My point is this: experiencing a hard time doesn't mean you are doing > anything wrong - it can come just as easily to someone doing everything > right as to someone doing everything wrong

Of course it doesn't, but that doesn't mean there is some higher power guiding it. Life is just random, bad stuff happens for no reason, so does good stuff.

<comment><USER18> > How can life be good if it's not comfortable and easy ?

Really? As soon as you encounter discomfort or difficulty, life's no longer good? That philosophy will be wearying over the years.

<comment><USER17> > As soon as you encounter discomfort or difficulty, life's no longer good?

Yes. I'm also of the opinion that the good doesn't compensate for the bad. Life is suffering, and being born is the worst thing that can happen to a person (I'm an anti-natalist and supporter of the voluntary human extinction movement).

<comment><USER19> You and I have very different views I think.

I'm amazed, humbled, and grateful to be alive (not to any sentience, mind you, just grateful). To be the universe experiencing itself.

Life includes suffering, yes, but also the opportunity to ease the suffering of self and others.

I interpret your point of antinatalism that you see humanity as the fluke of the probability. Personally, I think we give ourselves meaning, and I can think of no better long-term mission for existence than beating heat death of the universe, even if it's simply to give a middle-finger to the universe for the suffering people endure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It is not 100% sure that a Vulnerability movement is authentic. There are always lies within a movement.

</comment><comment><USER21> This is depressing for a reason I can't really articulate. There are this many people with unresolved issues, or a lack of connections, or is it an outgrowth of the self-centered oversharing movement?

I wonder if most of these people have kids or not, or plan on it.

<comment><USER16> It's probably a mix of all of it, but there are more people struggling than it first appears. Relevant quote from a prominent leader in a church I attend:

 _When I was a young man, I served as counselor to a wise district president in the Church. He tried to teach me. One of the things I remember wondering about was this advice he gave: "When you meet someone, treat them as if they were in serious trouble, and you will be right more than half the time."

I thought then that he was pessimistic. Now, more than 40 years later, I can see how well he understood the world and life._

<comment><USER22> Thanks for passing this on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It seems like anti-EST

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

<comment><USER24> That's an interesting observation.

While EST has the reputation of having been abusive, its descendant The Landmark Forum is not. A lot of The Forum consists of people opening up about their lives, their fears and emotions, events that have shaped them, and their inner life.

Of course the attendees are a self-selecting group, but my #1 take-away from The Forum was the discovery that everyone else in the room was insecure, too. The stories they shared were fascinating and worth the price of admission.

<comment><USER25> In my experience, "authentic relating" was a major part of est, and has remained a major part of Landmark Education. All of their programs involve verbal sharing, one-to-one and full-group. Also nonverbal sharing that they call "being with".

Also, I'm sure that many found est programs abusive. It was certainly much harder. Rather like military boot camp. Long sessions that didn't end until everyone "got it". The "Six Day", for example. I doubt that it could be done today. Just four hours sleep, at most. Running uphill for maybe one km every morning at dawn. A being-with exercise in swimming suits, in a pattern that had everyone eventually face everyone else. No coffee, tea, tobacco, or other drugs. A ropes course. What a trip :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It was bound to happen as more and more of our personal lives are turning into personal brand-building moments... and as the mechanics of capitalism have permeated ever increasing swaths of people's time.

There is a building backlash and this is just seems like a stop gap, therapeutic measure.

<comment><USER27> Some times I wonder if the Algorithms getting better, or are we simplifying our humanity to make it easier for the algorithms to interpret?

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Website: Help me relate this to the Web of Trust

</comment><comment><USER20> you cannot say 100% that a Vulnerability movement is authentic. Because lies were also witing in every movement.

</comment><comment><USER29> > Authentic relating uses exercises, or games, to teach the skills necessary > to quickly create deep, meaningful human connection.

You can not create deep meaningful human connection quickly. It's just a game with emotions. A game plenty of organizations and cult gurus abuse for money and power.

If a person feels safe he might talk about things he would not otherwise. Yes. But deep meaningful connection requires both people knowing each other for a long time, spending a lot of time together and living through a lot of different situations, both hard and easy, dead serious and playful.

<comment><USER30> In my case, it is easier to be open with people I hardly know. All my fiends and family do have strong opinions and outdated views of myself. Talking to a stranger who is willing to listen is easier and deeper.

<comment> le-mark I think this is an interesting line of thought. I'm almost 50, reasonably accomplished in my career, financially successful, respected by my peers, but whenever I'm around my older sisters, I'm right back in that annoying, barely tolerated little brother reality. I don't much care for it, which is why I don't have much of a relationship with them, haven't for years.

Anyway I've thought this for years, is there a name for it, or some other deeper meaning? Familiarity breeds contempt, maybe?

<comment><USER31> Are you saying you act that way, or they treat you that way?

People, for many reasons, automate other people in their minds. They define them, and aren't willing to adapt their definition. They want the world to remain as they think it is, so they continue to treat it, and you, like it was.

Sounds like they're clinging to a sense of superiority in an effort to delude themselves that you aren't all that.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mysterious Mac Malware Has Infected Victims for Years - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/zmv79w/mysterious-mac-malware-has-infected-hundreds-of-victims-for-years <comment><USER2> >the widespread belief that they are virus-free, Macs aren't immune from invasive and dangerous malware.

This is an area where it's really hard to extrapolate from my personal experience to the entire population, but is this really an accurate statement of many people's beliefs?

I think what people _actually_ think is that the chances are much lower of encountering malware in the wild on a Mac. In support of that, having an article this long on a _single_ piece of malware that isn't particularly damaging, would indicate that it's not the normal state of affairs in Mac land.

I would similarly expect that the chances of drive-by malware on Linux are tiny, perhaps even less common than on a Mac, and thus it would be newsworthy if there were some widespread (in relative terms) Gnome malware, or similar.

It's one thing to think that it's uncommon, and another to think that it's impossible.

<comment><USER3> People think Macs are virus-free because Apple spent years telling them were. Example ad, with John Hodgman as the Windows guy with a virus. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Z386vXrt4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Z386vXrt4)

<comment><USER4> This notion existed far before that ad came out.

It's a combination of a few things: (1) why bother investing time and resources for a platform with around 10% of users and (2) OSX has had strong security mechanisms e.g Gatekeeper, XProtect, App Sandbox. Windows 10 is much better but unfortunately not everyone is on that OS yet.

<comment><USER5> > Windows 10 is much better but unfortunately not everyone is on that OS yet.

Implying Windows 8.1 has security problems... what are they?

<comment><USER6> Every OS has security problems, and every new OS incorporates fixes to them. If you're looking for specifics, a quick Google search can help there: [http://www.csoonline.com/article/3044089/data- protection/the...](http://www.csoonline.com/article/3044089/data- protection/the-best-new-security-features-of-windows-10.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The details for the infection can be found at Malwarebytes, the discoverer of this issue:

[https://blog.malwarebytes.com/threat-analysis/2017/01/new- ma...](https://blog.malwarebytes.com/threat-analysis/2017/01/new-mac-backdoor- using-antiquated-code/)

This article has the signature of the infection as well as listing the servers with which it communicates.

