Please, help me change the world.  - <AUTHOR>

The world has changed, and now we have a decision to make. Never before in history has the average person been so deeply and personally connected to the entire world population of individuals, being able to communicate globally with anyone, anywhere, nearly instantaneously. Traditional boundaries - walls, fences, rivers, mountains, deserts, borders - have ceased being the obstacles to the flow of thoughts and ideas, and we are seeing a collective uprising of the individual for the betterment of the group. Technology has created an entirely new playing field in which any one person - you, me, our neighbors, our friends, our families, and our loved ones - can have the same impact on the global discussion. Now, for the first time in human history, every single person on this planet has equal opportunity - and equal responsibility - to make a real positive difference in the world. Let's start now, by first starting over.
We need a societal reset before we take that next step together, because the values and goals our society operates on now isn't the base we want to build upon. If we're going to change the world, we'll need three things: direction, guidance, and effort. All three, equally, from every person on the planet. No leaders, no levels, no factions, just a group of people openly deciding what they want the future of their society to be, by actively working together to get it there.
Sound too far fetched? A simple fantasy of what human behaviour should be, compared to the harsh reality of what humanity is? Too dependent on the cooperation of groups of people who (judging by what occurs daily around the world, and looking back at history) utterly despise one another? You're right. Given the differences in culture and societies around the globe, not to mention the current geopolitical and economic tension, the idea is completely impossible. But so was man learning to fly.
The problem isn't in the idea, the problem is in our society. We've measured success in personal acquisition - our individual conquest over all we see - the sum total of all we've taken and kept for ourselves during the time we spend on this planet. Our laws are then designed to protect this collection, preventing those we've "succeeded" over from benefiting from our wealth. It's time to start taking control of our own society, and the change needs to begin with what our society values. We need to strive for and admire (and most importantly reward) those who have actively and beneficially CONTRIBUTED to our global society, encourage and assist those have been negatively affected by it (no matter the reason), accept those who have passively benefited from society, and discourage those who exploit it. A paradigm shift in what we value; elegance over power, efficiency over speed, creativity over conformity. We need to realize that our society was built on the shoulders of giants, and with this in mind we need to actively assist others up to our level, and then aid them in reaching higher still.
Knowledge then, is where we need to start. What the world needs going into the future is intellectual equality. We need an open and free collection of all of human knowledge, broken down and laid out for all to learn from and contribute to. All the information we know, but also all the data we've collected, all the facts, theories, instructions, explanations, and examples. Most of this information already scattered around the internet. Some of this knowledge is "protected" by patent, copyright, ownership, and our outdated societal values. That needs to change, and this information needs to be accessible to all. What we need to work together on now are the connections. Linked webpages need to be summarized into individual relevant bits of information. Soon after, we'll move one step beyond "searching" for information to being instantly able to "find" information when we have a question. One continually updating collection of everything, giving you, myself, and every single person on this planet equal opportunity to stand together on the shoulders of those who've come before us, gaze out upon the expanse of human knowledge, look up to the sky for what comes next, and climb up to meet it together.
Sorry, got a little carried away, so to summarize: -All forms of global/national/economic power are a representation of the collective effect we as individuals have on society -Technology has brought us to a point where we can communicate amongst ourselves where/what we want this collective effect to have an impact -Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. -Knowing this, we need an open and free collection of all human knowledge. This must be easily accessible for everyone. This is where you guys come in.
-Where do we go from there? We'll decide that together. Equally. Always. <comment><USER2> as long as one cannot eat knowledge you're always only talking to a fraction of mankind. same with medicin, fresh water, cloths, housing, energy, transportation, reading, writing and on and on. i think that there's only minor interest in knowledge if you are hungry, cold or being robbed for your OLPC. so first things first.

for example, in my spare time i repair old computers and give them to poor kids because i believe passionately in the neccessity for kids to learn things about/with computers. then i pray that their parents will not sell the damn thing to buy food or pay debts but it happens all the time - 70%. then they tell me it was stolen or sth, because they are ashamed. nevertheless i continue my path.

there is no boom-bang-revolution-thingie, only millions of small boring exhausting steps towards changing sth at all.</comment>


One Death is a Tragedy; a Million is a Statistic - <AUTHOR> http://flowingdata.com/2009/01/09/one-death-is-a-tragedy-a-million-is-a-statistic/ <comment><USER2> Anyone further interested would be well advised to check out the book Compassion Fatigue by Susan Moeller

[http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=tGmwvJ6STHkC&...](http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=tGmwvJ6STHkC&dq=compassion+fatigue+susan+moeller&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=RrDEyTLfdh&sig=uBuNXsf3ivurhibevEwN7iKP32k&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result)</comment>


Firefox for Windows 10: How to Restore or Choose Firefox as Your Default Browser - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2015/07/29/firefox-for-windows-10-how-to-restore-or-choose-firefox-as-your-default-browser/

<comment><USER2> Edge is only set as your default browser if you use the "express settings" during upgrade.

[http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2015/07/windows-10...](http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2015/07/windows-10-edge- default-100597253-large.idge.jpeg)

</comment><comment><USER3> Can they also release a guide on how to switch to a different scripting language in Firefox away from the default of JavaScript?... Oh, I forgot, developers don't deserve a choice.

<comment><USER4> Asides from improving JavaScript, Mozilla participated in making webassembly. There will be multiple non-JavaScript webassembly languages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The Windows shell should simply allow apps to send users straight into the second screen with the browser choice available.

</comment><comment><USER5> It really is not that much of a big deal, IMO. And I'm really not a Window fanboy.

<comment><USER6> The screenshot in step 2 suggests to me that the settings app does not recognize browsers other then Edge on the system. I wouldn't know what to do if I saw that without being told to click on it for options, as there is no hint that it's a drop-down menu.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Firefox worst modern browser ever! It's even not fully compatible with HTML5 spec. And debugging in Firefox its like a doom. :)</comment>


An activity tracker that sync with mobile phone using LED light - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1269010520/goccia-the-worlds-smallest-and-simplest-activity-t

<comment><USER2> I just spoke with the CEO/co-founder of G-wearables, maker of Goccia. This product will be shipping in May to Kickastarter backers. Can anyone comment on the pros and cons of visible light (LED) communication? Interested in feedback from the HN community.</comment>


Do most employees at technology companies subtract value rather than add it? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/Do-most-employees-at-technology-companies-subtract-value-rather-than-add-it/answer/Dima-Korolev?share=1

<comment><USER2> One problem is that it isn't clear what category workers are in.</comment>


Knowing Their Harm, Politicians Still Push for Minimum Wages - <AUTHOR> https://fee.org/articles/knowing-their-harm-politicians-still-push-for-minimum-wages/ <comment><USER2> Wow a libertarian think tank is anti minimum wage? What else is new?</comment>


Ask HN: Curating the internet? - <AUTHOR> Would love to get your thoughts. What if there was a chrome extension that allowed you to upvote any link you run into over the internet. This way you have a meta layer of human curation over the internet, giving contextual clues as to whether something is really useful or not! <comment><USER2> The simple upvoting system you described would only be useful if you happened to like the same things as the average internet user. For example, I'm probably not going to like something just because a hundred million teenagers liked it. (An upvoting system doesn't even work very well for me on a fairly narrowly focused site like HN - I only read a small fraction of the items on the front page.)

A more effective approach might be for the system to learn what users like based on the correlations between their upvotes and other users' upvotes. For example: "people who liked X also liked Y". (Kind of like how Amazon suggests merchandise to people.)

However, I already get more interesting stuff than I can ever finish reading just by following links from sites that I already find interesting. So I'm not sure what value would be added by having a curation service.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a fantastic point. I actually was thinking about building it and seeing what happens, just as an experiment. Also, it would be a lot of work to upvote after viewing the article

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Yahoo and DMOZ tried the human curation model. The extension is interesting given you have sufficient funds for infrastructure and the substantial effort you'll need to put into fighting spammers and those gaming it.</comment>


The Man Who Created Second Life Thinks We Can Make an Earth-Sized Virtual World - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/the-man-who-created-second-life-thinks-we-can-make-an-earth_sized-virtual-world <comment><USER2> I've played enough MMORPG's to know that big is not always better. Usually as more expansions are added the player base spreads out and the world ends up feeling empty and boring.

The best games tend to stay fairly medium sized so that they can maintain density and contact between players. The vast wastelands of Second Life are a testament to the failure of rapid expansion.

<comment><USER3> A 1:1 Earth makes sense if you want to make a virtual world compatible with AR. Otherwise, I think it only makes sense for flight simulators and games involving space travel.

<comment><USER4> Even Kerbal Space Program shrinks planets and space down! It's simply too big.

<comment><USER5> The kerbal planets are already so big that there is nothing interesting on 99% of the surface area of them. There are mods to make them "full sized", but they don't make the planets less interesting than they were otherwise.

Really the planet size in that game is about game balance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Perceived surface area is relatively insignificant - Minecraft is already at least several times the surface area of the planet (details vary by version) even if it's much simpler and vertically constrained.

<comment><USER7> Are you sure about that? How long does it take to run from one edge of the map to the other?

<comment><USER8> [http://farlandsorbust.com/](http://farlandsorbust.com/)

That guy's been doing it for quite a while.

> At the end of that most recent FLoB-ATHON Weekend in 2015 we discovered that > I was 2,266,779 blocks in the furthest 'Z' coordinate, the equivalent of > 2,266-kilometers from spawn! Amazing, yes, but it means we are still only > 18.06% of the way to reaching the Far Lands located at 12,550,820 meters! > They don't call them "far" for nothing! INDEED!

<comment><USER7> Ah, I guess I was used to playing on multiplayer where the map size is much more limited.

<comment><USER9> You may have only played the Xbox version, which did have a strict constraint on the map size. The PC version, IIRC, has no such restriction aside from perhaps memory and/or maximum possible values. The Far Lands referred to are actually a result of this lack of constraint allowing the player to reach a point where floating point errors begin to wreak havoc on the map generator.

