Hash tables with open addressing - <AUTHOR> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12142 <comment><USER3> > I see a tendency to move from chaining hash tables to open addressing hash > tables due to their better fit to modern CPU memory organizations. CPython > recently made such switch

CPython recently switched to the naturally ordered maps suggested by Raymond Hettinger in 2012[0] (Pypy had already implemented it in early 2015[1]) but AFAIK it has _never_ used chaining. In the latest revision of dictobject.c you can find a note/comment[2] saying:

> The basic lookup function used by all operations. This is based on Algorithm > D from Knuth Vol. 3, Sec. 6.4. Open addressing is preferred over chaining > since the link overhead for chaining would be substantial (100% with typical > malloc overhead).

This is attributed to guido@1256[3], and if you follow the link you end up back in March 1993 in the commit "Generalized version of dictionaries, with compatibility hacks." when the file was created...

[0] [https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python- dev/2012-December/1...](https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python- dev/2012-December/123028.html)

[1] [https://morepypy.blogspot.com/2015/01/faster-more-memory- eff...](https://morepypy.blogspot.com/2015/01/faster-more-memory-efficient- and-more.html)

[2] [https://hg.python.org/cpython/annotate/default/Objects/dicto...](https://hg.python.org/cpython/annotate/default/Objects/dictobject.c#l663)

[3] [https://hg.python.org/cpython/annotate/7aa9613ffd36/Objects/...](https://hg.python.org/cpython/annotate/7aa9613ffd36/Objects/dictobject.c#l103)

<comment><USER4> Raymond Hettinger gave a presentation a few weeks ago on the evolution of the Python dict implementation - one of the most insightful videos I've seen in a long time.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p33CVV29OG8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p33CVV29OG8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> A good tldr of the resulting change here: [https://blog.heroku.com/ruby-2-4-features-hashes-integers- ro...](https://blog.heroku.com/ruby-2-4-features-hashes-integers- rounding#hash-changes)

<comment><USER6> > The reason open addressing is considered open is that it frees us from the > hash table. The table entries themselves are not stored directly in the bins > anymore, as with a closed addressing hash table, but rather in a separate > entries array, ordered by insertion.

> Open addressing uses the bins array to map keys to their index in the > entries array.

Am I wrong or is this generally not true? Open addressing is about storing the entries directly in the bins [1].

The new implementation is still open addressing, sure, but the bins contain an index to a separate entries array, presumably to keep the size of the bins array compact.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_table#Open_addressing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_table#Open_addressing)

<comment><USER3> > Am I wrong or is this generally not true? Open addressing is about storing > the entries directly in the bins.

Correct.

> The new implementation is still open addressing, sure, but the bins contain > an index to a separate entries array, presumably to keep the size of the > bins array compact.

Yes, the original proposal for CPython[0] also noted improvements in iteration speed since the iterator doesn't keep branching on the empty/full cells of the sparse array (it can just go through the dense one which is mostly or entirely full depending on implementation), and improvements to resizing performances.

Plus it also allows further gains e.g. pypy switches the size of the values in the sparse array depending on dict size (so under 256 ( _actual items_ ) the sparse array will be 1 byte/item, then 2 bytes until 2^16, etc…)[1].

And it has the advantage of being _naturally ordered_ (that is entries will be iterated in original insertion order) at no additional cost (modulo how _removals_ are implemented) whereas in older systems you'd need an additional doubly-linked list for that, IIRC that was the case for both PHP and Ruby (the base Python dict didn't conserve or guarantee ordering).

[0] [https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python- dev/2012-December/1...](https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python- dev/2012-December/123028.html)

[1] [https://morepypy.blogspot.fr/2015/01/faster-more-memory- effi...](https://morepypy.blogspot.fr/2015/01/faster-more-memory-efficient- and-more.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is this probing scheme better than cuckoo hash?

Also, Java hashmaps also used to use separate chaining but switched to using redblack tree for each bucket[1]. The main reason was to prevent attackers from choosing worst case inputs where everything gets hashed into one place and degenerate to O(N) search.

It seems like with the new change Ruby is still vulnerable to these hash dos attacks.

[1][http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/root/j...](http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/root/jdk/openjdk/8u40-b25/java/util/HashMap.java#165)

<comment> jay-anderson Java still uses a linked list chaining until a threshold is met (8 currently) which it then switches the bucket to a tree. I wish java could switch to open address hashing, but without value types it wouldn't help much (there's work on adding them: [http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/values/values-0.html](http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/values/values-0.html)).

Linear probing would likely be better than cuckoo hashing from a cpu cache perspective (all locations closer in memory). There are probing schemes which result in low number of checks and allow for higher loading factors similar to cuckoo hashing (e.g. robin hood hashing. See [http://codecapsule.com/2013/11/17/robin-hood-hashing- backwar...](http://codecapsule.com/2013/11/17/robin-hood-hashing-backward- shift-deletion/))

<comment><USER8> Strategy performance seems to be a rather mixed bag. In some testing we've done RH (completely implemented) performed somewhat worse across the board, but allowed higher load factors, compared to simple linear-probing. However, it would seem that RH doesn't (directly) suffer from tombstoning, which is rather problematic with LP for long-lived tables.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I feel like the old adage "premature optimization is the root of all evil" needs to be amended "...unless we're talking about optimizing for the L1 cache because: do that first!" Data locality is an architecture problem - I really think it needs to be considered when you first map out the data structures.

While it's great to draw attention to this and to bring any performance you can to Ruby, I'm not sure the effects of it will be felt. While the hash indices are now local to each other, the elements of the hash are still scattered all over the atmosphere. You really want hash table contents to be local as well. I wonder if we'll ever see a language grouping things in memory by type - who knows, perhaps one of you can steer me in the right direction here.

My primary tool of the moment is the slotmap for this sort of thing: [https://gist.github.com/kickscondor/e706145b20293dc05b0a262a...](https://gist.github.com/kickscondor/e706145b20293dc05b0a262a007046f1)

But it isn't a hash table in quite the same way, in that the "hash keys" are generated from the data's location in the table rather than from its content. I wonder what a hash table would look like which was designed to keep everything in cache-friendly pages.