<comment><USER8> Someone correct me if I'm wrong but this seems to be talking about FruitFly 1 [1] and the article is about FruitFly 2 [2]. Been digging around and still can't find any description of how to tell if you're infected by the new one.

[1] [https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/ce07d208a2d89b4e0134f5282...](https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/ce07d208a2d89b4e0134f5282d9df580960d5c81412965a6d1a0786b27e7f044/analysis/)

[2] [https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/befa9bfe488244c64db096522...](https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/befa9bfe488244c64db096522b4fad73fc01ea8c4cd0323f1cbdee81ba008271/analysis/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> So, let me get this straight. If I develope malware in an "archaic" language, using "crude code" then I am not a nation-state. "Undetected for years"

Interesting logic. I wonder if the reverse can be said...

If I were a nation state, perhaps I would be taking notes.

</comment><comment><USER10> > ...despite the widespread belief that they are virus-free, Macs aren't > immune from invasive and dangerous malware.

I keep hearing this, but I never see evidence of these people. Is there a widespread belief that there's a widespread belief that Macs are immune from malware, despite few people who actually think this?

Well, I'm sure such people exist, but there don't seem to be many, even on sites like macrumors and /r/apple where mostly non-technical people with magical feelings for Apple gather and comment.

<comment><USER11> Apple literally had that in their ads.

<comment><USER12> You need to remember that when those ads aired Windows still ran everything as root and had genuine "viruses", not trojans or other malware. But a virus as in the definition of the term. That Macs and Linux had a sane security model really did make them essentially "immune to viruses" in a very real way.

Today, a genuine virus is a rare thing, most malware are trojans. But back then viruses were the dominant form of malware. It's quite unfair to criticize people claiming Macs don't get "viruses" by changing the context on them to include all malware. That's not the claim people made.

<comment><USER11> Those ads still ran in 2015 on apple.com.

By that time the user restriction model of Vista had existed for 8 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Missing from the article: how to tell if you have it and what to do if you do

<comment><USER14> See if you have a ~/.client or a ~/Library/LaunchAgents/com.client.client.plist file.

<comment><USER13> Thanks for the tip - I'm clean :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is this the same thing? [https://blog.malwarebytes.com/threat- analysis/2017/01/new-ma...](https://blog.malwarebytes.com/threat- analysis/2017/01/new-mac-backdoor-using-antiquated-code/)

It looks like this has been updated by Apple already?

</comment><comment><USER16> Does anyone know of a good way to check whether my Mac is infected with this (or any other) malware programs? I rarely, if ever, download unknown programs, and my OS is always up-to-date, but still...

Would appreciate for any pointers.

<comment><USER17> Install MalwareBytes — [https://www.malwarebytes.com/](https://www.malwarebytes.com/)

<comment><USER18> Is this bad advice? Wondering why it's getting voted down. Malwarebytes discovered the issue after all; they're not disreputable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> _" It was also written in Perl, a language that's "archaic" for malware"_

Perhaps why it's good at running under the radar.

<comment><USER20> I think the main reason it was running under the radar is that the script itself did not contain an exploit that bypassed any security mechanisms. The only difference between a remote desktop app and a new command and control malware is the way it is installed.

It is not all that surprising to me that any targeted malware could operate unnoticed for years. The odds of discovery are directly proportional to the volume of distribution and inversely proportional to the importance of the targets. This malware apparently infected a small number of low profile targets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Given that most people here would be best off not-hacked, what are the best ways (software/security tricks) to avoid malware on OSX?

<comment><USER22> BlockBlock is genius for preventing installation of persistent components to the OS.

[1] [https://objective-see.com/products/blockblock.html](https://objective- see.com/products/blockblock.html)

<comment><USER23> I like the concept but I don't like the fact that BlockBlock needs to install a kernel extension. It says it does this to minter process creation. Why can't it do it with dtrace?

Example: [https://github.com/kenorb/dtrace- tools#processes](https://github.com/kenorb/dtrace-tools#processes)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> They were surprised to find malware that wasn't written by a nation-state, which is kind of depressing.

<comment><USER25> I see no reason to believe it wasn't. Being brutally pedestrian is the kind of thing I would expect out of great hackers.

<comment><USER26> Also , it may make sense to write malware that looks like it wasn't a nation state if you are a nation state

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Linux has a huge advantage in that it has a very wide array of variants, kernels, library configurations through many standard distros and further customizations. It makes it much harder to write distribute complex malware than a standardized OS like Windows.

</comment><comment><USER28> As someone new to the Mac ecosystem, is it standard practice to run an antivirus as it is on Windows?

I have used various Linux systems as my daily web browsing machine for years without feeling the need to install any third-party antivirus.

<comment><USER29> > _As someone new to the Mac ecosystem, is it standard practice to run an > antivirus as it is on Windows?_

No, almost nobody does it (plus, a few "antivirus" products for Mac are malware themselves, e.g. Mac Defender etc.).

Most so-called "viruses" for Mac are in fact merely trojans (programs you need to download and run yourself to infect you).

<comment><USER30> Corporate laptops everywhere I worked are subject to the same anti-virus policies, regardless of the operating system.

<comment><USER29> Well, corporate laptops where I work (company bought Macs usually) don't have mandatory (or even suggested) anti-viruses on them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > the former spy agency hacker who now develops free security tools

Nice try, NSA.

</comment><comment><USER32> Gonna need it from a source better than Vice.

<comment><USER33> [https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/07/24/apple...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/07/24/apple- mac-malware-fruitfly-infects-americans/#410c5efb5ce5)

<comment><USER34> The Vice article seems much better, and I'm not sure Forbes is a more reliable news source, but the corroboration is of course great.

Sounds like we'll be hearing more after BlackHat. Wish I wasn't skipping this year.

<comment><USER33> Yeah the only other news sources I could find were zdnet and cnet.

<comment><USER35> I'd imagine they are all reporting from a common source or they read Vice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > Taking control of a command and control server, however, had another > unexpected outcome: Around 400 victims infected with FruitFly started > connecting to it.

"Unexpected"? How? This would have been obvious to Wardle. Maybe the journalist added this to "inject some suspense"? Thanks but no thanks, I won't bother reading the rest of this article.

<comment><USER37> Maybe he wasn't expecting to see 400 infected victims.</comment></comment>


Gury - an html5 canvas utility library - <AUTHOR> http://guryjs.org/ <comment><USER2> There is already a great html5 canvas library: <http://easeljs.com/>

Great for treating images and other objects on the screen as _objects_. With proper attributes likes position, alpha, rotation and so on. Been using it (along with Coffeescript, which it goes along very well) for 4 months so far, and it is really nice.

Don't forget to checkout the demos:

<http://easeljs.com/examples/barGraph.html>

<http://easeljs.com/examples/sparkles.html>

<http://easeljs.com/examples/game/game.html>

<http://easeljs.com/examples/bitmapSequences.html>

<http://easeljs.com/examples/globalToLocal1.html>

<http://easeljs.com/examples/dragAndDrop.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> Hmm. It seems like all it does is take the existing canvas API and let you chain your calls together into a big non-debuggable wad. It just seems like a way to enable bad coding style, rather than adding any useful functionality.