<comment><USER10> Most PC servers have limits enforced to prevent runaway disk usage.

In fact it's now baked into the vanilla game as a command.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think the SL-style obsession with "we'll do X, but virtually!" is something of an investment-chasing joke. Look at E-mail as an example of a wildly successful global cultural and economic phenomenon.

Do you buy virtual stamps? Virtual envelopes?

Do you use a "lick" emote to adhere them?

Do you virtually walk your avatar to the post-office?

Do you virtually transact with a virtual postman?

...Hell no. The major benefit of virtual worlds is not work or commerce, but entertainment and escapism. It's simple: Most _practical_ tasks can almost always be accomplished better by _dropping_ the messy and incidental limitations of reality, rather than laboriously simulating them.

Before sending a message, I don't walk down a wood-paneled gallery of my friends portraits, I just start punching in their name and I pick from a narrowing set of choices.

</comment><comment><USER12> Tangentially, Ernest Cline's "Ready Player One" explores a future where a universe-sized virtual world is pervasive in society because everything in the real world has fallen to hell. Not the best literature out there, but entertaining and apropos to the discussion.

<comment><USER13> Also Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash" deals with a very similar society. I recommend both, though probably would recommend "Snow Crash" to this crew more readily.

<comment><USER14> Interestingly enough, the "metaverse" of Snow Crash was the direct inspiration for the Second Life game mentioned in the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Technically, it's probably possible, but the problem with Second Life isn't that it's not big enough. And no, the Oculus Rift isn't going to save Second Life. There's already an Oculus Rift interface to Second Life, and it's been around for over a year.[1] Maybe with more resolution... Then again, maybe resolution won't help either.[2] (That's an Oculus Rift used to view a roller coaster simulator.)

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQVXl- jOKqQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQVXl-jOKqQ) [2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nHvPopqYkA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nHvPopqYkA)

<comment><USER14> Big enough re: population wise, at least. SL's still quite profitable, but the numbers are trending down, and having been a user of that world on and off since 2004, I can say it's probably because there's not a lot to do there anymore that doesn't involve making, buying, and selling things.

It demands a lot of technical literacy on the part of its users, both from the hardware demands (the SL client, or "viewer" is infamously demanding of the local graphics hardware and internet connection), and from knowing how to navigate the sometimes obtuse interface and conventions of the world.

..that goes double if you actually want to make things. Then, your corpus of knowledge needs to include 3D design and familiarity with Serious Business modeling programs like Blender or 3DSM. If you're making things besides furniture and clothing, add some programming knowledge into the mix for their own custom programming language (LSL).

This sounds damning with faint praise, but the magic's just not there anymore for me. Still, if you haven't actually had a look yet, you should. There's plenty to explore and there's quite a lot to see before you get bored. The client is free, as is an account.

<comment><USER16> I've never played. Was there ever anything to do there that didn't "involve making, buying, and selling things," or are you just saying that it has become boring doing the same things over all the years?

<comment><USER14> tl;dr: There used to be, at least it felt like it, a lot of games and social experiences and other "cool stuff" that was less about showing off how you decked out your avatar and more about either playing games with others or exploring strange environments.

An example: There was this Tetris/bingo hybrid called "Tringo" that was big in the early years. You'd buy a board, and then anyone could click on it, get a human-sized "card", and play the game against anyone else that was in the area.

There was even a reward element to it - you could set a game as pay-to-play, and then the top X players of each round would get a share of the donated proceeds.

Anyways, it was _everywhere_ for a while. If you looked at the ingame list of registered events back then, it was absolutely dominated by Tringo.

(The guy who invented the game even made a Gameboy Advance version of it!)

Eventually, people got bored of it, and now you hardly see it around anymore.

There were lots of other gaming fads (Chariot Races, Tech Warfare, skydiving at Abbot's Aerodome..), but people just stopped coming.

Part of this is due to the server side being _really quite awful_ at having a bunch of people in the same space. Tringo worked because those people weren't doing a whole lot other than clicking on the board in front of them.

This never really got much better over time. More than about 20 people in the same space and the server starts dropping frames (increasing "time dilation") to keep up. It gets worse if those people have any scripted bits on their avatars (and many do, since those run on the server responsible for simulating the region)

The absolute hard limit is 40 people in the same region (65535sq/m) before it won't let anyone else in, but it becomes unusable much before that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Minecraft and Second Life make for an interesting contrast. Minecraft is a fun game. Second Life is... what? I've seen presentations that claim that virtual worlds would be good for virtual meetings, but no commercial products based on that idea have gained traction vs video-conferencing and screen-sharing.

The simple idea of a fun game turns out to be subtle and critical to success. What is Minecraft? A game. Is it fun? Yes. OK, it has a purpose. Is there another purpose for a virtual world? Unclear.

</comment><comment><USER18> Even if we can, playing around with [http://www.outerra.com/](http://www.outerra.com/) makes me question if we should.

<comment><USER19> I'm curious, what argument would there be for why we shouldn't?

This is the first I read about outerra, and it actually looks really cool!

<comment><USER18> Mostly the argument expressed by others here: it would be too boring and it will encourage the further production of things like _No Man 's Sky_ that will ultimately fail to satisfy because the number of hedons per game frame is very low, and the huge/infinite world aspect only makes it harder to increase the density. Outerra is pretty cool for what it is, but I don't see it as the basis for a new Second Life or even an MMORPG. Perhaps there's potential for something on the scale of Dwarf Fortress like populating the planet with billions of unique agents with history, or as an interface to the real world via data collected from the IoT tracking the geometry and movement of every interesting thing on the planet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Work on improving the interface, and drawing people in, then the size will take care of itself.

</comment><comment><USER21> Sounds similar to what High Fidelity are building ([https://highfidelity.com](https://highfidelity.com)), which they're also open sourcing.

<comment><USER22> "Riding this wave of virtual reality expansion, Rosedale's new company, High Fidelity, is developing the successor to the Second Life experience."

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Philip Rosedale is pretty high up on the list of people I admire.

He's got a ton of knowledge and experience, (used to work at RealNetworks before his stint at Linden Lab and now this new outfit), has plenty of crazy ideas, executed on many of them (to varying degrees of success and profitability), always keeps moving, and has a downright infectious vision for the future.

Even if that vision doesn't completely pan out, we'll get some very cool stuff to see from the attempt!

<comment><USER23> Phillip is a great guy, no question.

Being at RealNetworks would seem more a like downside to me. I hated that product with a passion! I think RealNetworks has the distinction of being the only technical product I have ever disliked that much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> First make a usable one. Second Life, even today, is a sluggish and unpleasant experience with a world that takes forever to load even on fast Internet connections.

</comment><comment><USER25> Minecraft already has a theoretical land size that's larger than the landmass of earth.

Interestingly, the defacto behaviour with players is to start brand new maps every once in a while, even though only the barest fraction of the available space has been used up.

</comment><comment><USER26> As No Man's Sky proves We can also make an infinite world.

<comment><USER27> The biggest problem with infinite worlds like that is that it's difficult to make locations feel alive and to knit stories into the world, which limits the stories that can be told. It's great for exploration games where just going through and seeing each location is the game but trying to give areas anything other than cookie cutter stories/interactions is something I haven't seen from a procedural game yet.

<comment><USER28> Yes, I think we're more likely to see interesting, finite worlds rather than expansive but desolate worlds. As it is on Earth, people like to visit particular locations for their natural or man-made sights.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > Earth-Sized Virtual World

"reamde" from Neal Stephenson come to my mind.

</comment><comment><USER7> This only sounds like a good idea if you can get vehicles that move faster than airplanes.

</comment><comment><USER30> > The next generation headsets — head-mounted displays like the Oculus — will > pretty likely have gaze tracking in them

How am I supposed to take this guy seriously if he doesn't even know the name of the product he's targeting? The HMD is called the Rift and the _company_ is called Oculus.

<comment><USER31> He knows. He's speaking colloquially.</comment></comment>


15 Websites / Services I'd Actually Pay For (And the Price) - <AUTHOR> http://ryanspoon.com/blog/2008/05/08/15-websites-services-id-actually-pay-for/ <comment><AUTHOR> What websites / services would you pay for? And at what price?</comment>


Apple = God? - <AUTHOR> http://clarkware.com/blog/2011/1/10/trackpro This is just ridiculous. Scroll down to the rejections. This is probably not the first and only article in this tone. Do all devs see apple as a kind of "jurisdiction", a vis major? Is a rejection of your app an act of nature that you have to bow under, and change your business plans to accomodate for it?<p>To me, this is just another example to why Apple's closed platform can and will never be successful in the long run. <comment><USER2> Title is annoyingly misleading. Good article, though.</comment>


Windows will improve user privacy with DNS over HTTPS - <AUTHOR> https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/Networking-Blog/Windows-will-improve-user-privacy-with-DNS-over-HTTPS/ba-p/1014229 <comment><USER2> > There is an assumption by many that DNS encryption requires DNS > centralization.

A lot of the discussion recently, like this statement, conflates "DNS encryption" with "DoH". Encrypting DNS does _not_ require centralization, but _DoH does_ require[1] centralization in in the RFC. DoH doesn't even "improve user privacy"; it simply changes who can record your DNS queries. Instead of the ISP, Cloudflare/Microsoft/etc gets to see your unencrypted DNS queries.

The way to actually improve privacy is to perform the recursive resolution locally[2]. The actual communication with each individual DNS server needs to be encrypted, which is where work needs to be done. DNS servers need to support DNS over TLS (DoT) or some other type of encrypted transport. Hypothetically, DoH could be modified to support this, although that seems more complicated than simply wrapping the DNS protocol in TLS.

You don't get privacy by centralizing all of your requests onto one server. To protect privacy, you limit the data that any one party can see. DNS was designed for this purpose: only the NS record of a domain needs to be sent to a centralized server, which is easy to cache for a long time. Most requests then go to domain-specified authoritative server[4].