<comment><USER10> I don't think the adage needs revising. We just need to remember that it applies to programming language users, not programming language writers. The whole idea is that the writers of your programming language should be doing most of the optimizing for you by making sure the language's primitives are already well-optimized for common tasks.

<comment><USER9> Sure, I think what a programmer is building may allow for ignorance of performance - a microservice may be so short-lived and its memory usage so small that it all fits into 32k anyway. No point optimizing.

But think about mobile developers. You aim to paint 60 times per second. If Swift doesn't give you any tools for ensuring a specific memory layout - <USER2> imagine it does, by having some kind of contiguous array of structs - then how do you optimize those heavily trodden pathways of your app that could really use keeping a certain array within that 32k?

This applies to WebGL developers, too. It seems like I've seen code where folks were using arrays of integers to achieve data locality - using a kind of serialization almost to pack and unpack from this array - alas I can't seem to recall where I saw that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Note this "small" detail:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_table#Open_addressing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_table#Open_addressing)

"A drawback of all these open addressing schemes is that the number of stored entries cannot exceed the number of slots in the bucket array. In fact, even with good hash functions, their performance dramatically degrades when the load factor grows beyond 0.7 or so. For many applications, these restrictions mandate the use of dynamic resizing, with its attendant costs."

Even if this is marked as "Citation needed" in Wikipedia anybody who tries to measure can get the same results: open addressing is much worse when the hash table is fuller and not "relatively empty." It's also much less forgiving to the hashing algorithm used. So unless you're clever enough to detect the cases where you'd carefully regrow the hash table each time it's "too full" there's a reasonable chance that your open addressing implementation measured optimistically can get worse in real life uses.

Increasing data locality is a good thing, however.

I'd prefer carefully implemented chaining unless I could be made sure that the "unlucky case" scenarios of open addressing won't happen.

So collect the real life uses, then measure, then decide what's better. Don't trust pre-selected micro-benchmarks.

<comment><USER3> > So unless you're clever enough to detect the cases where you'd carefully > regrow the hash table each time it's "too full"

There's little smart about it, open addressing implementations decide on a filling threshold, keep track of the current fill factor and resize when it's exceeded.

The smart part is deciding on the maximum fill factor, which depend on the probing strategy and the worst case you allow.

<comment><USER11> > which depend on the probing strategy

Not only. Resizing can involve rehashing all of the existing entries (unless you lose memory by storing the full hash values all the time, then it still involves copying and reallocation). If without open addressing you can get by with much less resizing and with worse (but faster) hashing function (although modern languages often have to use non-trivial hashing functions to prevent some kinds of attacks), it's tricky to find under which circumstances open addressing is cheaper: again, microbenchmarks aren't the complete story, the real-world uses where users grow the hashes are: what are the typical sizes? The typical occurrences of regrows? The good solution behaves good for a typical case (where a lot of the hashes are probably quite small9 and for the typical "big" case where some hashes grow significantly.

<comment><USER12> Is that really true? Yes, you may need to rehash but the amount of resizing you do is still going to be similar for similar performance targets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> While the actual change/patch is interesting, I found the long discussion and process to get it merged pretty interesting. It seemed to get bit tense at times in the "competition" between the two developers, but it seemed to have ended politely enough.

</comment><comment><USER14> Depending on element size, maps implemented with binary trees instead of hash tables could give even faster results, with guaranteed O(log n), and without requiring rehashing.

<comment><USER15> For which sizes is this?

<comment><USER14> E.g. compare C++ std::map vs std::unordered_map on strings. You can find some benchmarks here:

[https://github.com/faragon/libsrt/blob/master/doc/benchmarks...](https://github.com/faragon/libsrt/blob/master/doc/benchmarks.md) (for 16 and 64 byte strings: cxx_map_s16, cxx_umap_s16, cxx_map_s64, cxx_umap_s64)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> site seems down</comment>


Apple may introduce a radically different Mac product family by year's end - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/22/apple_may_introduce_a_radically_different_mac_product_family_by_years_end.html <comment><USER2> How is this 'radically different'?? Optical discs are going away and all drives will someday be SSD.

By the time the next Macbook Pro is announced, 500+gb SSD drives will be available, and with a 17" screen, you can probably squeeze two into the space of a laptop (with the removal of the optical drive.

Is the only reason it's 'radical' is because it's apple? Though I have to admit, I'm amazed at how PC manufacturers seem to be sticking with the optical drive, I haven't wanted one since 2007.</comment>


Google's Migration from 10 year-old RedHat 7.1 to Ubuntu(2013) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://events.static.linuxfound.org/sites/events/files/lcjp13_merlin.pdf <comment><USER2> RedHat 7.1 is not 10 years old. It came out on March 5, 2015.

<comment><USER3> Wrong 7.1, buddy. Red Hat (not enterprise) Linux 7.1 came out in 2001. RHEL derives from Red Hat 9, released in 2003.</comment></comment>


Ray Guns Near Crossroads to the Battlefield - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ray-guns-near-crossroads

<comment><USER2> One of the approaches they're using is generating lasers that follow a sinosoidal wave. Do any of you smarter than I have information as to why these sinosoidal lasers would be less affected by atmospheric conditions?

<comment><USER3> You appear to have misunderstood a part of the article. A free-electron laser forces electrons into a sinusoidal path in order to generate laser light, but the generated light is no more sinusoidal than any other laser light.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The Future Is Now.</comment>


Alibaba Reports Their XT910 RISC-V Core to Be Faster Than an Arm Cortex-A73 - <AUTHOR> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Alibaba-XT910-RISC-V-Speed <comment><USER2> It's impressive. But there's a few things I want to see:

1\. CPU performance over power consumption and heat dissipation. The A73 pushes for power efficiency, how does it perform in that arena [1]?

2\. We've seen "experimental results" from hardware manufacturers before, let's see them independently verified. Those numbers could be margin-of-error [2].

