21: An Open Source Library for the Machine-Payable Web - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@21/21-is-an-open-source-library-for-the-machine-payable-web-4f30d1437fde#.q9imccvqx <comment><USER2> I'm curious about this line in the post:

        "connect your LinkedIn and Github accounts to enable the free faucet"

Really curious: I can see how connecting a Github account may be valuable for a company pushing a developer tool, but I'm not sure I understand why they'd want a LinkedIn account. Perhaps to try and determine where you work?

<comment><USER3> They are probably trying to make sure you can't create a bunch of fake accounts and abuse the faucet.

Either way, I really think that their product lacks substance and don't appreciate how they try to push a device that adds nothing to the ecosystem that can't already be achieved without it.

<comment><USER4> Block chains are such a fundamental social and technical innovation that, put simply, we don't know 95% of the use cases they will facilitate in the near future. You may think that 21's products currently "lack substance" but they are literally trying to invent this future. Most of their products may fail, but if they figure out a fraction of this 95%, they will be remembered as visionaries.

Mark my words. Don't judge them too quickly. They might turn out to be the next Amazon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone know if 21 has solved the transaction fee problem for micropayments with btc?

<comment><USER6> That's what Lightning Network is for. [https://lightning.network/](https://lightning.network/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Did not read the article but the name itself is bad. You cannot name a product using an number. How the hell did they come up with this?

<comment><USER8> In addition, pure numbers as library name makes trouble in almost every programming language, because you can't use that directly as an identifier and have to find a workaround.

It seems that at least in Python the library is hence named "two1", not "21".

I guess they did it because the short domain (21.co) was available for their installation command:

        curl https://21.co | sh

Not sure why the authors think anybody would type that in by hand, rather than just copy & paste it, though. So the short name doesn't help here, either.

In addition, the "curl | sh" type of installation has a bad reputation among developers, for security reasons. Which is especially critical when payment is involved. And which is even more critical when it is about _automatic_ payment.

At least they prove a docker image in addition to that. But even here, no separate checksum is provided. Also, I can't see any digital signature. Or anything else to ensure integrity through a separate channel.

<comment><USER9> > In addition, the "curl | sh" type of installation has a bad reputation among > developers, for security reasons. Which is especially critical when payment > is involved. And which is even more critical when it is about automatic > payment.

It's through HTTPS, so it's secure.

<comment><USER6> That only secures the transport, not necessarily the source. Especially without a checksum or digital sig to verify the source, it's a little weird of an oversight for a company like 21.

<comment><USER9> How would that checksum or digital signature be distributed?

HTTPS checks for authenticity of source (it uses digital signatures). Now, I guess there could be a rogue CA which creates another certificate for 21.co, but excluding that it's fine.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


London house prices are having a relatively bad December - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-12/christmas-joy-eludes-london-housing-as-asking-prices-plunge <comment><USER2> And by worst they really mean best. Lower housing cost means better life for more people.

<comment><USER3> Agreed - I can understand why there would be concern over lower equities or bond prices - but how are lower real estate prices really a bad thing? Young families are killing themselves trying to earn enough to subsidize the retirement of older homeowners through high real estate prices, mostly because our cites are so badly managed and zoned. Or well managed and cunningly zoned, if you're a Hollywood villain and what you're interested in is destroying a whole generation with debt.

<comment><USER4> > but how are lower real estate prices really a bad thing?

It depends why they are lower. If they are lower because more houses are being built that could be a good thing because relieving the chronic shortage in affordable housing will help more people get on the property ladder, increase the available labour pool for businesses, if they live closer to work it will ease transport congestion, etc, etc. Good all round.

However if house prices are falling because wages are getting depressed so people can't afford higher prices, the jobs market is slowing, inward investment is petering out, etc then it's not so much that lower house prices themselves are bad, but it's a really bad sign for the economy.

Apart from anything else, falling house prices due to economic factors is going to reduce investment in new housing, which we really do need in the medium to long term.

<comment><USER5> It seems that the recent price development is due to higher taxes on second homes (and expensive purchases) which deter capital investors. This could be a good thing as it means that a higher share of houses will be owned by people living only in London, instead of second homes.

And even though it only directly effects the most expensive property, it ultimately lowers prices for a lot of houses due to the inelastic nature of housing demand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I fully expect this trend to continue, and even possibly accelerate in to 2017.

London has a real problem with wealthy foreign investors parking money in London property; often, they don't even rent these out, leaving them empty. The new mayor, Sadiq Khan, has ordered the LSE (London School of Economics) to conduct a review in to this problem. I expect this to hit the confidence of investors (both foreign and domestic) using London property as a place to park money, and if it's as widespread as I think it is, prices will continue to decline as this "investment" disappears.

This is fantastic news for young people who live and work in London and want to get on the property ladder; not so great news for the property developers who've been exclusively building luxury apartments that nobody can realistically afford - but I have trouble sympathising with them.

<comment><USER7> It's affecting the top end of the market, but there's still a huge disparity between supply/demand at the lower end of the market that won't go away unless demand subsides (everyone leaves post-Brexit) or much more cheaper accommodation is built.

<comment><USER6> I'm no economist, but prices in the top end of the market come down, making it more affordable, wouldn't this ease demand at the lower end of the market (as more people will be able to afford the higher-end properties)?

I'm not convinced that Brexit will see the reduction in immigration that people seem to be hoping for; a "soft" Brexit is looking more and more likely.

<comment><USER8> From my analysis of London super prime ( I use two groupings £5-10m, £10m+ ), it appears that there is such a disconnect between this group and the "normal" London housing market, that they may as well be different countries.