Can anybody who's used this tell me if there's any advantage to using this library in terms of actual programming (like the helpful object stuff in <http://easeljs.com/> for instance)?

</comment><comment><USER4> Would be nice if project authors or someone from HN summarized how it is better/worse/different than say Raphaeljs or Processing.js</comment>


For the future of solar, we've got the tech – it's the economics - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/for-the-future-of-solar-weve-got-the-tech-its-the-economics-stupid/ <comment><USER2> I work in solar, and here's some quick facts:

1\. 1 out of 78 jobs created in the U.S. last year were solar jobs[1].

2\. There are more solar employees in California than utility employees[2].

3\. Soft costs (non-hardware) are 64% of the installed cost of solar[3].

4\. Solar is expected to reach a load defection point (i.e. cheaper to leave the grid) in most places in the next 10-15 years[4].

Like OP's article states, this industry's hardware has gotten so good, the software in the industry hasn't kept up. So much so, in fact, that an entire startup accelerator program in the bay area, Powerhouse[5], has been created to try and attract tech entrepreneurs into the solar industry to make the next generation of solar software. My startup recently went through the program, and being a part of this industry is one of the most empowering and rewarding things I've ever done. It's one of those extremely rare instances where you can have a solid business model and a positive impact on the world.

And we need all the help it can get. Solar expected to grow 100-200x over the next 25 years[6], but it won't happen if smart people don't join in. If you're a tech entrepreneur, and want to do something that matters, please please please consider doing a startup in solar.

[1]: [http://energy.gov/eere/articles/1-78-new-jobs-america- solar-...](http://energy.gov/eere/articles/1-78-new-jobs-america-solar-job)

[2]: [http://www.calseia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=art...](http://www.calseia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=231)

[3]: [http://energy.gov/eere/sunshot/reducing-non-hardware- costs](http://energy.gov/eere/sunshot/reducing-non-hardware-costs)

[4]: [http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2015_04_07_report_release_the_econo...](http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2015_04_07_report_release_the_economics_of_load_defection)

[5]: [https://powerhouse.solar/](https://powerhouse.solar/)

[6]: [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-23/the-way- hu...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-23/the-way-humans-get- electricity-is-about-to-change-forever)

<comment><USER3> >4\. Solar is expected to reach a load defection point (i.e. cheaper to leave the grid) in most places in the next 10-15 years[4].

How can it be cheaper to leave the grid? Won't energy storage be much cheaper if it is done on scale by buy and selling energy as required and letting utility companies figure out energy storage and load balancing?

<comment><USER4> Here in Australia we have one of the highest per capita uptakes of household solar panels in the world. At some point during the day, most of those households produce excess power and that power is sold back into the grid.

But because there is so much power being generated, the householder is only paid a fraction of the equivalent price of extracting an equivalent amount of electricity from the grid.

At present those householders have no choice but to put up with that dud deal, as they have no where else to put that excess power. But move on a few years when battery technology starts to take off and battery prices come down, that will change.

When that happens, total household electricity costs will be coming down and they will be one very big step closer to being off grid.

<comment><USER5> The flipside to the dud deal you claim these solar owning householders get is that they are not paying their full share for the grid connectivity that they need to sell their excess electricity into.

The majority of the cost of retail electricity is the maintenance of the transmission network (>50%) (poles and wires)[1], with metering/billing being the next highest contributor (<20%). The cost of generation is around 20%.

Many of these householders with solar are paying very little or nothing for their grid connection. Thus they are being subsidised by the non-solar households for their ability to stay grid connected.

Household level batteries could change that scenario if they are good enough to allow complete disconnection from the grid.

If household level batteries are successful, then we will reach a point where it will not be economically viable to maintain the grid. Every house will then need to become self sufficient for electricity generation and storage.

[1] [https://www.dews.qld.gov.au/energy-water- home/electricity/pr...](https://www.dews.qld.gov.au/energy-water- home/electricity/prices/tariffs-explained)

<comment><USER4> > The majority of the cost of retail electricity is the maintenance of the > transmission network

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but here in Australia that's just not true, since the utility companies have a tendency to "gold plate" those grids.

Here are some detail:

[http://www.smh.com.au/business/goldplating-the-power- grid-20...](http://www.smh.com.au/business/goldplating-the-power- grid-20120705-21iv5.html)

When governments sold the grid to private enterprise they also allowed them to "gold plate" their systems and pass on the costs to the consumer.

The result was massive increases in electricity prices.

What those utility companies got wrong was thinking the consumer was a captive audience and would put up with those rip off prices.

Those massive increases in electricity prices actually made solar an option, hence the massive addition rate in roof top solar here in Australia.

What those utility companies have got wrong is the genie is now out of the bottle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think if the economics don't work out you can make an argument that you don't actually have the tech.

Which is why there are all those people working on storage technology.

<comment><USER7> Economic costs of switching are always higher than maintenance costs. Solar can totally be good enough to stand on its own while not being good enough to justify de-commissioning perfectly good power plants.

<comment><USER8> but its not good enough, then

thats like saying a stone wheel would be good enough

if we didn't have pneumatic/michelin tires

anything is good enough when its the only option

<comment><USER9> "anything is good enough when its the only option"

No, it really isn't. If it costs more than it generates, it's not good enough. That's why the power plants were built as they were in the first place; a lot of them date from when a solar installation simply couldn't pay itself back, ever.

<comment><USER8> costs and revenues don't happen in a vaccuum, thats what your missing. they are relative prices, and only make sense in the context of a menu of choice (or:none). a stone wheel is brilliant technology, just like the bronze or iron age weapon was way back in history. but today its only useful (or not) in the context of current alternatives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > a staggering 20GW of overproduction

> the recent drought

Desalination is normally shot down for being very wasteful of energy, but given the energy can't otherwise be stored and California seems in constant drought, are there any reasons why isn't it a viable use of the surplus energy in this scenario?

<comment><USER11> I think this will probably be a major energy sink going forward, as we've never really had to find a use for "surplus electricity" on this scale before.

Moreover though, I think the general class of chemical storage is likely to be another winner. Reversible reactions in liquid provide so many benefits: modest infrastructure costs (compared to anything but pumped hydro) and scalability in terms of both throughput (more reactors in parallel) and capacity (additional tank volume).

<comment><USER12> I agree! For example, vanadium redox flow batteries are looking pretty great for grid storage lately, with estimates of storage costs below $0.20/kWh stored. As I understand it, that's more than the daily price fluctuation in some markets. Far more cycles than lithium ion and a wider range of operating temperatures.

And I think we're just skimming the surface with flow batteries (pun not intended). There's a massive amount of potential for new materials here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > The biggest challenge with going to half renewables is overgeneration. The > state receives power from a number of sources that simply can't be shut > down—combined heat and power systems and nuclear plants, for example. > Layered on top of that are renewable sources like solar that generate power > whether you want them to or not.

What? The biggest problem is the cost of storage, not the fact that the underlying technology is not yet efficient enough to compete with non- renewables cost wise?

Can someone please summarize and explain this article to me? I saw no data, and there was no serious discussion of the underlying technology or economics of solar power.

<comment><USER3> The quote is talking about a problem the utility companies are facing with the adoption of personal PVs.

Right now, the way your electricity bill is structured is heavily biased towards consumption. The service charge is a small part of the overall bill.