3\. Are those tests single or multi-core performance? If it has more cores and only just about edges ahead, that's not so impressive.

4\. Does it need cooling? If not, how long can it sustain performance without throttling? That'll surely limit applications if so.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-A73](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-A73)

[2] [http://3s81si1s5ygj3mzby34dq6qf-wpengine.netdna- ssl.com/wp-c...](http://3s81si1s5ygj3mzby34dq6qf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/08/Alibaba-and-A73.png)

<comment><USER3> I would add, at what volume will it be produced? Prices can only go down if volume is high.

Also memory speed (both Hz and cache structure) is much more of a bottleneck than CPU clock. Specially with 16 cores!

2 Gflops/watt is the peak of electric transistor CPUs, if they come close to that; with a volume close to Raspberry 4 and use DDR4 memory with ample cache they might have a shoot at server cluster competition.

They will need many years of improving the software stack though, so they have a long uphill battle waiting.

The trick and fallacy of these days of non improving electronics is to aim for the stars (12nm of what) to get that last market share before saturation.

After that planned obsolescence and fragile 5-7nm chips will flood the market. Finally the chips will probably be manufactured for peak performance and longevity but they wont be sold, only rented!

About cooling, the right heatsink is the solution: I found these for my Raspberry 4's, AFAIK they are the most compact stackable passive cooling for peak 2Gflops/watt under 10 watts in existence: [http://move.rupy.se/file/pi_4.jpg](http://move.rupy.se/file/pi_4.jpg)

<comment><USER2> > Also memory speed (both Hz and cache structure) is much

> more of a bottleneck than CPU clock. Specially with 16

> cores!

Very good point! Packing more cores onto a die is not enough... Again it would be good to see if those benchmarks were single or multi-core performance.

> They will need many years of improving the software stack

> though, so they have a long uphill battle waiting.

Yeah... Getting kernel support, etc, takes some time. They'll also probably want to build out some dev board platform if they haven't already.

> Finally the chips will probably be manufactured for peak

> performance and longevity but they wont be sold, only

> rented!

I see it going either way, either cost per chip will become so low that they become an expendable product with a short life span, or the cost of perfecting them rises so high they are rented. Somehow the rented market for CPUs seems less likely, a release from your competitor could see your entire stock become un-rentable.

> About cooling, the right heatsink is the solution

Maybe, but you're not putting a passive cooler on solutions that go much higher than 10 watts at full chap. Assuming these cores match the ARM cores (power consumption and computation), they have double the number of them, therefore probably double the heat output. In reality it's probably even worse as the cores act as insulators to one another.

In 2+ years, let's see how they perform in the market. I guess irrespective of how good they are, the Chinese market is stuck with them unless tensions improve.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> More detailed article: [https://www.nextplatform.com/2020/08/21/alibaba-on- the-bleed...](https://www.nextplatform.com/2020/08/21/alibaba-on-the-bleeding- edge-of-risc-v-with-xt910/)

<comment><USER5> Is this actually helpful in the end?

> The XT910 supports RISC-V 0.7.1 Vector Extension, includes a vector engine > for AI acceleration and is based on 12 nanometer FinFET processes from > Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp.

In other words, it's still one Trump order away from not being able to manufacture it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This story is going around like a firestorm, but reality is a bit different. They quote Dhrystones and CoreMark, both of which are terrible and should be avoided. By their own admission in Slack comments: "We have run the SPECInt2006 benchmark with -O2 compilation option. The performance of XT-910 is 6.11 SPECInt/GHz, which is ~10% lower than the 6.75 SPECInt/GHz delivered by Cortex-A73."

</comment><comment><USER7> As a side note, I always wonder what is the difference in meaning between "as of yet", and "yet".

Suspecting it means exactly as much as "currently" usually does.

<comment><USER8> Probably (badly) derived from the more correct "as of Tuesday", "as of December 2019", etc. It's a useful phrasing against an actual value.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I mean also worth noting that the arm cortex systems are the fastest anyway - that's thing like snap dragon, a-series, etc

<comment><USER4> Fastest arm core is Apple's one.

Also Cortex-A73 even isn't fastest in Cortex series anymore. It was used for example Snapdragon 835 (with some modification). Latest Snapdragon 865 uses Cortex-A77 (with some modification) that is significantly faster than A73.

<comment><USER9> Wait, I thought snap dragon was a full in-house design? Have I been wrong all this time?

<comment><USER10> My understanding is that they used to be, now they're all Cortex derivatives: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryo#Kryo_5xx_Series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryo#Kryo_5xx_Series)

<comment><USER9> thanks!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why did Tesla's stock go up? Reading between the lines of Tesla's $500m offering - <AUTHOR> http://www.graduatetutor.com/corporate-finance-tutoring/signaling-in-corporate-finance/

<comment><AUTHOR> Tesla's still going up. Despite negative signals!!</comment>


Viewpoint: CEO = Product Manager - <AUTHOR> http://betashop.com/post/7729476127/the-ceo-of-a-startup-must-be-the-primary-product#disqus_thread

<comment><USER2> The startup CEO's primary responsibility is keeping the company going, whether that means funding, sales, or product development. The problem is the current need can alter at a moment's notice.

There is a reason Bill Campbell (CEO of Intuit) said your first hire should be product management. I've written about that here: [http://softwaremaven.innerbrane.com/2009/10/hire-product- man...](http://softwaremaven.innerbrane.com/2009/10/hire-product-management- first.html)

The article's general thought is right: early product management (we generally refer to it as customer development here) is critical. It is just too important to leave in her hands for long!

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not sure I agree with the author's view of product management or of how singular control of the product strategy and execution is useful. Good product managers don't insist on having things done their way, they insist on understanding what users want and managing a team towards solving the hard problems related to those user needs. The only reason Steve Jobs is successful in how he approaches product development is because he is the CEO. No other product manager I know of wields that sort of control over the product and the paycheck of those he works with.

Success comes from having the right people do the right things at the right time. I'd rather hire kick-ass product managers to help the rest of my product team do kick-ass things than insist that the team does it "exactly my way".