It's good to see Microsoft at least trying to address this at the OS level. App doing DNS without involving the OS seems to be more about taking away control from the user. I'm sure Google would love to be able top bypass DNS based adblocking.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21110296](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21110296)

[2] Which is easy: follow NS records until you get to the server that has your authoritative answer.

[3] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21348328](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21348328)

<comment><USER3> > Encrypting DNS does not require centralization, but DoH does require > centralization in in the RFC.

This isn't a problem that DoH was designed to solve. It is designed to be a highly compatible, secure, endpoint DNS solution. Which it is. So while this criticism is accurate, it is also irrelevant, DoH replaces one "hop" on DNS and that's all it was ever designed to do.

> DoH doesn't even "improve user privacy"; it simply changes who can record > your DNS queries. I

It stops passive eavesdropping. Right now you can change who you use for DNS and your ISP can still monitor your DNS to profile you and invade your privacy. With DoH you can pick a privacy focused endpoint and nobody between you or that endpoint can trivially monitor your DNS.

DoT solves this too but has issues (see next response).

> DNS servers need to support DNS over TLS (DoT) or some other type of > encrypted transport.

DoT and even unencrypted DNS is blocked on a lot of free WiFi. Now what? DoH solves this issue, as it was designed to. DoH can traverse even the most locked down network over the same HTTPS channel as any other web traffic.

> You don't get privacy by centralizing all of your requests onto one server.

Perhaps, but it scales really well and is the basis for all current DNS resolution. If everyone on the internet did as you suggested core internet infrastructure would fail under the load. You've essentially killed almost all caching.

<comment><USER4> > With DoH you can pick a privacy focused endpoint and nobody between you or > that endpoint can trivially monitor your DNS.

Even with the DoH which site you access is still trivially to track by your ISP and anybody along the wire as the site name is still not encrypted in the TLS connection traffic.

<comment><USER3> > site name is still not encrypted in the TLS connection traffic

Encrypted SNI is solves exactly that and is becoming increasingly common.

None of these solutions work individually to solve privacy problems but all of them together are substantially increasing the cost and decreasing the accuracy of profiling users on-mass.

DoT never gained widespread adoption as an endpoint solution due to compatibility problems. It is technically the superior choice (Vs. DoH), but what good is superior if it breaks all the time? DoH is more imperfect but actually works reliably across different network configurations and client devices, which means it "wins" even if it is "worse."

<comment><USER4> > Encrypted SNI is solves exactly that and is becoming increasingly common.

Can you please elaborate? I know only this:

[https://serverfault.com/questions/976377/how-can-i-set-up- en...](https://serverfault.com/questions/976377/how-can-i-set-up-encrypted- sni-on-my-own-servers)

"Encrypted Server Name Indication (ESNI) is still an Internet Draft, _you will not find it in any major server implementation_ as it is subject to change. In fact, the draft version implemented by Firefox supports draft-ietf-tls-esni-01 which is incompatible with newer draft versions."

Edit: I see Firefox Nightly is mentioned, it is the version that normal users who use Firefox (Firefox has at the moment less than 5% worldwide marker share) just don't use (it annoyingly updates every night).

<comment><USER3> Cloudflare's entire network supports it and Firefox Nightly can consume it see: [https://blog.cloudflare.com/encrypted- sni/](https://blog.cloudflare.com/encrypted-sni/)

That means over 10% of the internet's traffic supports ESNI (even if <1% of clients consume it regularly). We're also seeing additional vendors explore ESNI, including Chrome's team who have said they will look into implementing it when the spec is finalized.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder if the ISPA (British telecom association) will nominate Microsoft for the 2020 Internet Villain Award.

[https://www.ispa.org.uk/ispa-announces-finalists- for-2019-in...](https://www.ispa.org.uk/ispa-announces-finalists- for-2019-internet-heroes-and-villains-trump-and-mozilla-lead-the-way-as- villain-nominees/)

<comment><USER6> The reason why the ISPA did not like DoH is because UK law said they had to block/filter traffic. Per court order, a UK ISP would be obliged to block things, and if DNS was no longer an option, they would potentially start having to do IP blocking and BGP sink holing (PDF warning):

* [https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/ids-2019/...](https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/ids-2019/08-fidler-icann-dns-symposium-a-uk-isp-view-on-doh-issue-11may19-en.pdf)

That law now seems to be dead, which may reduce their worries on the matter:

* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/uk-government-ab...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/uk-government-abandons-planned-porn-age-verification-scheme/)

While I'm sure the ISP techs may have had some misgivings about DoH (plenty of tech-mind folks like Paul Vixie do), the strong response from the ISPA may have been guided by the lawyers.

<comment><USER7> It seems to me that UK ISPs might have more luck trying to modify the behavior of the UK government than the behavior of American tech corporations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I guess that is the end of the naysaying really; if the underlying OS supports DoH then browsers can use the settings of that resolver if present and rely on them instead of having to manually do it.

On another note; I like the principles laid out in the article, they do reflect how I'd want a system to act in the presence of DoH servers.

I bet the steps forward will be to test if the DHCP Server configured is capable of DoH and if it is, then using it _only_ over DoH on that network. A second thing might be if DHCP or RA's learn a new flag that indicate the resolver uses DoH upstream or supports DoH itself.

<comment><USER9> Did you mean DNS server instead of DHCP server? What has DHCP to do with any of this?

<comment><USER10> DHCP tells the devices on the local network, what DNS server they are supposed to be using.

<comment><USER9> I know. Hence the question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Currently DNS filters and hosts files are a good way to block trackers and telemetry. By securing this using HTTPS, we are not far from closing another loophole for user freedom: What if Chrome does not allow self signed PKI roots anymore? On Android one already gets a scary message each day when installing a root certificate

<comment><USER12> This is software running on a users' computer. They will always have the opportunity to modify their configuration (or patch the running software if needed). The argument that DoH is a step backwards doesn't make sense, since it's always been possible for software that wants to circumvent hosts file / DNS filters to use an alternate name resolver.

I agree that we should push for more configuration options, but the fact remains that it's the users decision to run software that doesn't respect their freedom of choice, and ultimately they control the code that runs on their machine.

DoH is overall a huge benefit to preventing in-flight tampering and protecting user privacy. The net-benefits far outweigh the downside that "good" network providers can no longer tamper with DNS results.

<comment><USER13> > it's always been possible for software that wants to circumvent hosts file / > DNS filters to use an alternate name resolver.

And it's always been possible to block access to all DNS resolvers except your local one. Until now.

> the fact remains that it's the users decision to run software that doesn't > respect their freedom of choice

Unless that code is malware or some Javascript an advertiser has placed on a website. There is no way to stop software from doing its own DoH requests without using browser or OS services to do it, so the controls supplied by the browser or OS are of rather limited value.

> The net-benefits far outweigh the downside that "good" network providers can > no longer tamper with DNS results.

I disagree. I'm of the opinion that DoH brought with it a security problem that is difficult to resolve. It does provide additional security in another area, but that's not something that couldn't have been done using a more reasonable approach that didn't hamper my ability to control what's happening on my own machines.

<comment><USER14> > Unless that code is malware or some Javascript an advertiser has placed on a > website. There is no way to stop software from doing its own DoH requests > without using browser or OS services to do it, so the controls supplied by > the browser or OS are of rather limited value.

This is true irrespective of DoH. If software wants to ignore the OS settings and resolve names down via its own custom protocol, that's what it's going to do. Short of auditing that software and it's connections, you can't really stop it.

The OS settings are not a _control_ , they're a _convenience_.

<comment><USER13> True. DoH just makes it much cheaper and easier to do in a robust way. Which means it will be done much more often -- probably commonly, because of advertisers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> DoH provides a way for programs to do DNS lookups while evading any attempts at blocking certain DNS lookups.

This is a dream situation for advertisers and enforced telemetry. This is also why the existence of DoH has made it necessary for me to install a MITM HTTPS proxy in my network, so that I can regain control.

DoH brings some privacy benefits, but it also brings privacy costs. It is not an unambiguous win -- it is a tradeoff.

<comment><USER15> If you run a local DNS server (e.g. AdGuard Home or Pi-Hole) you can set them up as a DoH system and still block requests.

My bigger issue with this is that Microsoft is trying to paint themselves as an angel when in reality, as part of Windows 10, they've added so much telemetry, it feels as if they're closer to an ad giant than a software giant.

<comment><USER16> One possible problem is when devices start to use their own hardcoded DoH resolver. Today, Chromecast devices use their own resolver (still standard DNS), tomorrow, they might use DoH resolver. Worse, think about apps starting to do that on your mobile phone...

Now, you need MITN on your home network or you block everything to google.dns:443... but what if they rotate their DoH resolvers?

<comment><USER17> MitM wont help, eventually. They'll start pinning certificates.

The DNS content filtering ship has sailed. It was nice while it lasted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If you are a stubborn troglodyte like me and have your own secure DNS solution in place, then you can add the following domain to your local DNS to always NXDOMAIN: use-application-dns.net to tell the resolver to use local network DNS settings. And then of course, null route all the DoH resolvers.

I am somewhat curious what the fallout would be if ISP's decided to NXDOMAIN that domain. Would they get in any trouble?

<comment><USER17> If your DNS server doesn't easily allow you to return an NXDOMAIN (the DNS server in Windows Server is this way, for example) you can also just create an empty zone for "use-application-dns.net". As long as no "A" or "AAAA" records are returned the conditions for the canary will be satisfied.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why are Microsoft doing this? One explanation is morality - they are doing it for the greater good. Another explaination is branding - they want to look like the new "no evil company" which ties in with their open source initiatives. It could also be a way to prevent Google having too much power which is a good thing for Microsoft. It also might be to sell more Windows licences, but I doubt this would factor into the decision about what OS to use. Or it is just that technical people got to make the decision unhampered by management, and technical people value privacy.

<comment><USER20> There's the age old question, "if someone does something good for the wrong reasons, are those things still good?"

I for one welcome the new competitive facade of privacy and security. Minor improvements are at least improvements.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> ...it just won't improve it with the endless telemetry and crap ads it inserts at the OS level.