In some sections of the housing market, lets say £1m, a devaluation appears to have a significant effect on properties beneath that valuation. The correlation is extremely high. In this bracket of buyers you have (well off) working professionals, lawyers, finance etc. Rich by almost everyones standards. Lots of them around means lots of competition for a certain stock of housing.

What you also have is high thousands of extremely rich people from around the world (particularly Russia, Saudi and other ME). London is a refuge for super high net worth individuals for a variety of reasons, culture, relative freedom, history, availability of beautiful mansions. The most important reasons probably being national stability (financial and security) as well as a comprehensive and enforced legal system. Not to mention, a subset of these buyers are parking money stolen from the people of their country. Try physically confiscating a 250 year old Mayfair townhouse! UK legal protections means a seizure of the property is unlikely/very difficult.

The property desired by this group as so disconnected from usual London housing that it is unlikely to have knock on effects if prices decline. This type of person is not going to downsize to 'normal' housing.

This is just something to bear in mind when reading reports on London property prices declining. The last year saw a single digit percentage drop in asking prices, except the majority of this was in the £10m+ plus range.

<comment><USER7> £1m is the price of what would elsewhere be considered a normal sized 'house'. You can't get anything with two bedrooms for less than £500,000. £1m is a good metric for London property.

<comment><USER8> Agree with the last two points. The first however is an understatement. Outside London ( and commute belt ), £1m buys you a seriously luxurious house. Even in major, desirable cities like Edinburgh, £1m buys you a 6 bed, granite, Georgian townhouse in the absolute best spot in the city.

London prices are seriously crazy.

<comment><USER7> Sorry, I should have qualified, £1m is for an average house _inside London_. Outside of course it's barmy money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I live in Zone 2, on what was a really hot road until June. There's a guy down the road having real trouble shifting his house, but he voted for Brexit so I can't feel too bad for him.

<comment><USER10> Two houses on our street (outer London) were up for sale. The first sold for an astronomical amount of money just before Brexit. The second was under offer at the same time, also for silly money, but the sale didn't complete before Brexit. The offer was withdrawn by the buyer, and the second house is now (6 months later) still on the market.

The lesson I take from this anecdata is that the market has slowed right down, but sellers haven't yet needed to accept lower prices.

<comment><USER11> Anecdata. I.... don't know how to feel about that.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, you can't read too much into it, but consider the following: to buy a Zone 2 house in London right now requires a fair bit of money. We're talking typically more than $1m US. Even a flat on my street is upwards of 600,000 US. So who can buy this kind of property? That mostly means successful professionals. A fair few of this category are either foreign-born themselves or have spent significant time overseas. Nearly all of them work in extremely international offices. This category skews Remain extremely strongly. Remainers are, for the most part, pretty chary about England's prospects right now.

The broader data shows Outer London still going up, but Outer London's a huge place. Areas like Sidcup and Plumstead skew Leave and I'm sure property prices are still doing fine right now. Longer term, it'll depend on what happens, but I do think property prices are literally skewing on the basis of the political views of the prospective buyers right now.

<comment><USER12> I'm a professional, and work in a fairly mixed office. I still voted exit, and considered those without the mobility I have when I did so.

Why would "spent[ing] significant time overseas" or "work[ing] in extremely international offices" affect which way you vote?

<comment><USER9> Well, an awful lot of Brexit appears to be anti-immigration. And the anti- immigration stance is principally values-driven. The kind of people who choose to spend their time around immigrants or being an immigrant themselves seem unlikely to be the kind of people who object to immigration.

There are other arguments, but this was a big one, and it's one that has less traction in those categories.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The headline is overblown. The article claims prices in London are flat over the past year, and that prices in the UK has a whole rose 3.1%.

"average prices in inner London are down 2.6 percent over the past year, whereas outer areas are up 2.7 percent. That left average prices across the capital little changed."

<comment><USER14> Ok, we de-overblew (?) the title for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Great article by the telegraph documenting the rising housing prices:

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/the- state-o...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/the-state-of-the- uk-housing-market-in-five-charts/)

Price vs. wages is a great measure of day-to-day strain on the average Londoner.

On Housing in General: It will be interesting to read about the outcome of these last two housing booms on retirement and inequality. Have home owners who entered the market late inadvertently been forced to save? Will inequality spread so wide, that we permanently lock out a portion of the population from urban areas?

</comment><comment><USER16> The average London home now costs £526,000 - 16 times the average Londoner's salary of £33,000 a year. Long term I have no future in London, despite living there almost all my life. Source: [https://www.housing.org.uk/resource- library/browse/home-trut...](https://www.housing.org.uk/resource- library/browse/home-truths-2015-2016-the-housing-market-in-london/)

</comment><comment><USER17> I would be overjoyed if house prices in London came down, and I say that as someone who bought a house a few years ago and should be interested in the value going up. London house prices are beyond stupid and the situation where foreign investors are allowed to come in and buy out entire towers of flats (no kidding) and take them out of the local market is just criminal.

However, I just don't see it happening based on the data provided. Yes, the luxury central London properties may come down in price but they are still so far outside the price range of almost anyone that it doesn't make a difference. And the article specifically mentiones that the target market for those are foreign investors, not normal people.

Anecdotal evidence, but when my parents bought a house in SW London many years ago we asked the estate agent and apparently even during the crash in the 80s the price dropped by maximum 25% in that area (compared with 200% for example in other parts of the country).

</comment><comment><USER18> My (London) mortgage is up for renewal next month. Would it be a good idea to free up some equity while valuations are high in order to invest in the next year or two?

<comment><USER19> What is it you are proposing to invest in?