What happens if 50% of the costumers have PVs is that the utilities will lose a lot of revenue but they will still have exactly the same amount of costs because they are not able to turn down their plants during the day and the PV people will still consume the same amount of peak grid energy during the night.

So there is two ways to fix this. One of them is for the plants to downsize their constant power generation methods like coal fired boilers and get a bunch of gas peaker plants.

The other one is to increase the service charge on your electricity bill.

<comment><USER14> This gets into the other billing problem with domestic solar.

In rough numbers, half of your electric bill is for energy, the other half is to pay for all the grid and capacity. Billing is purely on energy consumption. The effect of this is that low electric users get subsidized by high electric users.

When someone installs a domestic solar system they reduce their payments, but they still depend on the grid infrastructure. The system reaches its ultimate perversion when a grid tied domestic user achieves a negative bill. Not only have they been paid for their energy, they have been paid for the utility having a grid.

You can solve this economic distortion by a couple of ways:

• split billing into a grid-tie fee and an energy consumption charge: This accurately covers the solar houses, but it also raises the bills of the poor and cuts those of the wealthy (generally larger consumers).

• only pay domestic solar producers half what you charge for power: This works out asymptotically for a huge producer where the grid portion vanishes, but it doesn't work for people reducing their consumption but maintaining a grid tie or selling a little bit.

• put a surcharge on each watt of solar capacity: This works out accurately, but feels abusive. 1 watt of solar panel is going to make about 100 wHr of power a month. If grid-tie privilege includes a surcharge to cover the grid portion of 100wHr then this 1 watt solar panel user will end up paying the same for the grid as he did before. If a domestic solar installation is a net producer, it will end up getting paid for the energy and the grid fees will cancel.

Even before we get to a point where the power company may say "no thank you" to a domestic user that wants to sell power at 1pm on a sunny day, we still need to straighten out the billing. The current system ends up with the utilities (and by extension all grid users) subsidizing solar installations by forgiving their grid costs. I'm in favor of that now, but in a future where our carbon emissions are under control the distortions will need to be smoothed out.

<comment><USER15> > Billing is purely on energy consumption.

This is not the case in many jurisdictions, and sometimes varies within a jurisdiction.

In British Columbia, my summer electric bills were regularly more than 50% constant fees.

In England, providers offer plans with varying levels of constant fees/"standing charge" and only very few plans have zero standing charge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Forty years later and solar is still the future.... Now we're only 15 years away. That's about the period of time it took humans to learn how to fly then break the sound barrier.

I like the observation that it's about the economics because it's always about economics. If solar could have had a consumer product like personal computers, cell phones, or big screen TVs, we would be using a lot more solar today. There was nothing to bootstrap the industry. No Intel of solar energy was ever created.

<comment><USER17> It took humans from 1903 to 1947 to break the sound barrier. That's a little more than 15 years.

<comment><USER16> You need to add in the other number. Let me rephrase:

"40 years later and solar is still the future.... Now we're only 15 years away."

For some context, the President of the United States wanted to stress solar energy in the 1970's:

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carter-white- house...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carter-white-house-solar- panel-array/)

We could probably dig up a few issues of Popular Sciences

<comment><USER18> Yeah, and he was followed by Reagan:

>By 1986, the Reagan administration had gutted the research and development budgets for renewable energy at the then-fledgling U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and eliminated tax breaks for the deployment of wind turbines and solar technologies—recommitting the nation to reliance on cheap but polluting fossil fuels, often from foreign suppliers.

<comment><USER19> I think this says a lot too...

[http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/tp/Hist...](http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/tp/History- of-White-House-Solar-Panels.htm)

Carter puts solar panels on the White House in 1979. Reagan orders them to be removed when he comes into office in 1981 (they were eventually removed in 1986).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Electric cars look better all the time - and maybe even more electric mass transit.

I mean, this article talks a lot about "overproduction" \- how the grid gets taxed by massive daytime spikes in production on sunny days. But it seems like if the problem really is going to be "too much electricity", then maybe green vehicle designers can find ways to put all that "clean" energy to good use.

</comment><comment><USER21> For hard data, it's hard to beat [http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/](http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/) \- has anyone built an equivalent for their own country?

You can see that although wind is broken out to its own meter, solar is not yet broken out. The effect of solar so far is a small dip in noonday demand. The daily high point is about 6pm at the moment, as the end of the working day overlaps it getting dark here.

From the rest of the graphs you can see gas and coal ramping up and down over the course of the day. Gas is capable of fairly rapid response. At the peak, the pumped storage (Dinorwig) is turned on.

Until rooftop solar pushes daytime net demand below the 4am current demand low, I don't think we need to panic about storage.

The government policy on subsidies is incoherent; subsidies for renewables are being cut, but the Hinkley Point C nuclear deal includes an obligation to buy the power at a price far above market or renewable levels.

Personally I have 3.8kW of panels on my roof. At some point I'll go and have a look at the data logger and see what conclusions to draw.

<comment><USER22> The California Grid Operator has a similar page for our state: [https://www.caiso.com/outlook/outlook.html](https://www.caiso.com/outlook/outlook.html)

<comment><USER23> Cool link.. For people on Chrome, if you have the same issue as I did seeing the charts, there's a little Shield icon in the address bar that prevents the loading of 'unsafe scripts'. I'd never seen that before so it took me a minute to figure out why nothing was showing up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Want to help solve this puzzle? Genability is building software to stay ahead of the utilities and save energy consumers money through clean energy on day 1. And we're hiring: [http://genability.com/careers/work_with_us.html](http://genability.com/careers/work_with_us.html)

</comment><comment><USER25> Come on Ars; Giga-Watts of storage? I expect that from other places reporting on energy, but I thought you knew better.

<comment><USER26> I had the same thought. The article does mention pumped hydro storage though. And for that, watts (the capacity of the turbines/generators) is a relevant figure of merit just as watt-hours (the capacity of the reservoir) is. The article does use watts kind of indiscriminately, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > Basore also noted that you can meet some of the evening surge simply by > pointing photovoltaic panels to the west instead of the south. But since all > electricity is priced equally, everyone tries to point theirs south for > maximum productivity.

Does California not use Location Based Marginal Pricing like New York, New England, and Texas?

<comment><USER23> We do;

[http://www.caiso.com/pages/pricemaps.aspx](http://www.caiso.com/pages/pricemaps.aspx)

Not sure how the pricing varies over time, but the data is available at least.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Solar is not cost effective on the scale of dollars. That doesn't mean it's not cost effective though.

The dollar is a debt-based system which means when something is bought with a dollar that thing is assumed to be owned and loaned by someone. No one owns the sun, it's free and basically infinite.

Oil is the commodity which creates the most demand for and thus the most value out of the dollar. 6 of the 7 richest companies in the world in terms of revenue are oil and gas companies.

So with all things considered the cost effectiveness of solar power to the dollar is not a valid comparison because what you are basically doing is comparing the cost benefit of solar for oil production and the ability to create debt.

>Even after all this time the Sun never says to the Earth, "You owe me." Look what happens with a love like that, it lights the whole sky.

-Hafez

<comment><USER13> It takes time and money (among other resources) to convert the energy emitted by the sun into a form that we can use.