</comment><comment><USER22> Can anyone expand on what advantage HTTPS has over raw SSL/TLS? Why tunnel over another application-level protocol? What's the value-add of throwing GET and POST etc into the mix?

Truth be told, I don't even really understand why we didn't adopt "DNSs" decades ago along with HTTPS. Encrypt at socket level, done. What's the catch?

<comment><USER23> Here's what the RFC[0] says about it:

>Two primary use cases were considered during this protocol's development. These use cases are preventing on-path devices from interfering with DNS operations, and also allowing web applications to access DNS information via existing browser APIs in a safe way consistent with Cross Origin Resource Sharing [...]

[0]: [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8484#page-3](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8484#page-3)

<comment><USER22> I don't see how on-path devices could distinguish between DNS-over-HTTPS and DNS-over-TLS, provided they were run on the same port. It's just an encrypted socketed connection.

As for web apps... well, that's horrifying enough to be the real reason. Javascript should not be running its own DNS queries, outside of the system DNS settings - it's a layering violation that looks a lot like an end run around the "user agent" concept (i.e. the web app, rather than the browser itself, is the "trusted endpoint" and the user is considered an adversary). If web browsers actually wanted such functionality to be available, they could easily expose an API for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > However, since these servers and their DoH configurations are well known, > Windows can automatically upgrade to DoH while using the same server.

They are not well known. How do they know my DNS server is DoH? It's good that, like Chrome and unlike FF, they plan on using the existing DNS servers but are they also using a known whitelist of DoH servers? How can I get on there?

We need an HSTS/Alt-Svc for DoH...can't I return an EDNS response or something w/ my standard DNS response that says I support DoH and the clients use it henceforth while it remains the same configured server? Maybe even a default domain to check DoH support even on NXDOMAIN so it doesn't leak the first domain requested in clear UDP.

<comment><USER25> Chrome has an upgrade list[0], last time I checked Firefox allowed you to choose in settings.

0: [https://github.com/chromium/chromium/blob/711b1ba2735f8af4bd...](https://github.com/chromium/chromium/blob/711b1ba2735f8af4bd6359c6292e1875412df74f/net/dns/dns_util.cc#L146-L217)

<comment><USER24> I feared it was hardcoded :-( I am trying not to ask every user of my DNS server to manually configure each of their browsers and their OS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> And of course, for your privacy, Microsoft will send a copy of all your DNS requests to its telemetry servers unless you opt out with a registry key!

<comment><USER27> A registry key that is reset to the default every major update, no less.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I already use dnscrypt-proxy on both Windows and Linux for DoH. Filtering hosts is even easier because it allows wildcards.

</comment><comment><USER29> I suppose with DNS level blocking of ads now impossible that means I will need to crawl my DNS blocklist and resolve those domains, then block those IP addresses at the network gateway... Even if clients punch out through a secret DoH ip those resolved advertiser domains will still be null routed.

Not as easy but just as effective.

</comment><comment><USER30> >DNS traffic represents a snapshot of the user's browsing history

This is what the Mozilla Corporation didn't get when they decided to send by default all the DNS traffic to Cloudflare. Or, perhaps, they did get it right...

<comment><USER31> Well, it's at least different than sending it to your ISP, which I'm sure most users do by default. The question is, do you trust CloudFlare or your ISP more?

I hope more DNS servers support DNS over HTTPS soon because my options for using it are:

\- CloudFlare \- self hosted with CloudFlare's code

Not a lot of options there...

<comment><USER32> My ISP. They are regulated and I pay them. If they do stuff I don't want I can complain and switch.

I have not relationship with Cloudfare. I don't want them to have data about me. I never signed a contract with them.

<comment><USER33> Tell me more about this magical place you live with more than one high speed ISP.

<comment><USER34> I think that is actually plenty of countries. Most countries do not have an ISP oligopoly like the US, Canada or Australia.

<comment><USER27> The parts of Australia with NBN (read: about 90% of houses in the country) have choice in ISP. I'm not sure of the split between all the FTTx options, so they may not all count as "high speed".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Is there an easy explanation anywhere of how I can achieve the most secure DNS configuration that is reasonably simple to set up today?

I.e. what's the best I can do, short of hosting my own DNS?

<comment><USER33> I have a few VMs that run all my networking services. One of them runs cloudflared and Pihole. Cloudflared is a DNS server that routs all DNS queries to 126.96.36.199 using DoH. I have Pihole configured to use cloudflared as its upstream DNS. So in addition to the Pihole's ad/tracker blocking, all DNS requests leaving my network are done over DoH regardless if clients actually support it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is the correct approach, and I'm glad to see Microsoft is taking the lead here.

The operating system should support DoH. Any browser not respecting the operating system's DNS configuration should rollback their plans to hijack DNS requests (particularly Firefox) and entrust the network stack to the OS, as is intended.

</comment><comment><USER37> Let us disable telemetry first.

</comment><comment><USER38> This is awesome news.

Long awaited and MUCH needed for privacy.

This is the _primary_ way in which your privacy is invaded.

Where is Apple on this?

</comment><comment><USER39> ...Are people going to believe this?

</comment><comment><USER40> > Silently changing the DNS servers trusted to do Windows resolutions could > inadvertently bypass these controls and frustrate our users. We believe > device administrators have the right to control where their DNS traffic > goes.

What Google and Mozilla seems not to get, Microsoft gets 100%.

Good on them. Thanks for sticking up for the user, MS. At least someone did.

<comment><USER41> Mozilla is being more aggressive here than Google. My understanding about how Chrome will work, if the DNS servers configured on your machine support DoH, they will silently upgrade to use DoH. But it is entirely based on what your system DNS server is set to.

[https://9to5google.com/2019/10/28/chrome-encrypt- dns/](https://9to5google.com/2019/10/28/chrome-encrypt-dns/)

Mozilla (I believe) is doing rolling out DoH to users (in the US) to use CloudFlare's DoH server. This will bypass the system configured DNS servers. This can be disabled in settings. And if the DoH DNS lookup fails, it'll fallback to the system configured DNS.

[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-dns-over- https](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-dns-over-https)

(I'm a googler, opinions are my own)

<comment><USER42> Additionally (for Mozilla, not sure about chrome) there are a couple of checks to allow system administrators to force Firefox to fall back to the system DNS if desired. Either they can return NXDOMAIN (or some other options) to queries for use-application-dns.net, or they can use the usual group policy/active directory/policies.json methods to configure users' Firefox to not use DoH or use their internal DNS server with DoH if supported.

[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/canary-domain-use- appli...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/canary-domain-use-application- dnsnet)

[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/customizing-firefox- usi...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/customizing-firefox-using-group- policy-windows)

[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/customizing-firefox- usi...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/customizing-firefox-using- policiesjson)

[https://github.com/mozilla/policy- templates/blob/master/READ...](https://github.com/mozilla/policy- templates/blob/master/README.md#dnsoverhttps)

<comment><USER10> With the admins having to userride use-application-dns.net, they have to break DNSSEC for the .net root.

Classy move, Mozilla.

<comment><USER42> They don't have to, that's one of the options. If they're corporate admins they likely have Active Directory or the ability to require the profiles.json, which also disables it.

It's intended as a way to allow DNS filtering software to work when admins aren't involved with user devices. DNS filtering software breaks DNSSEC anyway. So using it doesn't break anything extra.

<comment><USER10> I believe you meant Group Policies, as Active Directory in itself won't solve any Firefox configuration problems. With policies.json, we have such experience that random Firefox updates wipe it out and we have to redeploy.

With the DNSSEC breackage, the issue is the scope. With a little bit of thought, they could break just .application-dns.net instead of entire .net, if they used use.application-dns.net instead of use-application-dns.net. But I guess collateral damage wasn't in the mind of whoever suggested that.

<comment><USER43> The whole point of this feature is to ensure DNS filtering keeps working. Since DNS filtering already conflicts with DNSSEC, what does it matter that one of Firefox's mechanisms for signaling that you want DNS filtering also conflicts with DNSSEC?

<comment><USER10> No, the point of this feature is to use the resolver configured by the network administrator. DNS filtering might be one of the reasons, but there might be others, like resolving zones behind ACL, which by definition won't be resolvable by public resolvers.

Also, it is a difference, when a single second level domain has broken DNSSEC (especially one used only by single application that won't use DNSSEC anyway), and when entire top level domain is broken (which will be used by other applications, which do validate DNSSEC).

I know that DNSSEC is not favoured by browser makers; I'm personally not a big fan either. But just ignoring it as they were all the years is something different, than actively trying to undermine it and damaging other users of it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


HTML5 Developers Dominate at the Facebook Hackathons - <AUTHOR> http://www.citygridmedia.com/developer/blog/html5-developers-dominate-at-the-facebook-hackathons/ <comment><USER2> I'm glad the article doesn't try to extrapolate that HTML5 has won mobile. I doubt that developers whom attended two hackathons are unlikely to be representative of the state of mobile development.

Also, I'm unsurprised that HTML5 developers are well-represented at hackathons, IMO in the context of a hackathon, i.e. building something from scratch in a highly constrained time frame, one can achieve a lot more in HTML/CSS/JS than in a native app. This might be down to my greater experience with web technologies than native mobile development, but I believe the tooling for web technologies are better suited to rapid development, e.g. I can rapidly build layouts with tools like CSSEdit2 and see how my changes affect the document in a WebKit view, in realtime. You also don't have to run a build process to see results, feedback is in general, instantaneous.

<comment><USER3> //Also, I'm unsurprised that HTML5 developers are well-represented at hackathons,//

The pattern I observed in the internal hackathons, of the company I work for, was the dominance of web developers participating/winning over c++/Java developers.

As you said, the main reason for this was web developers were able to produce something that the audience can 'see' and in short amount of time.

Also, I've been thinking a lot about the survival of C++/Java developers in web company - because of the introduction of technologies, like Node.js. Because, now it is possible that a JavaScript programmer could do both back- end and front-end stuffs.