Regardless of the answer to that, your question appears to boil down to "what will be the future value of asset X, compared to asset Y". And not many people can accurately answer that question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> At this rate they'll go from costing several lifetimes' salary to a single lifetime's salary ... by roughly the end of my own lifetime.

</comment><comment><USER21> The UK with Brexit has signaled that its not interested in trade or immigration. Why would I as a knowledge worker choose to even remotely consider London? Demand falls, ECON 101.

<comment><USER22> > not interested in trade

Could you elaborate? This statement is very broad and seems unlikely to be true.

<comment><USER9> I'll elaborate (and take advantage of the fact I'm not the original poster). Britain currently thinks it wants trade, but doesn't really understand what modern trade looks like. This is evident both from talking to people in my street and from reading the latest pronouncements of Brexit ministers. A couple of things that they all seem to be missing:

1\. Non-tariff barriers are much more onerous than tariff barriers. 2\. If poorer country A enters into a deal that gives richer country B jobs, there's a good chance they might want access to those jobs. 3\. Britain principally trading with Canada and Australia is a recipe for ruin. 4\. A great deal of the UK's attractiveness to non-EU countries is its membership of the EU.

3, especially, sounds like I'm straw-manning. I'm not.

I should add there are Leavers who appear to get these issues. One is Phil Hammond, but it's unclear he'll win and

5\. The EU can walk away from any deal at any time and probably will if we don't offer them something good on their terms.

<comment><USER23> Point 5 is really significant, there has been a lot of noise from politicians on both sides and the media about the negotiations, in reality we have such a weak hand it looks like the negotiation is going to be rather one sided.

<comment><USER24> Especially since the EU has every motivation to make sure that they get the much better end of the bargain. If it looks like the UK has 'won' in any way by Brexiting, other countries are more likely to follow suit. Crushing them at the negotiating table likely makes the rest of the EU more stable, and probably wealthier.

<comment><USER9> Agreed, BMW have said that, much as they don't want to lose Britain as a target market, they value their Europe-wide integrated supply-chain more.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google of Domain Names - <AUTHOR> https://www.producthunt.com/posts/dofo-com <comment><AUTHOR> \- Search more than 350 million registered domain names in seconds.

\- Use 15+ magical filters to find what you look for.

\- Explore curiously every registered domain name on its special page.

\- Find 40 million domain names on sale with the power of 15+ marketplace partners.

\- Follow domain names to catch every update about a domain name.</comment>


Photo Sharing Server Photwo Launches - Easiest I've Seen To-Date  - <AUTHOR> http://www.centernetworks.com/photwo-photo-sharing-launches#comment-61197 <comment><USER2> Easiest would be a wifi-enabled SD card that knew your flickr credentials and auto-uploaded everything.</comment>


Color Picker 1.0 – advanced open-source cross-platform color picker application - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/sk1project/color-picker/releases/tag/v1.0 <comment><AUTHOR> _sK1 Project_ [0] team happy to present first release of advanced cross- platform _Color Picker_ application powered by magnify glass and palette editing functionality.

Actually binary builds of _v1.0_ release provided[1] for popular Linux distributions, but just now we are working on next minor release that would be ready for Windows; macOS support is next milestone.

We are open to any contributions in testing and development on GitHub.[2]

For testing purpose we provide daily/nightly builds too.[3]

If you want and could help us with extending locales support, follow our guide for _sK1_ translators.[4]

[0] [https://sk1project.net](https://sk1project.net)

[1] [https://downloads.sk1project.net/color- picker/1.0/](https://downloads.sk1project.net/color-picker/1.0/)

[2] [https://github.com/sk1project/color- picker](https://github.com/sk1project/color-picker)

[3] [https://downloads.sk1project.net/color- picker/nightbuilds/](https://downloads.sk1project.net/color- picker/nightbuilds/)

[4] [https://github.com/sk1project/sk1-wx/blob/master/docs/transl...](https://github.com/sk1project/sk1-wx/blob/master/docs/translation.md)</comment>


A Simple File Explorer Magic Trick - <AUTHOR> https://channel9.msdn.com/coding4fun/blog/A-Simple-File-Explorer-Magic-Trick <comment><USER2> Just amazing how undiscoverable they made this oft needed feature.

That said, I'm going to use the shit out of this next time I'm on Windows.</comment>


Content Farms on Medium - <AUTHOR> I came across many posts from Free Code Camp, HackNoon and CodeBurst which usually starts with some exciting title but not much substance. I haven't followed them and these posts take half of my screen. How do I customize the feeds for higher quality posts? <comment><USER2> The biggest thing you can do is to actually start engaging with content you like and the platform will sort it out. Clapping/visiting/commenting and sharing what you actually like will prompt more of that content.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Don't follow them? I don't understand why you had to ask this _here_ , either.

<comment><USER2> Those are three of the major dev focused publications on Medium so it makes sense to ask it here because there are more technical practitioners on here who probably read the same stuff. I'll let the OP actually explain - but that is my gut feeling

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. For the same reason you mentioned.</comment></comment></comment>


Jetpack pilot crosses Colorado canyon - <AUTHOR> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Daredevil-Eric-Scott-Flies-Across-Royal-Gorge-In-Colorado-Wearing-Jetpack/Article/200811415160999?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header_4&lid=ARTICLE_15160999_Daredevil_Eric_Scott_Flies_Across_Royal_Gorge_In_Colorado_Wearing_Jetpack

<comment><USER2> $200k this December, max flight time of 19 minutes, travel distance of 27 miles @83 mph: <http://uk.cars.ign.com/articles/817/817351p1.html></comment>


Google Place API outage. More and more addresses impacted - <AUTHOR> https://code.google.com/p/gmaps-api-issues/issues/detail?id=11107 <comment><USER2> I was wondering if some big companies were affected and I tried with Uber (on Android).