Are you suggesting that we should not pay the companies who do the conversion, routing, and storage of this energy because nobody owns the sun?

<comment><USER28> No</comment></comment></comment>


How Ford Is Exploring the Quantum World with Microsoft to Help Reduce Congestion - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@ford/mass-navigation-how-ford-is-exploring-the-quantum-world-with-microsoft-to-help-reduce-congestion-a9de6db32338 <comment><USER2> Note that they are not using Quantum Computers. They are just using "quantum inspired" heuristics. It's more a buzzword than a breakthrough.</comment>


Female engineer sues Tesla, describing a culture of 'pervasive harassment' - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/28/tesla-female-engineer-lawsuit-harassment-discrimination <comment><USER2> "Most of my clients come in and say, 'human resources isn't helping me. They're just protecting the company.'"

Once again, that is HR's job. They're not there to protect you, they are there to protect the company from lawsuits.

<comment><USER3> Well. In the most cynical sense, yes, but in a properly functioning company, those shouldn't be competing functions.

<comment><USER4> No. Organizations that protect employees do exist, they're called unions.

<comment><USER5> Unfortunately, it seems that the organizational culture in NA (and in South Asia, from my friends and family that work there) is extremely union hostile.

<comment><USER4> It is, though that wasn't always the case in the US; at their peak a third of workers belonged to a union.

And it is unfortunate, because workers in strongly unionized industries enjoy higher wages even if they do not belong to the union. The decline of unions in the US has gone hand in hand with the rise in inequality. A lot of the jobs that US politicians talk about bringing back were union jobs, but even if it were possible to bring those jobs back, I don't think they're talking about bringing back the unions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > protected a repeat offender because he was a "high performer"

When will people realize that any definition of "performance" that excludes a requirement to treat others with respect is uselessly narrow?

<comment><USER7> When money stops being the driving motivation for the majority of people. As long as brute capitalism is rewarded, you're going to see this type of occurrence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Currently, all chief executive positions are held by men at Tesla, and out of more than 30 vice-presidents, only two are women, she added.

"It's shocking in this day and age that this is still a fight we have to have." - Isn't this simple probability or law of numbers because your company has less female employees. I work in a tech company which has healthy amount of female employees and guess what we have lots of female executives too.

<comment><USER9> Women are promoted into management at much lower rates then men are in many industries, which ends up in underrepresentation at the highest levels.

[https://www.ellevatenetwork.com/articles/7823-lecturing- men-...](https://www.ellevatenetwork.com/articles/7823-lecturing-men-about- diversity-doesn-t-work-this-does)

<comment><USER7> Women also apply for management at lower rates, though. The whole ecosystem is unbalanced and not in their favor.

<comment><USER10> I wonder if flatter organizations with broader company decisions made through collaborative online discussion (ie. not face to face) would help? Obviously someone still has to make the call, but at least it lets people put their reasoning out there without dealing with the inefficiencies of meetings and the unequal opportunity they tend to entail for input.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm glad she sued and stayed with the company. That takes guts. I hope all the people who wanted those women to sue Uber are going to stand behind her when the all the negative consequences of suing start coming her way.

<comment><USER11> Just another thought. She moved from engineering(manufacturing) to purchase, sound like not much opportunities available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Manufacturing can be a pretty rough environment. The factory where I used to work drew the line at porn, more or less, but casual racism, sexism, and all the 'phobias were rampant. Our director of HR was let go for sexual harassment.

Edit: Should clarify that the fact that this is normal for manufacturing in no way excuses it, and I support this lawsuit.

</comment><comment><USER11> Hypothesis thinking from first principles. In the department of manufacturing the productivity is directly correlated with followup which is directly correlated with insane work hours which suits men better than women which correlates with hike.

<comment><USER13> > insane work hours which suits men better than women

My girlfriend earned 23 hours of overtime this week. I am on HN naked in bed at noon on a Tuesday.

<comment><USER14> Haha, man, you made my day! :)</comment></comment></comment>


iPod nano Watch Project Makes Kickstarter History - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2010/12/17/kickstarter-ipod-nano/

<comment><USER2> It should be noted that they have not really raised any equity capital. The $1M are pre-orders for the iPod Nano watch, and hence is revenue. In this sense, Kickstarter is ingeniously being used as a platform for virally marketing the product (concept) and as a sales channel. Kudos to them for their success.

<comment><USER3> Kickstarter is shaping up to be the ultimate R&D/test marketing platform. You have an idea, you can make prototypes, you test market the prototype on Kickstarter, the consumer speaks with their wallet, and you can either take it to the mainstream or gracefully exit whilst giving away some "exclusive" tchotchkes to the people who paid in.

It could also become the manufacturing version of a "pop-up store", where potential buyers are given "exclusive" timed access to a product before it hits the mainstream outlets. This exudes value (like the Humble Game Bundles or Macheist) while focusing laser-sharp on just one product (a la woot) and is compelling to our baser consumer desires for access, urgency, and exclusivity.

Could be an interesting pivot for kickstarter (or perhaps be a nice niche for someone to exploit).

<comment><USER4> Actually I have been toying with this idea as a new way to produce art. Books. Movies, etc.

Because if take as an axiom that "once it's out there, it will be copied" then what if all the reliable money to be made was already made before the movie was released, and at the theaters, concerts, and physical books?

You could follow the progress of movies and fund them if you liked what you saw.

But there needs to be more incentive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Lots of comments from yesterday:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2015076>

</comment><comment><USER6> Now that this idea is validated, Apple will:

        A) acquire MINIMAL and hire Scott Wilson
        B) produce their own version
        C) not enter this market...

As a fashionable, designed product, it seems right up their alley, and Moore's Law says each version will get smaller. It's one of the few positions to carry a device, that people are used to (phone, watch, wallet, purse, keys, glasses, shoes, clothing, necklace, bracelet, ring).

BTW: How far off are facetime watches (aka _Dick Tracy wristphone_ )? BTW: LG announced one in 2009 (multitouch, no video): <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477744,00.html> and someone claims _not a good idea_ <http://dvice.com/archives/2010/07/wrist-speakerph.php>

</comment><comment><USER7> Somewhat tangentially, kickstarter seems to be one of the most successful startups these days, but you rarely hear about it. Why is that? They made, what, 100k off this item alone?

It seems like a company angels would do well to invest in...

<comment><USER8> Their margins aren't that high. They charge 5%, and I think ~3% goes to Amazon, so on this they'll make ~$20k.

And since most projects are _much_ smaller, I'd guess that in an average month, $1M is roughly the sum of all of their pledges. $20k/month is not a lot to run a business on. So I'd guess that they've taken investment.

<comment><USER9> This is incorrect. The 5% fee is actually charged in addition to Amazon's fees. (see <https://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq#WhatFeesDoesKickChar>). This doesn't make much of a difference in profitability (20k vs 50k still isn't a whole lot), but it's something. Enough, at least, to keep bootstrapping.