I'd probably quit if I worked for someone that forced the team to do it exactly his way...

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe in the collaboration of the team being critical to building great products. And, I believe in getting input and creativity from all parts and players. BUT, in a startup, I do believe that the CEO has to feel direct responsibility for the user experience, and that cannot be delegated. It can be influenced, but not delegated.

And, I believe that it is very, very hard for a startup to succeed when someone beyond the CEO is directing the product. That means the CEO is managing someone else's creation.

I look to Google's return to product management running the company as critical to that company's success. And I think Zuck and Jobs are also testaments to this theory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When I first developing my startup I thought it was product first, but I soon realized it's customer first. CEO should give a high level direction of the company, connect with customers and feedback to the team. Sure he/she might give their opinions to the pixel level but that's not their primary job. If you're so hung up on building a great product as a CEO without spending enough time to validate with the market, you're wasting your time.

</comment><comment><USER5> This could be reframed as a debate between the usefulness of different CEO archetypes. I might agree, especially for tech companies (I assume that's what the author means by "Startups"), that the visionary product designer CEO is a very effective one, especially at the beginning. But depending on the company, other archetypes can become at least as useful: the skillful manager, who hires all the right people and maximizes their utility; the negotiator/competitor/strategist who reads the market, plays the press and out-maneuvers other companies; the spokesman marketer who makes the case for his product to the world.

Also, people should realize that Jobs is great at all of these skills, in part because he's a genius but also because he's just really experienced.

</comment><comment><USER6> Two topics:

The guy focuses on his strengths. Good on him. Not everyone should be him. Talk about that or don't.

This is linkbait. CEOs should post linkbait. Discuss?

</comment><comment><USER7> dude, your job is to be everything. so yeah, if the pixels are wrong, it's your fault and you have to fix it, but probably not by diving into CSS. its your job to go hire someone that is better than you at UX so you can fix the stuff only a CEO can fix.

[http://bhorowitz.com/2010/05/30/how-andreessen-horowitz- eval...](http://bhorowitz.com/2010/05/30/how-andreessen-horowitz-evaluates- ceos/)

</comment><comment><USER8> Viewpoint: People = Generalizing their own experience

</comment><comment><USER9> Agree.</comment>


Justin.tv Teams With Chicago 2016 for "Live Chat With Michael Phelps" - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/justintv-teams-chicago-2016-live/story.aspx?guid={ED6C8240-BA1B-473F-A76C-87595007A49E}&dist=hppr

<comment><USER2> So Marketwatch just reprints press releases?</comment>


Can I beat the Xerox 6130 for a cheap color laser printer with linux/postscript support? - <AUTHOR> http://www.office.xerox.com/printers/color-printers/phaser-6130/enus.html

<comment><AUTHOR> This one seems to have much better long term cost than comparable HPs because I found toner refill kits for sale. Anyone used toner refill kits before?

</comment><comment><USER2> Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

edit: seriously:

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

<comment><AUTHOR> Newegg has it really cheap also. $299 with free shipping

[http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16828118...](http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16828118493)

<comment><USER2> I hypothesize when I came home drunk last night I thought you wanted to build the printer himself. This is clearly not the case. How embarrassing! Please excuse me.

One of these days I am going to write a sobriety test to save me from using my computer and phone when I shouldn't.

This is also why guns are stupid.</comment></comment></comment>


We've agreed to acquire WhatsApp - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101272463589561

<comment><USER2> Where is the source for that $19 billion figure? I don't see it in the post, and it sounds ridiculously high to me.

EDIT: For reference, the previous title was "Facebook Buys Whatsapp for 19 Billion Dollars"

EDIT 2: I see now that there's a TechCrunch article [1] claiming a "$16B in cash and stock" figure. That article cites a regulatory filing [2], which states:

> options to purchase WhatsApp capital stock will be cancelled in exchange for > an aggregate of 183,865,778 shares of Parent's Class A common stock (valued > at $12 billion based on the average closing price of the six trading days > preceding February 18, 2014 of $65.2650 per share ("Specified Price")) and > $4 billion in cash to existing WhatsApp securityholders, subject to certain > adjustments such that the cash paid will comprise at least 25% of the > aggregate transaction consideration. In addition, upon Closing, Parent will > grant 45,966,444 restricted stock units to WhatsApp employees (valued at $3 > billion based on the Specified Price)

Amazing and somewhat dizzying that it's actually that high.

[1] [http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/19/facebook-buying-whatsapp- fo...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/19/facebook-buying-whatsapp-for-16b-in- cash-and-stock-plus-3b-in-rsus/)

[2] [http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/0001326801140...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680114000010/form8k_2192014.htm)

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed, my bad. I reckon I had Techcrunch' article on the side and I mixed them up (Boy, the excitement!).

EDIT: The article was from Forbes, not Techcrunch: [http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/19/5427332/facebook-is- buying...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/19/5427332/facebook-is-buying- whatsapp)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Funny, there's a missing space between "for" and "Internet.org", and someone already bought the domain:

[http://forinternet.org/](http://forinternet.org/)</comment>


How GMOs can save civilization (and probably already have) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/impossible-foods/how-gmos-can-save-civilization-and-probably-already-have-6e6366cb893 <comment><USER2> Please also consider the risks:

[http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/PrecautionaryPrinciple.htm...](http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/PrecautionaryPrinciple.html)

<comment><USER3> > By GMOs we mean transgenics, a gene transfer process that is markedly in a > distinct risk class from conventional breeding and other "modifications".

...the "other modifications" including radiative genome modification, used to achieve the very same genome as developed for GMO, but since the former method is used for more than half a century (close to whole century, I think), it's much more difficult to suddenly make it scary than it was with genetic engineering.

It's funny how the modified food we've been eating for decades suddenly got (vaguely) dangerous in the last twenty years, and only if the newer methods were used to modify it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The current global food supply from what I have heard is more than enough to support much more than the current population of the planet.