And... the app won't let you pick some addresses ! For instance, it is virtually impossible to go to "1646 35th Avenue, San Francisco, CA, United States" using Uber app.

There seems to be many broken address...

</comment><comment><USER3> Outrageous!</comment>


The Secret to Ribs Is Already in the Kitchen: The Oven (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/dining/30curious.html <comment><USER2> My wife made ribs in the oven using a similar technique a few weeks ago. They were delicious! This was the recipe she followed: [https://smittenkitchen.com/2015/06/oven-ribs-even- better/](https://smittenkitchen.com/2015/06/oven-ribs-even-better/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Ribs are very forgiving in the smoker. I stick to the 3 2 1 method (3 hours low and slow smoke, 2 hours wrapped in foil, and 1 hour back on unwrapped) and they always come out perfect.

<comment><USER4> I'm a big fan of 3-2-1 as well. What temperature do you aim for? 225F?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The oven is the secret to bacon too. Without a rack[0] or with one[1], it's super simple.

[0] [http://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-cook-perfect-bacon-in-the- ov...](http://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-cook-perfect-bacon-in-the-oven-cooking- lessons-from-the-kitchn-107970)

[1] [http://www.theyummylife.com/how_to_bake_bacon](http://www.theyummylife.com/how_to_bake_bacon)

<comment><USER6> I tried doing this once. I did not like having bacon grease spattered all over my oven. I use my broiler a lot so bacon grease on the ceiling of the oven results in a lot of smoke every time I broil.

<comment><USER7> You might try buying higher quality bacon that doesn't have sodium phosphate or other "pump-up" fluids added. I prefer Kiolbassa brand, as it's truly a different product than most bacon you buy in the store. I believe it is a regional product though, so you may not be able to get any.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Man.... ya'll need to move to Kansas City

> I season the meat simply. True, it can be fun to concoct rubs and mopping > liquids and sauces with dozens of ingredients, but the end result is usually > an indistinct, generically fruity and spicy flavor.

/me grabs my pitchfork

<comment><USER9> I've spent time in Memphis, Lockhart TX, and Kansas City, and found KC to have the least distinguished barbecue. You really can't get Lockhart anywhere but in Texas or in rare specialty places. But you can get something about as good as KC most places.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The oven is a critical component of my ribs and tri tip. My method usually makes people go WTF, but that part of it was passed on to me from a championship rib guy.

Give them a good rub.

I put it in my grill (a Kamado style), with chips (usually apple) right on the coals, and the upper vent closed almost all the way, and the lower open maybe 10%. As low as it will go and keep the chips smoking, I shoot for 250 but temp control is imprecise here. 30 minutes of smoke.

Wrap the ribs thoroughly in plastic wrap. Yes plastic wrap. Then wrap them in foil. The put them in the oven at 225 for 1-2 hours. If they sit for more than half an hour after, wrap it in a towel or two to keep them warm. Or put them in a cooler with no ice, again to keep warm.

<comment><USER11> You wrap hot food in an oven in plastic?!

<comment><USER12> The double wrap, once in plastic and then again in foil probably makes it work. Same as you can boil water in a plastic cup over an open fire. As long and the ribs are sufficiently moist, the steam will keep the plastic below melting temps and foil will reflect a lot of infrared. They make microwave steamer bags out of plastic, and even pre-made pork chop oven bags. Modern plastic wrap is also supposedly free of all the leachable nasty phthalates and stuff of yesteryear. I can see it working out.

That said, I don't understand why double wrapping ribs would be any more effective than well crimped foil wrapping.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> He's not wrong. If you don't have the appropriate equipment you can bake ribs in the oven. This is no secret, restaurants who aren't bbq places have been doing this for years. That being said, the secret to ribs is to have the appropriate equipment. That's why real bbq places have smokers instead of using gas ovens. A gas oven can impart an off flavor and smokers give smoke to the meat.

Also among some, wrapping ribs to get them to cook is considered bad form. They can come out soggy, and the meat can end up being mushy and fall apart too easily. It really depends on what you are trying to accomplish though. If you don't mind that, then it can be the way to go.

</comment><comment><USER14> Wrapping ribs in foil is essentially boiling them in their own steam. Mushy and bland unless you're a pro.

The oven is fine, but if you want speed and smoke taste, brine and cook at 300 degrees on a grill for about an hour. Best of both worlds.

<comment><USER9> Wrapping in foil, in the oven or on the smoker, is one of the oldest tricks in barbecue:

[http://amazingribs.com/tips_and_technique/texas_crutch.html](http://amazingribs.com/tips_and_technique/texas_crutch.html)

The "you're a pro" part of this basically comes down to: you have to wrap your product tightly and with no gaps (else you still have the evaporative cooling that is the reason for the crutch in the first place), and you have to remove the foil midway through cooking.

I don't see how you can get tender ribs in 60 minutes at 300f. Tenderness is a function of collagen conversion, and that just doesn't happen that quickly, especially in dry air cooking.

<comment><USER15> Tenderness is a complicated beast. It's not just collegn conversion. Brining causes a big change in the molecular structure of the meat that retains a lot more moisture compared to cooking un-brined meat. That doesn't do anything for connective tissue, except you can crank the cooking heat higher to melt the fat, which lubricates the meat further, and then just cut the remaining tissue away, rather than breaking it down. It's a tradeoff- it doesn't taste as good, but it's got pretty good texture.