And that's the main point of it - not to make a whole bunch of money, but to offer a really great service. As evidence, the Kickstarter guys have been going for a few years now, and it wasn't until very recently that they started taking any money out. They're really passionate about helping artists, filmmakers, and creatives find the funding that they need.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> DanI-S Follow the link and check out the video of his trip to China, here:

[http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1104350651/tiktok- lunati...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1104350651/tiktok-lunatik- multi-touch-watch-kits/posts/44218)

Starting around half way through they show the process for preparing the silicone for the straps. It's absolutely mesmerising!

</comment><comment><USER10> This is a great way to take a product from concept to production.

But why do people want a watch they need 2 hands to read the time with, must be charged, and offers less functionality than most normal watches?

I guess I know the answer, watches are not really for telling time anymore, are they.

</comment><comment><USER11> I saw Kickstarte mentioned in a regional South African airline's inflight magazine today (1time) - a photography project about South Africans and their bicycles.

</comment><comment><USER4> My biggest question is, how did he get publicity? I doubt that simply putting a project on kickstart is gonna do it.

<comment><USER12> This is a very good point.

We keep reading stories with business porn in the titles. Kickstarter is totally awesome, don't get me wrong. And this is a cool idea.

But the critical question is: how the heck did one random idea get so much movement? Because it's not just random, and it's not just generated by quality. If there's one thing I've learned on the web, is that social sites are somewhat deterministic.

So -- wonder what they did? Cross-promote? Blog a lot? Get some good press? That's the kind of stuff that is truly interesting and valuable, not the one mil in funding or even the coolness of the idea or the site.

<comment><USER13> A good product design, those renderings are eye candy for tech blogs to repost, a great video, and people love rooting for the small guy. It's almost... why wouldn't it get a ton of press.

<comment><USER4> well how would it get picked up?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> 100,000$. Not a million.

<comment><USER15> $941,648 (minus Kickstarter's 5 percent cut, less then $900,000 in the end).

A million is not accurate (but neither the headline nor the article ever refer to a million) but $100,000 is even less accurate.</comment></comment>


Tips for the Sophisticated Fugitive - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/weekinreview/22powell.html?ref=weekinreview <comment><USER2> I laughed out loud when I read this:

"In 2006, a federal jury indicted Jacob (Kobi) Alexander, an Israeli-American business wunderkind, on charges of wire and securities fraud. Mr. Alexander and his family flew to Namibia, which has no extradition treaty with the United States.

The fugitive more or less tried to buy Namibia. He sponsored scholarships and built low-income solar-powered buildings, and he lived in a spectacular home in Windhoek. "

But now I'm wondering if, from a utilitarian perspective, the world would have been better with him in jail. It sounds like he improved living conditions in Namibia.

<comment><USER3> > But now I'm wondering if, from a utilitarian perspective, the world would > have been better with him in jail.

No - he corrupted politicians. That is how it works in most African countries - give a lot of money to politicians in exchange for protection from any legal problems.

This regularly happens in the country to its south and in Zimbabwe (e.g. John Bredenkamp).

<comment><USER4> If the system is already broken, and someone taking advantage of it is making things better, I say let him take advantage of it.

<comment><USER3> Do you really believe that he would "make things better"? He probably greased a lot of palms to ensure that he is not extradited to the US.

He will continue greasing palms (with stolen money) and start again with his corruption. There are numerous examples of this being the case.

A good example is Jurgen Harksen. He was on the run from German authorities and decided to hid in South Africa. He quickly started on the corruption bandwagon again and formed close "relationships" with various politicians.

A leopard does not magically change its spots.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This post from Tim Ferris is amazing and outlines some ways to prepare to be a fugitive: [http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/03/03/how-to-be- ja...](http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/03/03/how-to-be-jason-bourne- multiple-passports-swiss-banking-and-crossing-borders/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Does anyone know of a fugitive from justice being apprehended solely on the basis of the involvement of facebook?

I really don't see how facebook has made it any harder to find a place to hide.

<comment><USER7> The point is you'd have to give up Facebook in order to flee. Some people can't give it up, so they sit and wait for their trial. Even in prison they can still be in contact with friends and family, which many people would prefer to a life on the run.

<comment><USER8> Anyone who'd choose prison over giving up Facebook doesn't need to be in prison, they need to in a mental ward; they have serious issues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The facebook reference is pretty off. These guys are not the facebook types I believe. But someone like Madoff would have been found by the law or those he conned.

<comment><USER3> Are you sure?

<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bernard-Madoff/45015537510>

<comment><USER10> He is the kind of guy who might have USED facebook, but he would never be CONSTRAINED by it. He's demonstrated through his actions that he doesn't care about the social consequences of his actions. Although he does appear to have tried to protect his family from legal problems, and it appears to be working: it is unclear to me why there haven't been RICO charges against everyone tangentially involved, which seemed like an obvious next step to me the day after case broke four months ago.</comment></comment></comment>


Boeing completes test flights for 737 Max software fix - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/boeing-completes-test-flights-for-737-max-software-fix/ <comment><USER2> If you don't mind, I think I'll wait for at least one or two years before I do any flights on a 737 MAX plane. Just in case this fix is no better than the last "fix".</comment>


Ask HN: What to learn and where to focus your time and attention? - <AUTHOR>

I a software engineer with 9 years  of experience, mostly in Java/Python space.  Recently I started learning C for fun.  I was beginning to enjoy it.  Then someone claimed I need to know AngularJS, so I tried that.  Suddenly in an interview I was asked if I had ever read 'Clean Code' book (which I hadn't).  Another friend said I should learn a cloud service for web  app hosting, so I delved into Google App and Compute engine.  My boss said Android is hot and I should pick it up,  I immediately installed Android studio and tried working on it.<p>Now I feel stuck and in a quagmire.  I have a problem of attention deficit and this quandary is causing me lose sleep.  I am passionate about technology and don't mind learning anything, literally anything.  But where to focus time and efforts is something I have never ever been able to figure out.  The result is that I know very little about a lot of things (very very little), but nothing substantial about almost anything.  This is driving me crazy.  Any suggestions from anyone who faced this? <comment><USER2> I know the exact feeling! Sometimes I'm paralyzed by the huge amount of choices of things I'd like to learn. It seems to carry across disciplines - I'm passionate about music and audio, and the more I read it seems the less I know, I start reading DSP books and then realize I've missed a lot of the math prerequisites and try to study that, then I'll get sidetracked looking at something like computer vision or computational geometry.

It's nice to be familiar with all of these subjects, but I fall short of actually learning the material deeply or doing anything useful with the knowledge.

I can't say I have great advice for you (or myself). Maybe we just need to look at things differently - being interested in things is a good problem to have, and having anxiety over it won't help. Also, committing on paper seems to help me sometimes - if I can focus on just doing the things I write down, I can get a lot done. It's like there's more time in the day when I actually have a schedule set.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am trying an approach wherein I will give 2 weeks to a technology. If I find it interesting and worth while in the first few days, I will proceed, else will abandon for something new.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Well certainly you know quite a bit about Java / Python. I suggest setting up a micro experiment plan to try each area of interest out, and then based on qualitative ("I enjoyed it") and quantitative ("I have ideas to further my interest", "I actually spent time doing this") results delve deeper.

This structured approach should allow you to try many things and pick a few to focus on in the longer term without feeling overwhelmed.