<comment><USER4> I am yet to see a Node.js in the enterprise world that does not fall apart after the prototype phase and the real world workload starts.

Node.js future lays at most in Rails and PHP shops.

<comment><USER5> How about Trello? It uses Node.js for the back-end update processing and event handling. <http://blog.fogcreek.com/the-trello-tech-stack/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Well, yeah, if you're hacking a Facebook app, that implies that you have connectivity, right?

The primary reason for a native app is to provide functionality with poor or no signal. If you're doing something that's directly tied to the Internet, you may as well do it with all Internet technologies and reap the benefits (faster development, instant deployment of new versions, etc).

<comment><USER7> "The primary reason for a native app is to provide functionality with poor or no signal."

Huh? The primary reasons for a native app are to create a superior user experience and have access to native hardware features.

You can create an offline mobile web app pretty easily (on iOS, at least, not sure about android).</comment></comment>


Building a PC, Part IX: Downsizing - <AUTHOR> https://blog.codinghorror.com/building-a-pc-part-ix-downsizing/ <comment><USER2> The most interesting blog I've read recently about building a new system was (the guy who wrote the Doom and Wolfenstein black books) Fabien Sanglard's:

[http://fabiensanglard.net/the_beautiful_machine/index.html](http://fabiensanglard.net/the_beautiful_machine/index.html)

He built a neat looking, entirely passively-cooled machine.

Discussed here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22501462](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22501462)

<comment><USER3> That is a beautiful machine, indeed

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Got into PC building about 2 years ago, when I realized Apple's only real plan for the pro desktop market was the iMac Pro [0] and were never going to make up with Nvidia.

Got a shockingly powerful machine for the price it cost me, still less than if I'd got an iMac Pro and dual GPUs for Octane Render and 2TB SSD.

What I'm really itching for is a high quality case, there seems to be a ton of premium options for SFF builds but close to zero in ATX or mATX my preferred factor[1]. I'm currently running in a Fractal Define Mini-C which does look ok but still a bit plasticy if I'm going to have a large box in my house I'd honestly by happy paying upwards of $500+ for a premium case if I liked the look of it and it was all quality and looked sophisticated.

Probably sounds crazy saying that to most PC builders but at the sort of size a PC is at it's almost a piece of furniture so I'd like it to look good.

[0]: It was clear the Mac Pro was dead at that point and todays Mac Pro was only a response to the markets response to the iMac Pro. [1]: Only one I can name is the Cerberus [https://www.sliger.com/products/cases/cerberus_x/](https://www.sliger.com/products/cases/cerberus_x/) which looks great but has niche build requirements.

<comment><USER5> If you are looking high end cases they are out there, just hidden.

Such as,

Dune Pro: [https://www.dunecase.com/](https://www.dunecase.com/) InWin lines: [https://www.in-win.com/en/gaming-chassis/z-tower/](https://www.in- win.com/en/gaming-chassis/z-tower/) Lian Li, Cases that are desks, and other high end designs: [http://www.lian-li.com/](http://www.lian-li.com/)

If you have money, you will find people looking to sell you high end cases.

I personally use Fractal Design cases, they look good, made of thick steel, and are cheap enough I can replace them more often without feeling bad.

<comment><USER6> +1 for Lian Li. They're an excellent case for building in. Good fan mounts, water cooling mounts, thick steel, good layout for PSU / HDD placement.

<comment><USER7> I have several Lian Li cases as well. Most (if not all?) of their cases are aluminum.

<comment><USER6> I've got a Liam Li PC-011 and it's steel. I had to drill holes for my custom reservoir, that one at least is steal

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This was a great write-up, and a solid reference. I've been meaning to build an SFF max-powered PC for a while, just as a fun pet project.

> That said, if you spend all day encoding videos, or compiling big projects > in source code, the more cores but less overall speed tradeoff might be the > correct one. And AMD is a lot closer on IPC now than they were 2 years ago, > as well.

These days the IPC gap has been basically closed [1], which is what the write- up says, but really worth calling out. This hasn't happened since the Athlon 64 days. On mobile, AMD's IPC absolutely savages Intel with the 4000-series.

[1] [https://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-vs- core-i9...](https://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-vs- core-i9-9900k-ipc-shootout?page=3)

<comment><USER9> Not only more cores, but up to 16M of L3 per core (on the EPYC 7F52), and a whole lot of memory bandwidth to make cache misses more bearable.

A lot of builders try to strike a balance between price and performance, but if you are OK with spending a lot of money on one box, you can have a LOT of power.

That's waaay more compute power than I'd be able to use (which is why the last time I built my own machine - not including adding memory/storage to a pre- built one - was in the late 90's). My main personal laptop is an aging Core i3 that was chosen because I needed a laptop and this one was the one that could be delivered in two days) and my server (from where I run VMs for testing) is a low-end Lenovo server that was being sold at an unreasonably low price at the time.

> On mobile, AMD's IPC absolutely savages Intel with the 4000-series.

I haven't found many machines built on those. It's a shame.

<comment><USER8> > I haven't found many machines built on those. It's a shame.

The 4900HS just came out, so I assume we'll be seeing more of them! (LTT: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYqG31V4qtA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYqG31V4qtA))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I care a lot more about making the computer quiet than I do about making it small. Those are competing objectives.

I'm currently using a fairly large case from Fractal that has a bunch of big, slow-spinning fans as its only moving parts. I'm sitting right next to it and can't hear it at all. (When I'm playing a game, I can hear the GPU fans.) My life would not be improved at all if it took up less space.

<comment><USER11> My preference is for a quiet space too. I moved my machine into the nearby laundry room and only have an HDMI & USB cable coming into the room. I'm lucky my house orientation allows for this. Next house I buy I'll try to replicate the 100% silence I now enjoy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Anyone interested in small form-factor (SFF) builds should check out Optimum Tech on YouTube. He specialises in SFF builds and reviews, the style is chilled out, and the videos are nicely produced.

No affiliation, just a fan of the channel:

PC Builds - [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLv8HwYhBwOOoYxKyLMJTX...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLv8HwYhBwOOoYxKyLMJTXBDlQxn0c3pS_)

Cases - [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLv8HwYhBwOOpUFPiBs6QG...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLv8HwYhBwOOpUFPiBs6QG1SlnIzM_oObD)

<comment><USER13> I long for the day I can build a Mini-ITX laptop. I think it's doable considering you don't go for a dedicated GPU, but alas... the documentation on that is not abundant and I do not have the necessary CAD knowledge yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've got a very modest Ryzen 5 1400 build with 24GB memory and some inexpensive GPU's to support 4 monitors. Nothing expensive. I'm not a dev so I don't need to compile or anything, although I do wish my GPUs were better, but only when I need to encode video.

The biggest takeaway is that I have a case that is 15 years old or so. It probably came with a P4 in it back in the day. For my use, it is good enough. It's not pretty. But it doesn't need to be. It just holds parts in place, which it does just fine.

With my next build, which I hope to do from scratch (everything's been an upgrade for the longest time) I hope to spend a grand on a mild gaming level machine, and another few hundred for a single giant 4k monitor rather than the 4 monitors I currently have. _Then_ I'll buy a new case.

<comment><USER15> There has either been some recent generalized loss of quality, or a move of high quality players into some other channels for PC cases.

I switched mine in 2011, because they were too beaten already, and today they are the component that give me second largest number of problems, just after power supply unities.

<comment><USER14> I'm curious- what problems does your case give you? For me, once the computer is built, I rarely touch the case. My USB ports are on the desktop with a 7 port powered hub, and other than dusting the computer whenever I think it needs it, I don't touch it. So I can't relate, hence my question.

<comment><USER15> The last one I switched (just last year) had a broken power button that was embedded inside the case that I couldn't replace it without breaking anything.

I've had a few fancy ones with design failures that weren't showstoppers on a new case, but once the plastic parts whore-off they wouldn't hold well (ok, they were still usable). I had a case that developed some conductive points on the main board support, and one that after a bit of dust accumulated there wasn't enough airflow anymore, and one with an embedded fun that broke in months. All of those were mid-range models, from different manufacturers that people were recommending on the internet.

Funny thing is that last time I brought one, I got for the cheapest no-name thing available (it breaks anyway...). It's a plain standard case, with a simple robust assembly, standard ventilation, normal buttons, and a old-way standard main board support. I have seen no issues at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I went through the same phase last year and built a small, watercooled mini- ITX 9900K + RTX 2080 Ti PC with the Louqe Ghost S1 case:

(JPG) [https://turbo.paulstamatiou.com/uploads/2019/05/copyright- pa...](https://turbo.paulstamatiou.com/uploads/2019/05/copyright- paulstamatiou_com-DSC2824-2000.jpg)

[https://paulstamatiou.com/stuff-i- use/#computer](https://paulstamatiou.com/stuff-i-use/#computer)

</comment><comment><USER17> My only computer right now is a DeskMini A300W (6 inches X 6 inches X 3 inches, 1.92 L) with an AMD Ryzen 5 2400G. It is fine for older/simple games like GTA 5 and Rocket League and also connects to my 4K TV with a long HDMI cable and works for watching movies and stuff.

For work I normally am just in an SSH session or maybe in Visual Studio Code for my Ocaml experiment.

Here is my "advanced cooling system" [https://i.redd.it/d3ssbzfl1ri31.jpg](https://i.redd.it/d3ssbzfl1ri31.jpg)

<comment><USER18> Regarding your cooling solution [https://www.reddit.com/r/shittybattlestations/](https://www.reddit.com/r/shittybattlestations/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I also did this years ago, it was my last upgrade and I regret not getting normal sized boards. I only have space for one pci-e card, so I can either choose to have a video card, or anything else I need (such as a capture card). Now I would also like the possibility to run two capture cards, but I can't even do that. These small form factor pc's aren't event that much smaller than an mATX build, so I don't really see the point anymore. If a manufacturer would start making smaller PSU's GPUs and more integrated cooling, then maybe. I don't think you should sacrifice so much versatility a PC has just for a little extra floor space.