The resistance to labeling gmo foods is essentially using the poor and working class as guinea pigs. GMO will be cheaper,this means they can overprice natural foods. Poor peoplle will consume GMO while the affluent consume natural and organic foods.

A similar tend can be observed on how whole foods is mostly found in well-to- do neighborhoods and walmart is found in poor neighborhoods.

Natural foods can be grown at a rate that sustains the planets population for a very long time to come. I firmly believe this is about profit margins. At leat let the people that will be affected by it the most have a say.

<comment><USER5> It's not a supply issue. Disease is wiping out our foods. Land is becoming marginal as the climate changes and is making food production harder. People are dying of vitamin A deficiency. GMOs can fix this.

<comment><USER4> When you fix symptoms you create more sickness. When you fix the disease, only then will you solve the problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sure. But the corporations behind some of them seem to do their damnedest to try to doom it. (We just need to make it illegal to patent plants.)

<comment><USER7> Much of the resistance against GMOs is not so much against purely nutritional genetic modification (like golden rice - rice with added beta-carotene for vitamin A), but to genetic modification to prop up business models, like terminator genes, roundup-ready and Bt genes.

<comment><USER5> Terminator genes aren't used is any commercial crop. The last two make farming easier and more productive so they are very popular amoung the farmers (even the family farms)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It would be nice to outline more of the history that shows the gradient we have gone through from selective breeding, to scientific plant breeding[1] to even accelerating mutations through radiation[2], one of my favorite fruits (ruby red rio star grapefruit) came from this! It's not just a handful of examples that have gone beyond selective breeding and occasional crosses and the efforts have only been increasing!

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_plant_breeding#Scie...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_plant_breeding#Scientific_plant_breeding)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening#cite_note-:0-...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening#cite_note-:0-2)

</comment><comment><USER8> I've found the impossible burger to be the closest to animal free burger, although it's not perfect.

Unfortunately at the moment it's still much more expensive, at one of the burger places I go to the cost to swap in impossible burger brings the total up by almost 50%.

It'll be really interesting to see how adoption looks when it's cheaper.</comment>


Supreme Court to Hear Aereo Case - <AUTHOR> http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/supreme-court-to-hear-aereo-case-1201037308/ <comment><USER3> As of this week ABC's iOS app no longer allows users to watch over-the-air shows unless they have a cable contract. There's only one reason I can think of for this boneheaded move: ABC wants people to have cable because ABC owns ESPN and ESPN makes more money than any other network.

In the US, they're called the "public airwaves" for a reason: we the public own them and networks just license the use. I frown upon the behavior of the networks and hope Aereo will prevail.

<comment><USER4> Cable companies also usually pay re-transmission fees to the local affiliates. That's probably the main reason. The affiliates have some power over the networks, so the networks would want to make sure that the locals are still getting something from iOS users.

This is actually the main business model that Aereo threatens... not because Aereo is all that threatening to re-transmission fees, but that if they are successful, then all cable companies could just use multiple antennas to capture the over-the-air signal and avoid paying the (large) retransmission fees.

(Then you get into cable companies owning networks that own broadcasters, and you see that it's all a big mess)

<comment><USER5> ^ Exactly this. It's not Aereo they're worried about, it's the precedent. And if it stands, there will be some major shakeups in the network TV world. I think it's high time for some changes, though.

Aereo basically let's you lease a colocated TV antenna, and streams the content from that antenna to you over the Internet. It's one-to-one, antenna- to-subscriber. This is the core of the business, and the most threatening to broadcasters. But it's also the part where it's really hard for me to imagine how a legal opinion against Aereo could be crafted, without abridging the principles of public access to broadcast TV.

Aereo also leases you DVR services. And I understand that this is where the Cablevision precedent comes into play. But even if that precedent were overturned, it seems to me that it would still be possible for the most disruptive aspects of the service to live on. People would perhaps just be required to host their own DVRs.

(Disclosure: my girlfriend does works for a company that works for Aereo)

<comment><USER6> > Exactly this. It's not Aereo they're worried about, it's the precedent.

Definitely. Note though, that this was exactly the concern when cable came out, and got its start by delivering over the air broadcasts from faraway metropolises to subscribers in rural areas or other cities.

For anyone interested in the history of telecommunications, definitely check out Tim Wu's "The Master Switch. There's a section on how new cable companies fought against entrenched broadcasters back when the power dynamic was a little different, really shows how often this same battle repeats itself with different players every time.

<comment><USER5> Unless the cable companies back in the day used separate antennas for each subscriber, it's not quite the same thing. Aereo actually bothers with this step.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think Aereo will prevail because they have explicitly engineered a personal device for personal consumption of a legal public broadcast. Using personal digital equipment in order to personally consume a public broadcast is obviously legal.

The legal theory is that Aereo is essentially an antenna company. If their service is the legal equivalent of an 'antenna', perhaps antennae are now so powerful that the compulsory licensing law needs to be changed somehow in response. In that case, you don't sue the antenna maker, you lobby congress to change the law. It will be entertaining to see this argued and ruled on.

A parallel scenario... Have you seen the telepresence robots (iPad on a stick) that have started to become available? Lets say you're disabled, can't leave your house, but want to "go out for dinner and a movie" with your friends. Your robot rolls into the movie theater, pays for a ticket, and grabs a seat, streaming the video back to you individually. One camera, one stream, one brain on the other end of the wire, and no backing store. Have you violated copyright laws? I think not. I would also love to see the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) vs. Anti-Camcording argued in the Supreme Court.

From Wikipedia on ADA -- 'Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things.'

<comment><USER8> Unfortunately in this scenario, ADA is pretty much gutted.

A movie theater is not required to provide for someone with a disability in any way, shape, or form, if they cannot themselves physically (at least) arrive at the location - and I mean their actual body, not telepresence.

About the most they're required to do is ramps for access into / out of the building, disabled seating and bathroom access.

<comment><USER9> I'd love to see the movie theaters though try to balance that against the PR nightmare that would come out of them fighting such a case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I do sympathise with both sides, here. Right now, broadcast TV companies are able to charge cable companies "retransmission fees" in order to carry their channels. It's a decent revenue stream. Aereo have side-stepped this for their purposes.