Recommended reading: [http://privatelist.findyourdreamjob.com/what-top- performers-...](http://privatelist.findyourdreamjob.com/what-top-performers- know-about-passion/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your kind words.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What helps me is to focus on finishing small projects or tasks. Whenever I want to learn a new technology or tool, I first come up with a tiny project I want to accomplish with that. The project has to be small and have the appropriate level of difficulty.

That way I continue to be productive, and actually using something (instead of just reading about it) makes it very soon obvious if I like something or not. Then it's just a matter of following whatever interests me.

</comment><comment><USER5> feels good to know I'm not alone. thanks for asking :)</comment>


Early stage startup accounting software? - <AUTHOR> How do you guys do accounting? <comment><USER2> Bench.co

They provide a real human to do accounting for you, with all your accounts hooked in. Cheapest plan is $100/month.

I recently folded my LLC and no longer have need of their services, but but I used them for 2 years and had no issues. Had a CPA do my taxes based on Bench's year end documents which only cost a 100-200 bucks.

</comment><comment><USER3> Xero. If Xero is too complicated or too expensive - Wave. If Wave is too complicated - an Excel spreadsheet just listing money in and out.</comment>


Show HN: Appmatic – AppStore and Client Automation for Windows - <AUTHOR> https://appmatic.io

<comment><AUTHOR> Appmatic is a browser based AppStore for Windows, and it's designed for power users. You can create your configurations (e.g. list of apps, etc), and bring automation to Windows clients. [https://appmatic.io/howitworks](https://appmatic.io/howitworks)

Looking forward to your feedbacks and criticisms. Thanks!</comment>


Zynga Partners With bwin.party to Launch Real Money Games in the UK - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/zynga-partners-with-bwinparty-to-launch-real-money-games-in-the-uk-2012-10-24

<comment><AUTHOR> For those who don't know bwin.party owns the PartyPoker brand which had > 50% marketshare for US online poker before UIGEA passed. They are the company most well positioned to re-enter and dominate the US market once regulation has passed. They've also partnered with MGM and numerous others.

This is great news for US online poker, bwin.party and Zynga.</comment>


Jimmy Wales on Desert Island Discs (radio Interview) - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vstzl

<comment><AUTHOR> IMO he comes across well in this interview. I fist-pumped when he mentioned the arbcom case about punctuation - I use a similar case when I describe how sub-optimal some bits of Wikipedia are.</comment>


King James Programming - <AUTHOR> http://kingjamesprogramming.tumblr.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Posts generated by a Markov chain trained on the King James Bible, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, and some of Eric S. Raymond's writings Run by Michael Walker (barrucadu).

</comment><comment><USER2> Jerusalem is builded as a city that is in the public domain.</comment>


Censorship Lift for "V for Vendetta" Shocks China - <AUTHOR> http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/12/18/censorship-lift-for-v-for-vendetta-shocks-china/

<comment><USER2> Perhaps the censors believed its topic was aimed at Britain, or the West, and didn't look hard at its (arguably distorted) philosophic viewpoint against fascist totalitarianism. I haven't seen the whole movie (prefer to keep my memories of the graphic novel intact, and I trust that when Alan Moore says it strayed from his vision, it strayed).

The Italians allowed a film version of Ayn Rand's "We the Living" to be produced because they believed it was a biting criticism of Soviet Russia, before someone realized its philosophic disposition was anti-totalitarianism. Could be sort of the same thing...

<comment><USER3> > _The Italians allowed a film version of Ayn Rand's "We the Living" to be > produced because they believed it was a biting criticism of Soviet Russia, > before someone realized its philosophic disposition was anti- > totalitarianism. Could be sort of the same thing..._

And why would "the Italians" have a problem with either praise of Soviet Russia or anti-totalitarianism? They are a democracy, you know, and they have both millions of people pro and against Soviet Russia (the communist party was huge in Italy), and pro and against totalitarianism.

That said, knowing Ayn Rand, the film would be mostly pro-neoliberal totalitarianism of "special" individuals...

<comment><USER4> > _"And why would "the Italians" have a problem with either praise of Soviet > Russia or anti-totalitarianism?"_

The movie in question was made in 1942, during the reign of Mussolini and his facists.

<comment><USER2> Yes, I omitted that detail, it was foremost in my mind though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe they're coming around to a more effective western technique:

"we're good guys" facade combined with stealth oppression :-P

I kid.. I kid...

<comment><USER6> But really you don't kid. You're only afraid of being labeled a crackpot in a tinfoil hat. This is what western media has done, subtle propaganda has made certain words like conspiracy sound crazy. When our history books teach us that conspiracies have been part of humanity for as long back as we can find documents for it. Most likely before.

I kid, I kid...

<comment><USER7> "Trust no one! The minute God crapped out the third caveman, a conspiracy was hatched against one of them! "

― Col. Hunter Gathers, OSI (venture brothers)

But to be honest I imagine that the vast majority of so-called conspiracy is just like seeing a face on the moon - we're highly complex social analysers and modern civilisation is at least an order (but more like several orders) of magnitude bigger/more complex than the machinery that has stood us in good stead for however many generations. Hence - we see a ghost in the machine pulling the strings when really "The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business" as is so eloquently put in Network.

<comment><USER8> I guess the biggest problem is the consistent track record of "the government" lying to the people while "word on the street" had it right. The long history from "smoking is harmless" to "there are WMDs in Iraq" has created the impression, that government is not working for the people but against the people.

That might be a wrong impression for most of the services government performs, but in other high profile areas (e.g. "security theater") these situations are set to repeat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I suspect it was an error on the part of a programming director at the network, and that it will probably cost them their job. To my knowledge, China hasn't taken any steps towards freedom of speech and this would be a pretty weird way for them to start.

<comment><USER10> Why must there always be a pessimistic view towards China on matters like this?

This is not a programming error. News of this programming to be aired had been circulating on the net several days prior to the actual airing around various forums and weibo. People have taken screenshots of the official CCTV6 scheduling of V at least two days before airing. Hence if it was actually a mistake it would have been taken down already.

I am pro China no doubt and it just saddens me that most views towards China must always carry a doubting overtone. If something good is happening, we as Chinese people applaud it. We sincerely wish the West to do the same, rather than passing off every positive change that China is making as mistakes.

Perhaps I'm reading into your comment too much, in which case I apologize.

Perhaps we are all reading into the matter too much...China isn't as horrid as how Western media portral them.

<comment><USER11> > China isn't as horrid as how Western media portral them.

There's definitely a misconception in the west in this regard. I've lived 2 years in China, and I was surprised to learn how much freedom the common Chinese citizen has, in some instances even more compared to westerners.

In specific to this post, there is a lot of "dissident" cultural productions freely available. To just take an example of a recent movie that comes to my mind right now: "Let The Bullets Fly", a comedy-action where a Robin Hood-type thief tries to rob a village ruled by a criminal ruthless kingpin, supported by a corrupt governor. (spoiler alert) at the end, the hero organizes a militia, distributes guns to the entire village and takes over the village. It is absolutely clear this is a satire over current Chinese politics affairs, yet it was released as a major movie in cinemas everywhere.

Figures like Ai Weiwei only perpetuate this misunderstanding that China is some kind of North Korea, when in reality there's already a lot of "challenging" going on.