</comment><comment><USER20> I understand making small machines is fun, and I did it once myself. I regretted it every day I used that machine, though and have gone back to "normal" sized cases.

<comment><USER21> Can you elaborate? I'm actually looking into building my first PC and the small form factor of this case looks really appealing.

Here's some builds that use it: [https://pcpartpicker.com/builds/by_part/wBw7YJ](https://pcpartpicker.com/builds/by_part/wBw7YJ)

<comment><USER22> It is much easier to find spare parts. PC can last 10 years, and it may be difficult to find some obscure motherboard or power supply.

Airflow is bad in small cases. And it is harder to build it for newbie correctly.

Bigger cases are usually quieter (fans are bigger and spin less).

I would recommend MicroATX format and case. Still fairly small but without any compromises.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> GuB-42 Not a big fan of the new trends in PC cases. The tend to lack extensiblity. Downsizing is part of it.

One think I like about homebuilt desktop PCs is not just raw power, but also the large amount of options regarding ports, drives and extension cards. In laptops there is potability to consider, not so much with desktops.

For example, my tower has 3 5.25" front facing bays used. One for DVD, one HDD rack, and a multi-card reader with USB3 ports. Plus front panel jack connectors for headphone and microphones, and extra USB. Inside is a 3.5" mechanical hard drive in addition to the SSD, and an extra USB3 controller (for the Oculus Rift, which is quite finicky). It doesn't fit in a downsized case, and even finding a case with more than 2 front-facing 5.25" drives is hard enough these days.

Do I use them all every day? Obviously not, I'm not sure I even opened the optical drive this year, and it is not a feature I want on my laptop. But if I need to read or burn a CD or DVD, I know I have a computer that is ready to do that.

For me, small form factor PC still have a place in the living room. To watch movies, surf the web, play games, etc... Kind of like a modern game console, but more open. But for my desktop, I like to have everything at hand, even if it costs a bit in terms of clean look and makes cable management tricky.

<comment><USER23> Same here.

I recently build a Ryzen 3950X PC in Fractal Define 7. The case is huge and mostly empty space. No problem though - the case sits below my 2-meter wide standing desk, so it's not competing with anything.

I've got a Blu-ray burner, some PCI-e sound cards that I swap from time to time, and a large potential for future upgrades / add-ins.

That said, it is spectacular what amount of power you can fit in these small boxes these days - if you need to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Wish I had this around to read for inspiration a few months ago. I recently upgraded my PC, and for the first time in 20 years of owning desktop PCs, bought a prebuilt one specifically because of size and aesthetic concerns.

I wanted a top-of-the-line gaming rig that ran quietly and took up a minimal amount of desktop space for my home office/"battlestation" [1]. Maybe I gave up too quickly, and maybe I've gotten too old for this shit, but I couldn't find anything that fit the bill without spending a lot of time on custom watercooling setups. I wonder how loud Atwood's rig is here.

I went with a Corsair One i165 [2] and love it so far - runs whisper-quiet no matter what I'm doing, and is small enough to easily fit on the desk. We'll see in a couple of years if I'm kicking myself over lack of upgradeability, but I'd hope its specs last me a long time.

Side note: it's kinda hard to find nice-but-not-gaudy components these days, I feel. Not a big fan of the RGB craze as I get older (although 16-year-old-me would have loved it).

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/battlestations/comments/f4fk3h/dual...](https://www.reddit.com/r/battlestations/comments/f4fk3h/dualsystem_loft_art_battlestation/)

[2] [https://www.corsair.com/us/en/Categories/Products/Systems/CO...](https://www.corsair.com/us/en/Categories/Products/Systems/CORSAIR- ONE/CORSAIR-ONE-GAMING-PC/p/CS-9020005-NA)

<comment><USER25> Typically one of the main arguments against pre-built machines are that you can build a similarly specced machine for less. But the time and effort it takes to do so may not be practical for every situation, so really you're paying more to have something up and running much faster and (ideally) without the headaches of troubleshooting hardware. Plus, I agree that a lot of the components one would buy to build a similar setup are covered in XTREME GAMER RGB aesthetics and is really unpleasant to me. It can be difficult to find a high performance laptop that doesn't look like this, especially if you need a nice GPU in it. I'm saying all of this because I don't think some hardcore build-a-PC people truly understand the business/general value of (good, not cheap) pre-built machines. When one needs a performant machine asap to work when, say, they're existing machine suddenly dies, they do not have the time to assemble a PC usually.

Why do you think that Corsair will be difficult to upgrade? Genuinely curious, maybe the size of the case will impose limitations? Looks like there's only two RAM slots (ITX board?) so that might also be an upgrade issue?

<comment><USER26> Corsair One comes with a custom AIO cooler for its GPU. For me, the most often upgraded component in a gaming PC is the GPU, since you need a new one every two generations in order to keep up with the latest games. If you are the type of person that likes to play games on high/ultra settings, you will probably regret not being able to upgrade the GPU in your otherwise excellent computer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> My pet peeve with computer form factors is depth. 40-50 cm depth was OK in times of CRT monitors, but with LCDs and disappearance of DVD drives, there is no reason to have significant depth.

Even with mATX SFFs it is still rare to have depth below 30 cm. mATX makes lower bound to about 26 cm, full-length GPUs are up to 32 cm, but there are still powerful GPUs with reasonable length.

<comment> mark-r I have all my TV-related equipment on a stereo rack. That includes a PC for home theater use. The PC doesn't fit, I had to add boards to both sides of the rack that extend out two inches so there'd be a place for the PC feet to rest.

If I ever end up replacing that PC it will definitely be one with a smaller depth, even if it takes some work to find one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I get the appeal of building in an SFF case, but there's a catch: with micro- ATX or full ATX case, you're more likely to put it away somewhere like under the desk, since the power button and ports will be easily accessible from the top. However, with a small case, you will have to keep it on your desk, adding to the clutter.

I built a computer recently and went in the opposite direction. Since the major differentiator of desktop vs laptop is power, I put as much power into my computer as I possibly could :) I also built a custom loop in it, because it looks cool, keeps the PC quiet at all times and I always wanted to do that.

Here's the PC if anyone is interested: [https://pcpartpicker.com/b/Mkcqqs](https://pcpartpicker.com/b/Mkcqqs)

<comment><USER28> -

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm glad he wrote about this. I haven't paid much attention to building PCs in the last decade.

With that said, I'm sticking with my full tower format. It's bigger and heavier by far, but it's easy to do maintenance on, and the cats can climb and jump on it without doing any damage.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm not a thermodynamics engineer, but one thing that strikes me as odd about all of these is that most of the fans are sitting parallel to the motherboard, and sandwiched between the board and the wall (which only has small holes).

Whereas the Apple way, since the PowerMac G5, has been to mount the fans perpendicular to the motherboard and daughterboards, and push air across them. That seems like it would be much more efficient, better for both cooling and noise.

Is there a reason these PC systems mount the fans that way? Is it not actually as inefficient as it seems? Is this a case of modular parts each needing their own built-in cooling, and not being able to look at the bigger picture?

<comment><USER6> I'm guessing the smaller side of the heatsink would require a smaller higher RPM fan.

Similar to what you'd see in a 1U server chassis, however they're substantially louder.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I've always liked the look of small PCs but I feel like they probably wouldn't be great if you also want a quiet PC. Personally I would like to mount my computer in a server rack that's not in the same room as the rest of the setup (so just route the monitor cables, a USB hub, and an ON/OFF button through the wall). That way you can use the computer without having to hear it.

If you want some inspiration for sff PCs then I can recommend the subreddit /r/sffpc [1].

[1] [https://old.reddit.com/r/sffpc/](https://old.reddit.com/r/sffpc/)

</comment><comment><USER32> I like the comparison of compute power volume density to consoles. I think it shows up as a win when you also consider that consoles turn into wind turbines under high load. You simply cannot quietly pull away hundreds of watts from a small area without big fans. 140 mm is just right for this amount of heat. With a clever layout, you don't need a case much larger than you longest dimensions (set by mobo and GPU, mostly). It's a fun challenge.

</comment><comment><USER33> Build logs are less frequent now but I'm glad he wrote about this!

I recently rebuilt my rid (ncase M1) with a Ryzen chip and now want an excuse to use all that power. I think one of the biggest case size constraints are how massive high end GPUs are and whoever cracked 2080Ti type performance in a small single-fan chip will do wonders for the SFF community and portable computing in general

<comment><USER34> Man I'd forgotten how much time I used to spend scrolling through build logs 10-15 years ago. I loved watching the things people would come up with, particularly in the case modding world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> But ... why? Unless you are going to tug it around a lot, what is the big deal with miniaturizing? There are lots of ways to "hide" a PC or make it blend in with office furniture. Just reducing the size of the box seems a bit of a pointless fad unless you are fine with laptop like performance, in which case ...

<comment><USER36> Kind of strange to refer to "laptop like performance" considering the parts he's using.

And why not? Aesthetics are very important for a lot of people. Unless you're doing some sort of watercooling or need multiple GPUs or other expansion cards or need to put it a bunch of HDDs there's no reason you can't go for a smaller form factor. Why should a mid or full-sized ATX case be the standard?

<comment><USER35> The problem is that high performance builds produce a lot of heat, and those tiny cases do not have enough space to let that be easily extracted with low RPM high diameter fans, so you are going to end up with a pretty box that is going to be pretty noisy, unless you stick to lower power consuming and thus lower heat producing laptop like parts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Just finished building my new PC last week after running the old one into the ground over 6 years. In the 7 liter sized Dr. Zaber Sentry 2.0 case (basically the size and form factor of a gaming console) I easily fit a Ryzen 3700x and RTX 2070 with zero cooling issues and fans I can barely hear. Here's my takeaway:

\- If you want a truly SFF PC (no, 20 liters is not small), you're going to have spend extra money and extra time on finding components that will fit. ITX options are very limited, SFX is somewhat pricey, and GPU form factors often don't adhere to the NVIDIA/AMD spec, so clearance-compatible cards are limited.