<comment><USER9> I don't think you're not really "melting the fat". Fat by itself melts almost immediately. What you're really doing is breaking down the connective tissue binding the fat, which takes time.

Brining _does_ cause the meat to retain more liquid and that _does_ increase juiciness, but it can also harm texture and flavor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Additionally, meat doesn't absorb much additional smoke flavor after a few (most say 3) hours in a smoker, so the advantage to keeping them outside --- apart from simplicity, I guess --- is minimal.

<comment><USER13> It's not hours. It's temperature. After meat reaches, if I recall, 145 degrees, it won't absorb any more smoke flavor. Also the smoke flavor will become more intense the longer you wait to eat it. So if you smoke something and then let it sit overnight it will become more intense the next day.

<comment><USER16> Can confirm, Smoked ribs this weekend and the leftovers (and the smell of the entire house for that matter) was intense and delicious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My apartment-life rib making method is to sous vide for 48 hours in a custom dry rub and liquid smoke, then finishing in the oven to caramelize the sugars and proteins. To someone who doesn't like super smoky barbecue, it's close to perfect and nearly indistinguishable from the real thing. The best part is it's so quick to get started and clean up. It's much more trouble to fix proper sides. They're so inexpensive, too.

<comment><USER17> Any chance you'd share your recipe (ingredients & instructions)?

<comment><USER18> Not OP, but here's my sous vide baby back ribs recipe. They are always a huge hit, they are extremely meaty and tender.

First make sure to remove the mebrane from the inside of the ribs. You can't do it with frozen ribs so thaw them in the fridge for a couple days if they are frozen.

Make a dry rub with a generous portion of chili powders (I use ancho, chipotle, and sweet paprika, whatever I have around) brown sugar, garlic and onion powders, salt and pepper, and maybe some cumin, cocoa powder, cinnamon, nutmeg, whatever you feel like. I hate to be so vague about this but I usually eyeball - maybe 6 or 8 tbsp of combined chili powder, about the same brown sugar, 1-2 tbsp of onion and garlic powders, 1 tsp of salt/pepper and less of the other flavorings, for 4 racks of ribs. Make plenty of rub and really coat 'em good.

Before you seal the vacuum bags put half a teaspoon or so of liquid smoke in with each rack of ribs

Sous vide for 36 hours at 145 degrees F, turning the bags every 6-12 hours to evenly distribute the juices.

Open the bags (you can save the juice to make a spicy bbq gravy or spread on toast if you want, but there will be a LOT of it) - I usually cut the ribs in half either at the beginning or now, because otherwise they will fall apart. They are very tender at this point.

Grill them at a relatively low temperature while carefully flipping and coating both sides a few times with barbecue sauce, allowing the sauce to carmelize.

Slice into individual ribs, serve with lots of napkins.

This is a great guide to consult on sous vide ribs of various temps/textures: [http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/09/the-food-lab-complete- gui...](http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/09/the-food-lab-complete-guide-sous- vide-pork-ribs.html)

<comment><USER17> Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I find that even on a small grill, you can simply pile the ribs on top of each other on the far side, away from the coals. I think it results in better flavor as the juice from the ribs on top bastes the ribs beneath. But you do want to rotate which ribs are at the bottom, if your temps are running a little high at the bottom.

So, I disagree about being completely limited by surface area for larger parties. I feel volume of the grill is more important.

<comment><USER20> My preference is to sear the ribs on a _very_ hot charcoal grill for 3-5 minutes a side, then wrap them in tinfoil and bake for several hours at a low temp. They get the great smokey flavor, but stay moist and tender. Also, slather them with Stubbs Original BBQ sauce before wrapping and putting in the oven.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Another secret? Toss some ribs, a few veggies and seasoning and a bit of beer into your regular every day rice cooker. Set it, come back when it's done and enjoy fall off the bone ribs and sides (the veggies).

My wife also does an oven rib recipe in a Sriracha and Gochujang "marinade" (with some onions and such). Let sit for a day in the sauce then toss 'em in the oven for a bit. Works great for chicken too.

<comment><USER22> Do you mean the high pressure asian rice cookers like a Zojirushi or Cuckoo? Not the $30 black and deckers you can get at Bed Bath and Beyond...

<comment><USER23> I don't think the high pressure asian rice cookers qualify as 'your regular everyday rice cooker' :) But I'm also sceptical. The regular rice cookers cook for quite a bit less than 1 hr; not sure how you'd get fall-off-the-bone ribs cooked that quickly. That said, it's super easy to try...

<comment><USER24> I'm not really sure, but I thought that rice cookers turned off when all the water was gone (absorbed and boiled off) and the temp got above 100C. Then, with lots of liquid to boil off, the cooker could heat for a long time and turn off when the fluid is gone.

<comment><USER25> My old rice cooker at least a had hold cycle that would keep the rice warm 'indefinitely' after it was done. I'm guessing this is what is being used to cook the ribs.

<comment><USER24> Mine has that feature also and I think you are right that this is what is slow cooking the ribs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Lazy Costco Ribs - Buy pre-seasoned Costco ribs. Wrap in tightly sealed foil pouch, meat side down, and cook at a 225 for 2.5 hours. Open, and flip onto fresh foil, discarding the oil. Wait until you are almost ready to eat, then cook at 4:50 for ~10-15 minutes until desired level of browning.

</comment><comment><USER27> Aaron Frankin has a great series of videos on YouTube if you're into that sort of thing. [https://youtu.be/0eSFdddaRnk](https://youtu.be/0eSFdddaRnk)

</comment><comment><USER28> This thread looks MUCH better informed on BBQ than the OP.