<comment><USER12> A movie about villagers rising up to overthrow a ruthless capitalist and his running dog governor? Yeah that'll never fly in communist china.

<comment><USER11> The point of my post was the censors allowing a movie that challenges the government.

Regarding your comment, you could read more about the Wukan protests: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wukan_protests>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When I was in China I noticed that English language versions Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm were freely available in bookstores. The educated elite seems to be allowed to read or watch things that the Chinese government would surpress from getting into the hands of the masses.

<comment><USER14> The Chinese translations are also widely available. However, I noticed that The Principles of Newspeak was removed from the Nineteen Eighty-Four, when the last time I browsed a copy of it in a bookstore.

I also bought a translated Animal Farm, with very detailed explanation that maps each paragraph to the historical counterpart in the Soviet Union, several years ago.

IMHO, people here usually take these books as some 'foreign' talks, rather than a serious argument to the reality.

<comment><USER15> "The Principles of Newspeak was removed from the Nineteen Eighty-Four"

This does not surprise me; one of the themes of Chinese government propaganda is the superiority of the simplified writing system, and so I imagine that negative treatments of any simplification of communication would be censored. I saw a Chinese movie a while back, where the king commented on how difficult communication was because of the large number of traditional Hanzi symbols (he also commented that all he wanted was a unified China, which prompted to main character to abandon his attempted assassination of the king).

<comment><USER16> The movie was Hero, a 2002 movie starring Jet Li. I tended to get a different feeling from that line. The nameless protagonist had asked for calligraphy from his opponent. However, the protagonist did not ask for any of the existing ways to write "Sword", but rather for a new expression of it. When it was written, the protagonist spent a sleepless night examining it, learning every detail and every symbol behind the writing of this single word. It is in this context that the king interrupts the story and says how silly it is to have so many ways of writing it.

Rather than being a statement of how it should be, I took it to be a statement of ignorance on the part of the king. The king did not understand how there could be subtleties in words, and wished only for simplification of the language, rather than looking for the meaning behind existing words.

<comment><USER17> I agree. Although it has been some years since I have seen the movie, I believe that near the end of the movie, the King of Qin finally understood the meaning behind the "sword" character.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm Chinese and I don't think it's a signal for relaxing censorship or something else. Just yesterday, People's Daily, the core newspaper of CCP, published a critique whose title is "Internet is not a place out of the law". Many Chinese netizen think it's a signal for tightening the censorship.

<comment><USER14> I understand these titles as that netizens should not propagate the rumours of corrupted local officials. I'm afraid that the only affairs that matter here are several cases where the anti-corruption inspection was initiated by social-media leaks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I live in china. I watched this movie last night from major video site in china, and I was shocked deeply by it's availability. Facebook , Twitter, Youtube.... All good stuff still are not accessible . anyway good sign though.

</comment><comment><USER20> Any insight from a native?

<comment><USER21> Not about V for Vendetta, but my when my wife saw Animal Farm for the first time a couple of weeks ago she thought it was pretty accurate.

V can be interpreted any way you want depending on who you think the bad guys are. The Chinese government was established by revolutionaries after all.

<comment><USER22> However all governments are established by a revolution of some form or another.

<comment><USER23> Um... What about Australia? Canada? Barbados?

At least a dozen former British colonies established their independence gradually and peacefully, with the willing cooperation of the UK. No fighting, animosity, or anything that could be remotely considered a "revolution".

(Now of course, not ALL former colonies separated peacefully: India, The United States, etc. But there are plenty of examples on both sides.)

And how about Iceland?

<comment><USER24> You're counting country numbers instead of population numbers. China, India, and the US are all high-pop places, each supported by a major river system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Damn! I missed one of my fav movies. I've been living here for only 4 months and I'm shocked to hear they would allow for such a "theme" in their media.

Someone probably broke in and forced them to play it on their "backup national channel"</comment>


Using Spark and Zeppelin to Process Big Data on Kubernetes 1.2 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kubernetes.io/2016/03/using-Spark-and-Zeppelin-to-process-Big-Data-on-Kubernetes.html <comment><USER2> I _really_ wish there were more tutorials like this on how to set up Spark and other Big Data tools (TensorFlow) on cloud computing, as that personally has been the primary barrier to starting work with extra large amounts of data. (Most current tutorials require running a ton of console commands that are obsolete.)

I took a Spark course on eDX last year, but the environment was set up using a customized Vagrant config with no real-world use. I definitely prefer the Kubernetes approach.

<comment><USER3> _I really wish there were more tutorials like this on how to set up Spark and other Big Data tools (TensorFlow) on cloud computing, as that personally has been the primary barrier to starting work with extra large amounts of data._

Just as an FYI, we[1] are working on an open source, cloud based Machine Learning / Big Data platform that might be of interest to you. It's not all ready yet, but when it is, there will be a simple REST API that allows you to define the kind of setup you want, "push a button" and have it all deployed. Our initial backend is AWS with plain jane EC2 nodes, but it will be possible to extend it to other configurations as well.

Right now we deploy a Spark/Hadoop Cluster with Apache SystemML, Mahout and MLLib installed. Zeppelin will be coming to the stack, as will other tools like TensorFlow, SparkR, CaffeOnSpark, etc.

We'll be offering our own hosted service based on this, but it'll be open source so you can deploy it in an environment of your own if you wish.

We'll do a "Show HN" when we have something ready, so keep an eye out if that sounds interesting.

I also plan to write up some tutorial and documentation based on our experiences building this out, but the priority right now is getting it built. :-)

[1]: [http://www.fogbeam.com](http://www.fogbeam.com)

<comment><AUTHOR> Disclosure: I work at Google on Kubernetes.

If you'd like to do this in containers/Kubernetes, we'd love to highlight your work! Kubernetes runs great on AWS (as well as GCP, Azure and elsewhere), so no cloud migration required.

<comment><USER4> Shameless plug: Pachyderm is another way to run big data workloads in Kubernetes. github.com/pachyderm/pachyderm. We spoke at KubeCon SF last year and v1.0 is coming out next month!

<comment><AUTHOR> Disclosure: I work at Google on Kubernetes

Great to hear, congrats on reaching 1.0! Please do reach out when you get there, we'd love to show off your work to the community.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Disclosure: I work at Google on Kubernetes

Lots of folks have been interested in how to run common stacks on Kubernetes; this is a great example of how to run a really common scenario (i.e. using your cluster to do Spark processing).

<comment><USER5> IS anyone actually using it (Spark on k8s) for intensive loads though?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How would one go about this using hdfs instead of relying on gs, s3 etc. for storage? Would hdfs run as a separate k8s service?

<comment><USER7> Given the failure mode of Datanodes in Hadoop (lose X replicas, adios) you'd probably want something like the upcoming PetSet in Kubernetes 1.3. The ability to lose nodes and have that take out your job is why we push so hard on having people use our HDFS connector for GCS: it's really nice to have a high bandwidth shared object store that won't "crash".

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Semi-related but does anyone know if zeppelin supports java yet?

</comment><comment><USER9> Totally off topic, but...

Am I the only one to think of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster) when seeing the words "spark" and "zeppelin" together? (This type of air ship is called a "zeppelin" in my native language...)</comment>