That said, I love the new form factor - it's got everything I need in a tiny package that I can put anywhere and is easily portable for cleaning or when I need to do some on-site video rendering and laptops just don't cut it.

<comment><USER38> What cpu cooler are you running in the Setry case?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Funny, coincidentally I've been researching this topic of SFF builds in the past few days. Found this amazing YT channel: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRYOj4DmyxhBVrdvbsUwmAA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRYOj4DmyxhBVrdvbsUwmAA)

But the problem with it, as well as /r/sffpc is that their top priority is a gaming PC, and they optimize for putting in a latest, most performing GPU.

I as a developer, don't need a discrete GPU for nothing more that to connect several (2, actually) screens to the pc.

That said, I haven't found a small case that doesn't optimize for "normal- size" GPUs (too big for non-gamers) and doesn't cost a fortune, yet.

<comment><USER40> I've used a high-end gigabyte brix at work running ubuntu - this is a laptop- class cpu, but with a fast ssd and 16GB of RAM, perfectly fine for development work -- and they're tiny and silent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I had a microATX case for about 5 years, and it wasn't great. I can't imagine building or using anything even smaller. I had to practically disassemble the whole thing if, for example, a fan started rattling, a SATA cable was loose, or I needed to reset the BIOS[0]. I got a much larger sound dampening case after that, and it's amazing. It's easy to work in and much quieter, and I don't mind the size because there's lots of room under the desk.

[0] I wasn't using a board that was high end (or recent) enough to have a back panel button for this.

</comment><comment><USER42> Those who kinda like downsizing, but don't want to be limited to ITX and SFF parts

Heres Raijintek Thetis [0]. Takes full size ATX motherboards, GPUs, CPU coolers and power supplies. Dimensions 210×360×366 mm (27.7L), smaller than most mATX cases and rivaling some ITX.

I keep looking at it, trying to find an excuse to build a new system, but waiting for next gen Ryzen.

[0] [https://www.raijintek.com/en/products_detail.php?ProductID=5...](https://www.raijintek.com/en/products_detail.php?ProductID=53)

<comment><USER43> Airflow doesn't look too great on it though?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I used to have a big fascination with small form factor and power efficient PCs. Other than having Mac mini for a while, I didn't actually implement to much on homebuilt PC side, mostly due to cost. I've had a fairly small mATX case and used lower watt CPUs. For projects like HTPC, the tradeoffs made sense, but I don't have one of those any more and for my desktop, I'm back to a full size case and full powered components and large heat sink to go with it.

</comment><comment> mark-r The last two PCs I built were smaller units, based on some older Coding Horror posts. The thing I've found is that even though the parts have gotten smaller, the cables haven't - they're just as long and thick as they've always been, which makes layout a lot harder. And the configuration is less convenient - the power supply covers 3/4 of the motherboard, so you have to remove it to do any useful work.

</comment><comment><USER45> There's one thing I don't get: why would I optimize for size to begin with?

I live in a small studio apartment together with my gf, and I still am completely happy with a giant ATX case that sits under my desk. And if I would switch it for anything, it would be a bigger case, with more space to organize everything, not a smaller one.

<comment><USER46> People aren't always putting computers on or around their desk. It took a while to find a case that had the right fit in my old TV stand/entertainment center. Size was part of it, but so was shape. Anything in the shape of a cube or mini tower wouldn't fit. I needed a pizza box shape, but not one that was too wide or too deep.

Luckily, both my HTPC and entertainment centers are both due for upgrades, so at least now I can plan ahead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> What I've been personally and voluntary communicating over and over for couple weeks, is that the minimum volume achievable without exotic parts is _3.9L_ using "SGPC K39 ITX" case, which is one whole liter less than Intel Ghost Canyon NUC that measures almost 5L.

(It'll be dense as a lead block, and loud and hot though)

<comment><USER17> Please see my comment below about my 1.92L computer.

<comment><USER47> That's not including PSU and a double height GPU, on top of being all exotic.

<comment><USER17> It does include the power and the integrated graphics is better than some older GPUs.

<comment><USER47> No it doesn't. Yours is 1.92L without power, 2.24L with that 120W power brick.

And the difference against 3.9L is about as much as a GPU takes, so you're just saying an ITX build with no GPU is weaker but smaller by what you just removed. A tautology.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> While I'm used to a lifetime of blaring fans and the pale dim glow, I'm getting more interested in building _quiet_ machines. Especially for things like media centres or NAS. It sucks to have a computer blaring while you're trying to watch a movie, or think in your living room.

</comment><comment><USER49> I recently found out that my mini-ITX PC case (the EVGA Hadron) can actually support a larger motherboard with minimal modifications. That means more PCI-e slots, more RAM slots, more storage connectivity, and better I/O. It's making me excited about eventually building in the same case!

</comment><comment><USER50> I kind of want a SFF as my next PC. For example the Enthoo Evolv Shift Air looks stunning and I could actually put it on my desk unlike my huge ATX case. I just don't know if it's worth paying more for less with the increased difficulty in building and upgrading it.

</comment><comment><USER51> > I guess that's yet another sign that the PC is over

I sure hope this is not the case.

</comment><comment><USER52> Seems like quite a few people built PCs because Apple's desktops have been atrophied, that definitely played a part for me, too :)

I've designed a water cooled mITX system with PCIe GPU that should've fitted into a 2DIN car radio slot, which is doable with a deep enough slot, a PCIe riser, and even a DC/DC power supply in the box. I never got around to actually building that due to life getting in the way, but the components ended up in a laser-cut acrylic cube crammed as small as can be. I have to say the laser-cut acrylic case works quite well, and is well within reach of anyone with a maker space close-by and basic CAD skills.

TL;DR: anecdote about SFF PC building.

<comment><USER38> _> Seems like quite a few people built PCs because Apple's desktops have been atrophied_

Some people maybe, but most people who build PCs were usually never part of Apple's customer base to begin with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Have people switched back to using PCs for development, especially since they're staying at home with the covid-19 lockdown? Or is it still mostly a Mac market, despite having to fork over nearly three grand for an eight core workstation?

<comment><USER54> > especially since they're staying at home with the covid-19 lockdown

Are you asking whether people have been buying a lot of PCs over the last month or two? I don't have the stats, but I suspect the answer would be no.

<comment><USER55> You would be wrong to a surprising degree. Stores have been limiting the number of laptops, prebuilt desktops, and monitors people can buy at once, and makers like Dell and Lenovo saw a huge spike in shipments, so much that they have even raised prices. VARs are having a hard time keeping things in stock.

<comment><USER54> Interesting! I had no idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I'm running the same PC since 2011, and doing done hefty EM simulations in it. I did expand it to 32 GB RAM recently just cause I was running out, and 32 is still insufficient.

I'm holding out until the new i9-10 are out. Unfortunately those are still stuck with max 64 GB RAM.

<comment><USER57> I'm assuming that EM simulations are massively parallel. Depending on your budget you should consider a threadripper or the new Intel HEDT for a budget option.

<comment><USER57> There's also regular ryzen with up to 16 cores and 128GB of RAM.

<comment><USER56> See my other reply. Ryzen is 30% slower due to Intel compiler optimizations, and I need higher clock speed rather than cores. The new i9 with 5.1 GHz boost should work best.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Loomi.ai: information overload solved - <AUTHOR> http://www.loomi.ai <comment><AUTHOR> Sign up for BETA, feedback on this new product that delivers information in a completely innovative way would be great. No costs and you get your personal assistant.</comment>


Ask HN: How to report/revoke malicious Comodo code signing certificate? - <AUTHOR>

Just came across this page: http://update-for-pc-1024.com/?dist_id=365&channel=ac_h1gv&v=icrs&c=e7982022e2acb355c97cb18725d4df5e
Which serves 'adobe_flash_setup.exe' which is signed with COMODO Code Signing certificate of OOO "Finans Servis", proezd Serebryakova 6, 129323 Moscow, Russia. It's also found under different names, see http://www.herdprotect.com/adobe_flash_setup.exe-b6e4cc61a87f6633f5ef683be5525f9686475a4f.aspx .
I think this is at least they violate '1.6. Restrictions. Subscriber shall not: (i) impersonate or misrepresent Subscriber's affiliation with any entity,' and also '3. Revocation. Comodo may revoke a Certificate if Comodo believes that: (xi) the Certificate was issued to publishers of malicious software; (xii) the Certificate may have been used to digitally sign hostile code, including spyware or other malicious software;' - https://www.comodo.com/repository/docs/code-signing-subscriber-agreement.pdf
But how to report such an issue? I cannot find any security related email address on the Comodo website. <comment><AUTHOR> Ok, just got a (signed) message back from Robin Alden (CTO): "This certificate has been revoked.", in the CC was: firstname.lastname@example.com , so that seems to be the (internal) email address.

</comment><comment><USER2> Sorry to ask, but what have you tried so far to contact them? (assuming they don't read hackernews)

There is a 'contact us' page on comodo.com with email addresses and toll free phone numbers. More phone numbers on the support page. A live chat on the sales page. Facebook, Twitter, G+ account are linked.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, by email: email@example.com (the only non sales address I could find), no response yet.

I looked at the Twitter & Facebook but they looked pretty dead. No replies @comododesktop ([https://twitter.com/comododesktop/with_replies](https://twitter.com/comododesktop/with_replies)), idem for FB account ([https://www.facebook.com/ComodoHome](https://www.facebook.com/ComodoHome)), no replies on the comments I see on FB.

Also both FB & Twitter are about non CA-products, so I was hoping for a security contact form, email address, chat or phone line..</comment></comment>


Show HN: The Developer's Design Shop - <AUTHOR> https://devdesignshop.com <comment><AUTHOR> OP here. Just launched a design shop for developers to sell clean and easily deployable designs.