Aereo are entitled to do this. But I don't blame the broadcast companies for freaking out - if Aereo can do this then the cable companies can too - <USER2> broadcast networks will lose their retransmission fee revenue (at a time when they're not exactly swimming in cash anyway) and the cable companies get to boost their profits even more. Which they don't deserve.

The only other solution for the broadcast companies will be to switch off their antenna broadcasts, which would also be a big shame.

<comment><USER11> They don't have a right to a revenue stream just because it is there. It really should have little-to-no bearing on the case other than the networks' eargerness to pursue.

In my opinion it wouldn't be bad if the networks had to pay the cable companies to get carried--after all, they are essentially just improving reception for viewers, letting the networks display more ads than they otherwise could.

<comment><USER10> The broadcast networks paying the cable networks would all but guarantee they go bankrupt. So the most likely answer here is that NBC, ABC, etc. just shut off their antenna broadcasts. Which would be a real shame.

 _They don 't have a right to a revenue stream just because it is there._

True. But I'd argue that Aereo's $7 a month charge to rebroadcast content they have nothing to do with is a dubious revenue stream, too.

<comment><USER12> That content is broadcast for $0. It's logically similar to renting an antenna on your roof and a cable connecting that to the TV. Considering that antennas are ugly, and not the cheapest... antenna-invisibility services are a reasonable thing to pay money for.

<comment><USER10> If I recorded NBC TV shows, burnt them to DVD and sold them on for profit I would be violating the law, despite it also being "logically similar". It isn't as simple as that broadcast being "for $0".

<comment><USER13> Yes, but then you'd be unfairly duplicating the content without permission.

With Aereo, you are renting the antenna (just far away) and streaming from that. Every customer has an antenna. It is the logical scaling up of a currently allowable business model. It has the same end result as many less savory models, but it is not illegal at all.

Whether it should continue to be legal is up for debate, but right now it's squarely in the right.

<comment><USER14> You could argue that Aereo's copying of the received signal to an output stream is also unlicensed duplication.

<comment><USER15> Well that's for the Supreme Court to decide now but logically speaking, it's not an unlicensed duplication. It's not duplicated at all. The broadcast is recorded once, played back by the original recorder, and is not distributed as it's not being transferred from one entity to another.

The whole argument obviously relies on the premise that Areo is renting you the antenna, so you're the one doing the recording using rented equipment far away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't trust the Supreme Court to produce a proper ruling on this one. I assume Aereo will lose. That said, I don't see how it could be argued that Aereo is breaking any law.

<comment><USER17> 1) Why don't you trust them? I've personally never read a Supreme Court ruling that got the _technology_ angle fundamentally wrong, though I have seen a number where the Supreme Court's principles are at odds with certain values and beliefs often held by _technologists_.

2) What's so defensible about a business model that is based entirely on taking advantage of someone else's product? Without the content produced by the networks, there would be absolutely no reason for Aereo to exist.

I think Aereo will win, because the precedent is on its side. However, I also think the company is just taking advantage of a loophole and should try actually producing content people want to watch instead of simply taking some other company's content for free.

<comment><USER18> I have never understood the concept of "taking content for free" and the implied judgment about doing so, with regards to 'retransmission consent'.

If you run an organization that broadcasts content to anybody with an antenna, you should not be shocked, just _shocked_ when somebody picks it up and uses it as they see fit. If you don't want that to happen, don't _broadcast_ your content and don't abuse the public spectrum to try to still exact control over the use of your _broadcasted_ content.

<comment><USER17> Just because you agree to do N doesn't mean you agree to do N+1 or N+2, etc. The networks do broadcast content, that's very expensive to produce, for free, in return for use of the public spectrum. That's the bargain. But the bargain doesn't mean that they agree to let other people do whatever "they see fit" with the broadcasted content. One part of that bargain, embodied in the copyright rules, is that you can't take the broadcast video and perform it publicly. I.e. I can't tape NBC shows and then open up a movie theater playing them. That's not part of the bundle of rights NBC agreed to give up in the process of broadcasting the show over the air.

All Aereo does is take advantage of a loophole. They couldn't record the shows and stream them, because that would violate the networks' copyright. So they try to shoehorn effectively the same service into the exception for time- shifting.

<comment><USER19> So a business that would be legal if Aero were leasing the equipment to people in their homes is illegal because it's instead in the Aero office and people connect to it over traditional telecommunications?

<comment><USER17> If you go to a strip club, and pay the $20 cover, you get to watch the show. Does that mean a company can show up with a camera, broadcast a feed on the internet, and pay $20 for each person who is logged in? It's the same thing right?

<comment><USER19> > brodcast a feed on the internet ... for each person who is logged in?

The analogous situation would be if they paid $20 per watcher to the strip club, and had one blind dude come in with a whole array of webcams that linked up to people on the internet, with one webcam per person.

To which I'd ask you, why do you think this is a bad thing?

(The difference, of course, being that strip clubs are private whereas the public airwaves are public.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I can't see why anybody cares about Aereo. Do people think it is unclean to receive DVB? I mean, why spend money on a service so you can spend more money on your metered mobile data plan to pick up a signal that is travelling right by you for free.

I'd certainly pay for the ability to stream TV in distant markets, like IVI.TV did, but it seems like Aereo was created just to have a lawsuit, not satisfy any need.

<comment><USER21> I just want to watch free TV on my Mac, iPad or iPhone. How do I do that?

<comment><USER22> Easy way: get a Slingbox and use the SlingPlayer App

Harder way: get an Elgato EyeTV

Most complex (but versatile way): get a tuner like the Silicon Dust HDHomerun and set up a Mythtv or Plex system.

(All of the above require an antenna.)

Edit: obviously, you can also use Aereo!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I hope they win. It's one of the services that has helped convince my family to ditch cable. I can see them continuing to expand beyond the broadcast market to an internet version of TV. Aereo might not even need the broadcast networks in a few years but they definitely need them now.