"Collagen," that is, melting it -- from all I could tell, yup -- that's the true _secret_ to cooking a wide range of meats.

Yup, from the investigations I did on the Internet, the secret number is 160 F; first cut, for just one number, that's the temperature at which collagen melts.

The next secret is that the muscle fibers are always tender. That is, if meat is tough, the cause is that the collagen has not yet been melted out.

Next secret is, if get the muscle fibers much over 160 F for too long, then the proteins change, expel their water, and become dry and brittle. No additional cooking will fix that. You have ruined meat.

For years I read dreamy recipes from the NYT, Julia Child, Jacques Pepin, etc. about delicious, lovable, traditional beef stew from France, Italy, etc., please the family, the neighbors, guests, have a great dish for pot luck dinners, have everyone in the family gathering around with family bonding, etc., and tried and tried and tried, with lots of garlic, onions, carrots, beef stock, red wine, etc., everything done more carefully than I worked in college chemistry lab, and the results were always disaster. Always. That went on off and on for years. Lots of wasted time, money, effort, and groceries, and lots of ruined meat.

Why? Never, not once, ever, did any of those dreamy sources mention meat temperature. Not once. With iron determination, feet locked deep in reinforced concrete, the authors, apparently on penalty of slow torture or being stewed themselves, ever, Ever, EVER let themselves mention meat temperature of 160 F and melting collagen.

From those years of frustration and failure, I still resent what the NYT, Child, Pepin wrote. I'm no longer explosively mad, boiling oil mad, or just boiling mad, but I'm still simmering. This thread alone is MUCH better. So, we're talking (A) the highly self-esteemed NYT and some high end book publishing houses and (B) some largely anonymous HN readers. And, may I have the envelope please? And the winner, by huge margins, on all points, is HN!

Finally I learned on the Internet from some sites with some people quite serious about good BBQ. Gee, they were serious enough to use thermometers! In the meat itself, not just the hot air under some metal dome 16 inches above the meat, not just the wall of the oven! And they fully understood melting collagen!

The writers were famous? Nope. Well informed? YUP!

But, now the NYT has improved, right?

Let's see: The OP has some thing about 135 F for many hours. Hmm .... Last I heard, we want 145+ F for food safety. Uh, I'd suggest, that stuff that was at 135 F for some hours, try to take the family yacht about 200 miles east of Boston, weight the stuff down with lead, and, in the dark, without the EPA around, drop it overboard. Hope it doesn't kill off the worms three miles down. Uh, maybe wrap that meat with a copy of the NYT?

Generally, my opinion about the NYT and the cookbook publishers is that they are interested in vicarious escapist fantasy emotional experience entertainment (VEFEEE) with little connection with reality, facts, times, temperatures, weights, volumes, pH, information, instruction, or actual good cooking results. E.g., for decades they wouldn't tell me about 160 F and collagen, and now they are saying something about 135 F. Did I hear that the NYT is going out of business? Maybe I heard some such thing.

But, I know; I know; the OP is fine if want to imagine a really great backyard party, with 20 guests, some A-listers, a couple of Ferrari cars on the grass, lots of good beer, heck, Chardonnay, pass around a football, some hoops, etc. That's all on the porch of a Manhattan high rise apartment building?

Suggestion: NYT people, if you want good BBQ, order carryout! Or, gee, even have some via FedEx from Memphis!

Next, we might consider Maillard browning? And especially for ribs, smoke rings?

BBQ is good, not just a little good but really good. Fancy? No. Good? Darned right. Why? As in

Gray Kunz and Peter Kaminsky, _The Elements of Taste_ , ISBN 0-316-60874-2, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 2001.

BBQ hits hard on all of sweet, sour, salty, hot (as in pepper), and onion and garlic.

I apologize here because due to working on my startup I'm temporarily out of cooking for a hobby. I hope to return. Everything I posted here is from years ago. But, when I return I will have this thread as additional information!

<comment><USER29> > Let's see: The OP has some thing about 135 F for many hours. Hmm .... Last I > heard, we want 145+ F for food safety.

Holding at 145F for a short time works for most bacteria of concern (some you need higher for a short time), but most can also be killed at 135 for a long time (hours). Temperature and time need to be considered together.

<comment><USER28> So, while holding this meat at 135 F for the specified hours, in the last 30 minutes a fly touches down on the meat. Oops, the meat is no longer safe.

In practice 135 F is a bit too cool to be very safe.

Sure, the situation is more complicated than just one number for temperature and, sure, time is also important. And, sure, can still eat rare (never got as warm as 135 F) beef steak, say, a thick T-bone, if are sure the cow was healthy so that the interior of the steak is sterile and if have browned the outside to sterilize it.

I remember Dad's remark on rare steak: "I've seen critters get hurt worse'n that and get well." IIRC for human fingers, pain to the touch is about 140 F.

Still, for practice 135 F is a bit cool, especially for holding meat at that temperature for a long time as in the OP. Or, sure, if the meat at 135 F were in some sterile, air-tight situation for all the hours, okay, but that's not very realistic for a real kitchen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Just no.</comment>


Ask HN: What are some good, technical podcasts? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Software Engineering Radio - [https://www.se-radio.net/](https://www.se- radio.net/)

Grumpy Old Geeks - [https://gog.show/](https://gog.show/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I am not sure what do you mean by technical,

\- but 99% invincible is a podcast talks about how things (a very broad definition) work - often from a design/interconnections viewpoint.