It's just an MVP with the absolute minimum features to get some feedback, so please do give your impressions!</comment>


Facebook's Android contingency plan - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/facebooks-android-contingency-plan-2016-1?op=1 <comment><USER2> This is just smart business. Any time a company is heavily hinged on another company, in a manner which that other company could change a policy and or block them at any time, it's key to have a plan for a way forward.

Companies like Zynga, for example, have to be really prepared for how they'll handle potentially hostile changes in policy at Facebook, where much of their platform resides.

With so many companies relying on Apple's App Store or Google's Play Store for distribution, it's amazing how few have a plan to deal with their potential removal from either. A lot of banned mobile developers end up just folding in completely if they lose access to one of those distribution methods.</comment>


Show HN: Seattle Hacks - Online Dev Resources Powered by GH Pages, Jekyll & JSON - <AUTHOR> http://seattlehacks.com/

<comment><USER2> It's nice to see that there's something better than <http://www.seattletechcalendar.com/>

in the area

</comment><comment><USER3> What's the repository URL? I can't seem to find it.

<comment><USER4> Maybe I'm missing something, but when I look at the repository, all I see is a readme. What I don't see is the purported "Code & website".

<comment><AUTHOR> Checkout the gh-pages branch:

<https://github.com/crabasa/seattlehacks/tree/gh-pages></comment></comment></comment>


The back button cache – taming it with HTML 5 - <AUTHOR> http://www.sitekickr.com/blog/back-button-browser-cache/

<comment><USER2> Not sure if this is really a good technique. Ecommerce websites often have different places where it's possible to add or remove items and all these places will have to be change to make sure the localstorage is updated. Also there could all kind of special cases that could make the localstorage out of sync. eg. if I add one item, then click back or close the tab before the JavaScript has time to execute. If I close the tab, then login from a different browser, the localstorage will be out of sync too.

There might be ways to solve these issues, but it's definitely more complex than a snippet of JS. Amazon's solution, while requiring an additional HTTP request, is more reliable, and probably more maintainable too.

<comment><AUTHOR> You raise good points, no question that this solution will not work for everyone.

It would be up to the developer to tailor the this to their needs. For instance, adding an unload event to prevent sync issues.

Sometimes improving performance requires a more complex solution, sometimes a less complex solution. It all depends how bad you want to avoid that AJAX call!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Arduino or Raspberry PI for teenager? - <AUTHOR> My nephew, who is 16, wants to do a computer project for his senior year.  He wanted to build a computer, but I suggested doing something with a small computer setup like the raspberry pi might be more interesting.  What platform and materials would you suggest for a small computer on chip format to a young person with no programming experience? <comment><USER2> If he wants to build the hardware: buy Arduino

If he wants to build the software: buy Raspberry (since the motherboard is already built)

Those are cheap so you could buy all of them :). I would personally recommend the Raspberry Pi because the default OS (wheezy raspbian) contains lot of resources to learn programming as a beginner. If you go on the Arduino way, buy the starter pack, as it contains a "cookbook" with many projects.</comment>


Ask HN: What will happen to recreational driving? - <AUTHOR> What will happen to car companies like Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, Aston Martin? What will happen to cars like the Audi R8, Corvette, Tesla Roadster?
What will be the value of sports cars in a future where all cars on the road have level 5+ self driving capabilities and is illegal for people to drive. This is just one possible future and it's still decades away, but it is a distinct possibility that could arrive by mid-century. You will always be able to drive any vehicle on private property, but the overwhelming majority don't have that much land, so I was also thinking of something like large private and/or public parks.
I haven't heard anyone bring up this specific question about recreational driving, so I'm interested to see how everyone thinks this could play out. <comment><USER2> [https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/the- figh...](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/the-fight-for- the-right-to-drive)

"Today, the Human Driving Association has around ten thousand members. In addition to a constitutional amendment, it advocates for the adoption of automotive technologies that improve safety without limiting freedom."

</comment><comment><USER3> What time frame are you talking about? Eventually, human-driven cars will be the equivalent of today's horses - recreational vehicles operated mostly by wealthy people in specifically designated areas. That's a long way off, though. In the medium term, manufacturers will still offer their trademark performance and in-cabin experiences with cars that either drive themselves or be driven by a human.

</comment><comment><USER4> Most of the cars listed aren't all that fun to drive while obeying the laws in most jurisdictions. If you're going to drive a car that's best enjoyed while endangering those around you, being restricted to private property is overdue.</comment>


Overview of Gauche Scheme - <AUTHOR> http://practical-scheme.net/gauche/man/gauche-refe_2.html#Overview-of-Gauche

<comment><AUTHOR> One potentially cool tradeoff in Gauche Scheme is giving up full R7RS [1] compliance inexchange Clojure style keywords that resolve to themselves [2].

[1]: [http://practical-scheme.net/gauche/man/gauche- refe_5.html#St...](http://practical-scheme.net/gauche/man/gauche- refe_5.html#Standard-conformance)

[2]: [http://practical-scheme.net/gauche/man/gauche- refe_48.html#K...](http://practical-scheme.net/gauche/man/gauche- refe_48.html#Keywords)

For example:

      gosh> :key
      :key
      gosh> (define :key 5)
      *** ERROR: Compile Error: syntax-error: (define :key 5)
      "(stdin)":2:(define :key 5)

      Stack Trace:
      _______________________________________

<comment><USER2> We'll address this issue in a couple of releases. It'll be compliant to R7RS _and_ mostly backward-compatible to existing code. The features is already in the dev HEAD.

The trick is:

\- There'll be a "keyword" module that conceptually binds and exports all possible names beginning with ':'. Each name is bound to itself.

\- The keyword module is implicitly visible to Gauche native programs (inheriting "gauche" module). So, the identifiers beginning with ':' behaves as if they're keywords, unless you rebinds them explicitly.

\- From vanilla R7RS, nothing is special with identifier beginning with ':'. You can import the keyword module to make it behave like keywords.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've been writing a ton of stuff in Gauche lately and I've found the experience to be great. The standard library is well thought out and the documentation is solid (aside from the ffi / c generator but that side of things seems to be still evolving).</comment>


Princeton Mom to All Female Students: 'Find a Husband' - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/03/princeton-mom-to-all-students-find-a-husband.html

<comment><USER2> What is up with this commentary? In one section the author writes that it's going to be awkward for the future dates of the woman's son. I can see why she would think this, but in reality, the mom's comments probably will not affect her son at all.

I think the part where she says senior girls only have 1 class to choose from is at least partially true. Being on campus I've noticed that college girls want to date older guys. This also means that they dislike dating younger men. I'm not saying it's true for every girl, nor am I saying that women can only date older men. It's just a preference they have. Why is she getting all offended? Does she really think senior girls would want to date a freshman? Come on now.

Also she's making a lot of statements that she (and many other people) have observed in life. Like the idea that men marry pretty but stupid girls (it does happen... all the time). I'm not saying that it's great, but it's what happens.

Just seems like a feminist who can't get a grip on the reality of things.</comment>


Is Apple Rent Seeking with the App Store? (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://stratechery.com/2018/apple-app-store-follow-up-aws-arm-servers-intels-impending-choice/ <comment><USER2> People seem to be using that term way too much for anything that involves making a profit. Rent seeking has a narrow definition in economics and providing access to a wide consumer base cultivated through years of hardware and software development definitely does not fit in that definition.

It's weird to just forget the value added through the whole ecosystem by Apple and say that they make "30% for doing nothing" which is only true if you ignore... everything? It's like saying a downtown store is rent seeking because it's only selling stuff they didn't make at a higher mark up.

<comment><USER3> Rent seeking: Rent seeking (or rent-seeking) is an economic concept that occurs when an entity seeks to gain added wealth without any reciprocal contribution of productivity. [0]

What Apple is doing is artificially _limiting_ what an app can do with regards to specific functionality made possible by having a web browser embedded in your app, because they want to be a middle-man in every financial transaction.

That is _all_ Apple is doing. They're not adding shit, they're _limiting_ existing functionality because they can set arbitrary bullshit rules that have nothing to do with customer satisfaction or productivity and everything to do with Apple's profit margins. That's what rent seeking is.

Every large company does this - they grow at all costs, usually using their investor buddies' money until they run most competition out of business and then proceed to squeeze their suppliers into borderline extinction through monopolistic abuse.

These criminals do it to everyone and they do it across companies too by forming anti-competitive backroom deals between each other. [1]

[0] [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp)

[1] [https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department- requires-s...](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-six- high-tech-companies-stop-entering-anticompetitive-employee)

<comment><USER4> If Apple were the only game in town I would be right behind you, but they're not, Android is right around the corner with open arms, a larger global market and everything!

If Apple is "not adding shit", why are we even discussing this, why aren't they being run into the ground by Android?

<comment><USER3> You're taking a sentence within a context, removing it from said context and asking why the sentence does not work in a different context of your choosing.

That is an illegal move :)

Regarding only game in town:

You're saying that if I claim to have been raped by someone I decided to go on a date with, that you'd be sympathetic if this rapist were the _only_ other human in existence, but since there are _other_ human beings I can now go on dates with, there is no problem that needs to be fixed?

Well, alright then, as long as we have choice, having been raped is not a problem I suppose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That's ancient history!

They're approaching two trillion dollar market cap. That's like filling the Great Lakes with Grade A honey and not expecting any bees to come sting yoh azz. Once the economy and political scenario stabilities, the hammer will fall. As for what that means, one only needs look at what happened to Bill and Steve when they chose to fight rather than capitulate and then realize how much opportunity Tim Apple has already had to avoid what's now inevitable.

IMNSHO: If Apple doesn't license alternate app-stores to be operated by qualified third-parties (on a per-consumer opt-in basis) and support the iPhone development tools on non-Apple systems, there will be a similar outcome. I'm just hoping if they go foreign, it's someone from Italy or Norway that takes over --I may have 40 years experience, but in my family, I'm considered mid-career and will be stuck with Apple for decades to come.

</comment><comment><USER6> yes, Yes, Absolutely, they add zero, extract lots = rent seekers...</comment>