</comment><comment><USER24> Seems like a good opportunity for a Roku-like aereo box. External antenna. 16gb of flash. Couldn't you make a good box with a few antenna options that replicated the exact functionality sold as a consumer product? I can't imagine it would cost much to produce, and a company like roku already has most of the software in place (sans tv schedule and recording facilities) to make this happen.

</comment><comment><USER25> The thing that always annoyed me about Aereo is how they restrict who can "rent an antenna". If they are to stick to their legal argument that they're just renting an antenna, then why can I not rent an antenna based in New York City, even though I live in Wisconsin?

</comment><comment><USER26> I think we all know how this will turn out.</comment>


Challenger Engineer Who Warned of Shuttle Disaster Dies - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/21/470870426/challenger-engineer-who-warned-of-shuttle-disaster-dies <comment><USER2> It bums me out a little that there's not more HN hubbub over this. Andy Grove was a great businessman, but Bob Ebeling was a great engineer. Maybe just not in the ways that HN loves to celebrate.

<comment><USER3> A handful of clever people end up in the right place at the right time, make billions, and get praised on news aggregator sites. Millions of others lead good lives full of moral bravery, and will rarely get a mention by anyone, anywhere. HN is not the barometer of goodness in any sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > "I think that was one of the mistakes that God made," Ebeling says softly. > "He shouldn't have picked me for the job. But next time I talk to him, I'm > gonna ask him, 'Why me? You picked a loser.' "

This hits me so hard every time I read it. Sometimes in this cruel world, we are given one of the few real good guys. And we waste them.

</comment><comment><USER5> I try to keep Bob Elbing in mind when I ask if I should say something or not. Thankfully none of my work has ever had a single life, much less 7, depending on what I do. Still, I try to do the right thing and speak up.

</comment><comment><USER6> We should all strive to be a little more like Bob Ebling. I greatly respect and admire his dedication to the safety of those on board the Challenger, and it makes me proud to be an engineer. The sad passing of Mr Ebling deserves far more coverage, and his efforts deserve more recognition. I'm glad he had closure in the final few weeks of his life.

<comment><USER7> Ebeling...

<comment><USER6> Oops.. I blame a lack of coffee this morning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Such a heartbreaking story. I find it unreasonable how politicians sometimes advocate for ethical oversight of science with the assumption that scientists and engineers aren't ethical or moral people, just robots solving equations.

But we saw the same with the atomic bomb. It was mainly scientists who stood up for the morally right. It is often politicians and management who do the ethically questionable choices.

</comment><comment><USER9> > "He said, 'The Challenger's going to blow up. Everyone's going to die,' " > Serna recalls. "And he was beating his fist on the dashboard. He was > frantic."

That is a bit over the top but if true, then amazing. How many engineers can predict something so detailed.

<comment><USER10> If there's critical a weak point in the design that they're well aware of, that's known to be triggered by certain conditions, and those conditions are in force, then I'd say quite a few.

It takes a huge amount of guts, though, to try and pull the plug on something like a shuttle launch over something as innocuous-sounding as some gaskets. No matter how certain he was that it would cause a disaster, the non-technical brass must have just thought "eh it's a gasket, I had a leaky gasket in my car once, we can handle a few drops of oil."

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What bums me out is the Thiokol executives who really were responsible for this national tragedy, did they ever feel any remorse? Did they repay their debts? Did they even acknowledge that they royally fucked up? No, they collected millions and sipped their brandy.

<comment><USER12> > Ebeling helped assemble the data that demonstrated the risk. Boisjoly argued > for a launch delay. At first, the Thiokol executives agreed and said they > wouldn't approve the launch.

> "My God, Thiokol," responded Lawrence Mulloy of NASA's Marshall Spaceflight > Center. "When do you want me to launch? Next April?"

> Despite hours of argument and reams of data, the Thiokol executives > relented. McDonald says the data were absolutely clear, but politics and > pressure interfered.

I'd put it more on NASA, if that is accurate. Not entirely, but more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > "It was as if he got permission from the world," says his daughter Leslie > Ebeling Serna. "He was able to let that part of his life go."

Rest in Peace.

</comment><comment><USER14> I hope he is able to rest in peace after the outpouring of support and letters he got, after the story initially ran.

</comment><comment><USER15> Richard Feynman was on the Challenger accident review committee. He wrote about the experience including interviewing the top 4 rocket engineers at the end of his book, '"What Do You Care What Other People Think?": Further Adventures of a Curious Character'

I don't follow why Ebeling blamed himself since it appears he did everything a human being could do to stop the launch, but was overruled by management.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm really happy he got the closure he needed before he passed.

</comment><comment><USER17> Is it so hard to include the name of the deceased in the link title?

</comment><comment><USER18> Managers that don't listen to their own engineers... pretty sure there is a wise soundbite in there somewhere ;)

</comment><comment><USER19> Rest in peace Bob.

</comment><comment><USER20> They should name something (like next space craft) in his honor. RIP

<comment><USER21> Not a spacecraft. Every mission control room should have a big red stop button called the Ebeling button. Anyone at any time can hit that button with no repercussions.

<comment><USER22> In a way, there is. The Challenger disaster drastically changed how information is propagated up and down during a launch, including how small an issue can be before a launch is scrubbed. I guarantee you there is no launch where Challenger doesn't run through the mind of every person sitting over the launch in Houston.</comment></comment></comment>


ReTweet.ly - Promote your blog post or project free, by retweeting others - <AUTHOR> http://www.retweet.ly

<comment><USER2> you are asking too much permissions. Why you want to update my profile?