\- Beats, Rye and Type is nice but they seems to be dead

</comment><comment><USER4> While technically a podcast, it is not a technical podcast. [https://accidentallyfasting.com/](https://accidentallyfasting.com/)

</comment><comment><USER5> [https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/](https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Artificial Intelligence by Lex Fridman

</comment><comment><USER7> NLP highlights

Talking machines

Common descent podcast

Titanium physicists

In defense of plants</comment>


Add An External GPU To Your Laptop - <AUTHOR> http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/418851-diy-egpu-experiences.html

<comment><USER2> I'm extremely surprised that there hasn't been any mid-range work done on this for laptops with either USB 3.0 or Thunderbolt. I know from personal and work experience that a dual-out box that can push the GUI around better than the DualHead2Go would be fantastic, similar to a USB-based video card but with a less bandwidth-constrained environment. Right now, there's only certain Dell laptops using an E-port that do anything similar.

Seems like the manufacturers are doing really high-end stuff, like Magma's 3-port 220w beast, which is overkill and over-priced ($700 for the enclosure) for pushing two externals.

<comment><USER3> Sony VAIO Z [1] does exactly this - it uses Thunderbolt-over-USB-plug to connect external Radeon 6650M and Blu-Ray Burner.

But I'm also waiting for cheap ($200 max) Apple-compatible PCIe enclosure, so I could play newer games on my 13" MBP. I don't really want bigger screen and more weight and don't really need more power that 15" gives, but playing some game from time to time would be nice.

[1] <http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/29/sony-vaio-z-review-2011/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been following the project since it was first announced, and while it's interesting, I don't find it particularly useful... I mean, I got a laptop for its mobility, I knew I was sacrificing a bit of graphics performance (although these days the performance loss compared to desktops is unsubstantial). I also don't want a device bigger than my whole computer, with its own power source, sitting on my desk...

As for extending the life of old laptops, well, laptops get old and cheap so fast these days that it's not worth it - the difference between a Quadro FX 770M and FX 880M (which are what, 1-2 years apart), for example, is more than 50% in performance...

<comment><USER5> I have a laptop as my only computer, and I would love to eliminate its largest flaw relative to a desktop machine. Not to say that you're wrong, just that I think there's a market for something docklike as more and more people have only a laptop.

<comment><USER6> Agreed. I bought a cheap laptop when my previous computers hard drive failed. Now I have more money, but I don't want to buy a desktop just to play games and then never use my perfectly functioning laptop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> i am waiting for the new Thunderbolt enabled Vidock which will finally put an end to the USB2DVI or DualHead2Go performance and usability restrictions. Also it will finally enable Macbook owners to just plug in one cable and have a full fledged docking station with Dual Monitor output and good GPU performance without making the macbooks fans spin like crazy!

</comment><comment><USER8> Other specialized processing boards will probably also have a place when using Thundebolt. I know a couple of people looking to use Red Rocket cards with a external chassis on their MacBooks.

</comment><comment><USER9> This could be a good way to stretch the life of an old laptop especially for gaming or number crunching though it's probably not for LAN parties.</comment>


Show HN: Lunchcruit - Zero-commitment free lunch with amazing companies - <AUTHOR> http://www.lunchcruit.com

<comment><USER2> I understand it's just a MVP/POC now but would it hurt to include let Austin folks have an entry in the location drop-down? :)

<comment><AUTHOR> We're working on expanding! Stay tuned :)</comment></comment>


Quantum theorem shakes foundations - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-theorem-shakes-foundations-1.9392 <comment><USER5> Very cool: <http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1111.3328>

Not sure if I understand all the assumptions. Here is the gist of it. The debate is about the interpretation of quantum states |φ> (L2 norm unit vectors in a complex vector space). Is |φ> something physical or is it simply a outcome-probability-calculating method for predicting the quantum evolutions and measurement outcomes.

View 1: |φ> is real.

View 2: |φ> is just a model of our knowledge of what is real + rules for calculating prob outcomes.

Define the λ = { the physical state of a system }, i.e., that which //really// exists in the world. The question is whether:

         λ = {|φ> and other stuff}               (1)
      or
         λ = {other stuff not including |φ> }    (2)

If you have (2) then |φ> was really just some mathematical track-keeping and calculation device -- it is not real: it is just something we use for calculation. If (1) is true then the quantum state is part of the real world, and in particular if quantum theory is complete, then λ = |φ>.

Point of view (2) says that the |φ> is not necessary to obtain the complete physical state of the system.

The paper shows that point of view (2) is untenable.

Suppose only λs mattered for physics and (2) is true. Suppose further that a single λ could correspond to two different quantum states |φ0> and |φ+>. Then an apparatus that only knows λ would get "confused" sometimes and say that impossible outcomes occurred. If you knew |φ>, you wouldn't get confused about these outcomes. Therefore, they conclude that |φ> is a necessary part of the physical description of the system.

|φ> is real.

<comment><USER6> Interesting. So would it be correct to conclude that the paper just applies logic to uncontroversial matters?

<comment><USER7> It's not "just logic", it's math, but yeah, pretty much.

<comment><USER6> No intent to minimize the significance of logic. There is to little of it in our world, often in spite of abundant facts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great timing with last night's Nova, Fabric of Time: Quantum Leap which covers the context of this paper at a layman's level quite well (streamable for free @ <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/>). It's a fantastic introduction to this sort of material for the uninitiated, highly recommended.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for this, enjoyed watching it this morning. I took the intro to Modern Physics a few years back and this was a great refresher! So fascinating...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I didn't read the paper yet and it really might contain some valuable insights into the nature of quantum mechanics (I'll take a look at it later today), but I find this debate about whether the wave-function is a real object or not hilarious: It completely fails to take into account that the wave function is not defined on space-time, but rather on an abstract configuration space - <USER2> confuses the mathematical model with physical reality.