</comment><comment><USER3> Awesome!</comment>


Meet one of the world's most groundbreaking scientists. He's 34. (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://www.statnews.com/2015/11/06/hollywood-inspired-scientist-rewrite-code-life/ <comment><AUTHOR> This caught my eye:

 _Driving home in the gathering dark one autumn evening, mother and son were struck by the sight of falling leaves, dead and dying after lives measured in mere months. They spoke about how little time anyone has, she recalled, and how easy it is for a life to disappear without the slightest trace that it had ever been. "It just seemed important to me to try my best to make a difference," Zhang said._

</comment><comment><USER2> great timeline on a transformative individual and the technology he's chosen to transform right now

looks like he has overcome great lack of good fortune from a young age

realistically, also, the Intel scholarship in 2000 is such a rare form of (well-deserved) good fortune that very few other scientists will ever have the ability to leverage something like that

sadly, as recently as 2009 - 2010 it also looks like a very temporary slight lack of institutional political good fortune could very well have derailed the whole thing

if nobody had "sung his praises" and/or nobody had listened at the time, there would have been no breakthrough nearly as advanced by now

the best of science can easily become worthless in an institutional environment without a high level of political good fortune

transformative science is more common than you think, what's really rare as a unicorn is a breakthrough-capable scientist with an unbroken chain of political and/or financial good fortune

especially in labs that are unique, expensive, hazardous, controversial, etc.</comment>


Electric vehicles emit more CO2 than diesel vehicles - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/25/are-electric-vehicles-really-so-climate-friendly <comment><USER2> I took a quick glance at the quoted research, none of which has been peer reviewed as far as I can tell, and the reduction of emissions during use of an EV is offset by the production which apparently uses more energy for EVs.

This offset is compensated for in about 100.000 km in a EU context. A bit more than 200.000 km 'in the context of Germany's energy mix'.

> Even the most gifted engineers will not be able to build internal combustion > engines (ICEs) that meet the EU's prescribed standards (unless they force > their customers into soapbox cars).

Remarks like that make think the author is not entirely unbiased either. All in all, this reads like an op-ed paid for by an industry with a lot of vested interests in oil & coal.</comment>


Sweden defies lockdown trend – bets on responsible residents - <AUTHOR> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/sweden-defies-lockdown-trend-bets-citizens-acting-responsibly-n1172781 <comment><AUTHOR> > Public gatherings of more than 50 people are prohibited, but there are no > restrictions on private meetings, meaning parties and corporate events can > still go ahead. Libraries and swimming pools remain open.

> Standing at bars has been prohibited, but restaurants are still able to > offer table service. Students over 16 have been asked to study from home, > but kindergartens and elementary schools are still open.</comment>


My Adventures in Psychedelia - <AUTHOR> https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/10/11/my-adventures-in-psychedelia/ <comment><USER2> despite my vast, vast experience with psychedelics i have never once had anything close to a spiritual or meaningful experience, its entirely possible i lack the capacity for such things i guess</comment>


Something Looks Weird in Broward County - <AUTHOR> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/something-looks-weird-in-broward-county-heres-what-we-know-about-a-possible-florida-recount/ <comment><AUTHOR> What I find interesting about this article (since it could easily turn unnecessarily political):

1\. The use of data to discover an anomaly

2\. The impact that poor UI design in one county in Florida (if you consider the ballot part of the voting UI) could potentially have on national politics.

<comment><USER2> It's odd to me that they've discovered an anomaly (statistically significant "undervoting" in one particular county) and yet that alone seems insufficient to trigger any sort of audit/recount/remediation. Especially since one of the three plausible explanations for the anomaly is hardware malfunction. What good is anomaly detection if you take no action from that data?</comment></comment>


More answers to your questions about Apple and the environment - <AUTHOR> http://www.apple.com/environment/answers/ <comment><USER2> I feel like there's at least one PR own-goal here. Consider:

        > > Do Apple products contain lead?
        > Apple is in compliance with the European
        > Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS)
        > Directive, which restricts the use of lead and
        > other substances. As a result of our precautionary
        > approach to substances, Apple phased out lead in
        > plastic parts, paint, and packaging material long
        > before lead's use was restricted

So that's pretty clearly a "Yes", covered up to look like a "No", and if they're employing weasel words _there_ , where it looks like they're probably doing a good job, who knows what actual bad things they're covering up?

Couldn't they have led that paragraph with "Yes, trace amounts", before explaining their reduction program? By not doing so they've made all their answers seem less trust worthy.

<comment><USER3> You vastly overestimate how well most people can assess potentially harmful materials.

Apple answers this with "Yes, trace amounts", and the next buzzfeed article will scream "Apple admits that its product contains lead! What else does it have?" And it will go downhill from there...

<comment><USER4> I don't accept this as valid, but even if I did there are still more honest ways to spin this than to bury the lede completely.

<comment><USER5> Example of the more honest way? Everything in what you posted is honest, and that is a well accepted standard for keeping low-to-no lead levels.

<comment><USER4> We understands your concerns about heavy metals and have nearly eliminated lead from our products. <insert the rest of their comments>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Reading just that title I expected something along the lines of 'we're actively researching how to make our product line and/or production process less harmful for the planet and this gets better with every iteration of our iDevice'. Instead it's bascially a bunch of PR saying they comply with standards/guidelines (some of which they wrote themselves). Don't get me wrong, it's not bad, but eventually companies with the potential Apple has could really turn around how the majority of people think about the environment: currently, the majority doesn't seem to care a lot. If companies like Apple/Samsung/..., who're serving that majority, however would start pushing 'greener' and/or 'more fair' devices and explaining why, than the majority would get dragged along and maybe start to care, the rest of the industry would have to follow, etc.

</comment><comment><USER7> Are these really frequently asked questions? I'm more interested in environmental and working conditions of FoxConn.

Or: what is the biggest environmental problem that Apple is facing right now?

</comment><comment><USER8> An earlier version of this page used the name "MacOS", fueling earlier rumors that Apple will rename OS X 11.12 to "MacOS":

[http://9to5mac.com/2016/04/14/macos-name-change- apple/](http://9to5mac.com/2016/04/14/macos-name-change-apple/)

</comment><comment><USER9> It's interesting how the PR machines at both Apple and Microsoft apparently are recently running quite hot to diffuse any further emotionally grave discussion of concerns regarding their low-level-builtin 'security' holes in their products in the name of constant surveillance.</comment>