The general problem with QM is that it's an algebraic and not a geometric theory, ie you know the rules, but have no real concept about what they mean. However, QM strongly resembles the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation of classical mechanics, and the geometry of that is known (see eg <http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0604063> ).

The quantum numbers basically select a leaf of the foliation of our phase space, and the wave function is some sort of probability distribution on that (but not really ;)), which can be represented by a function on configuration space (which is, in general, NOT space-time, in particular if multiple particles are involved).

It's closest classical analogon is the action function S (or rather, its differential dS), and you don't see many people arguing that dS is a real object: it doesn't make a lot of sense to do so, and the same holds true for the wave function.

<comment><USER10> I just read the paper. The authors actually make no claim about the reality of the wave function, so disregard anything I said above (which is still true, but not relevant).

However, they do claim to have disproven the statistical interpretation of QM.

This, however, is impossible: It can't be disproven from within QM, as all it says is the following:

"We have no idea what happens when performing individual measurements. However, let me tell you what you'll see when you repeat the experiment often enough."

All the authors have shown is that their λ mechanism is flawed.

</comment></comment><comment> da-bacon A very interesting paper (I used to work in quantum computing, so I think I understand the paper pretty well after reading it a few times. Like most foundations papers is deceptively short!)

The basic idea is fairly simple. From quantum states (the wave function) we can determine probabilities of outcomes when these states are measured in different manners. A major problem in quantum foundations is how to understand these probabilities arise, i.e. where do these probabilities come from?

For example, it could be that the probabilities arise from our ignorance of knowledge of the system (these are what people traditionally call hidden variables.) Imagine a hard disk with a bunch of information on it. If you don't know all of the bits on this hard disk, then your computer can act in ways you can't explain because you don't know all of the bits. Each time you setup your system and run a program you may get different results because that extra information on the hard drive could be different, and so because you don't know all of the information you will see probabilities of outcomes. Mystery solved. Coming up with such a theory however currently always runs into a problem with locality. But that's a story for a different comment thread...

Here is what the authors ask. They say: well it could be that all of the information that is specified in a quantum wave function is all that matters, that is for each quantum state there is a one to one correspondence with a configuration of the hidden information (they allow for extra information, but that's basically irrelevant.) That is, literally, the quantum state is written on your hard drive in all its glory detail, and each quantum state is distinguished for any other quantum state. Contrary to this it could be that the information overlaps in some way. That is for different quantum states, some of the bits, say, will be in the same configuration. The authors then go on to show that this later assumption isn't compatible with the predictions of quantum theory (and show an experiment that can be done that will verify that the later interpretation is not correct. If the experiment fails, then quantum theory is wrong, and all hell will break lose. Assuming quantum theory holds, this shows the second interpretation isn't viable.) Very neat.

There are a couple places where the argument seems a bit odd to me. For example, it is really not clear to me why the measurement device in their system has to depend on the portion of the information that is shared between different prepared wave functions. If this information is ignored by the measuring device, I don't see how their contradiction will arise. Of course it self tells us something kind of interesting because it puts a limit on how shared information is revealed to a measurement device (this seems almost Kochen-Specker theorem like.)

<comment><USER11> If I understood you correctly, the researchers show that a many-to-one relationship between quantum representation and physical reality is untenable, so the relationship must be one-to-one.

Isn't the conventional assumption that it's one-to-many? If so, this argument isn't very interesting to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Out of curiosity, does this paper have any bearing on the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics?

<comment><USER7> Page 4:

"On a related, but more abstract note, the quantum state has the striking property of being an exponentially complicated object. Specifically, the number of real pa- rameters needed to specify a quantum state is exponen- tial in the number of systems n."

This is an oblique way of saying that (quantum) reality consists of many (classical) worlds.

<comment><USER13> No it isn't, it's an explicit way of saying that the number of real parameters needed to specify a quantum state is exponential in the number of systems.

<comment><USER7> Why do you think those are mutually exclusive? "the number of real parameters needed to specify a quantum state is exponential in the number of systems" is just a rewording of "the quantum state function is an exponentially complicated object." But when you combine that statement with the main point of the paper, namely, that this exponentially complicated object is physically real, it is not unreasonable to infer that this physically real exponentially complicated object comprises multiple copies of classical reality.

In fact, there are logically only three possibilities:

1\. The quantum wave function comprises zero classical realities, i.e. what we call classical reality is not real but some kind of illusion. This is actually a scientifically tenable point of view. See <http://arxiv.org/abs/quant- ph/9605002>, particularly section VI.

2\. The quantum wave function comprises one classical reality, i.e. Copenhagen. This is not any more a scientifically tenable point of view.

3\. The quantum wave function comprises multiple classical realities, i.e. many-worlds is (are?) physically real.

Personally, I subscribe to option 1.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> From what I gather, quantum "particles" travel in a way that's wave-like, but as soon as they interact with another quantum particle, the wave collapses into a single point, and then starts traveling as a wave again starting from the point of collapse. (or something along these lines).

This wave-like form is basically the "wave function"; it describes how the quantum particle moves, and where we might find it.

If this is right, then I don't see anything "mysterious" in quantum entanglement. If anything, quantum entanglement seems to be a proof that the quantum-particle (aka wave function) has an internal state that can be known without necessarily having to interact with it directly.

Somebody please throw some sense into me if I'm spewing non-sense.

<comment><USER15> The problem is that the "collapse" (from wave to particle) occurs as a result of somebody measuring. Google the double-slit experiment: when not measuring individual photons, you get wave-like interference. When measuring individual photons, you get particle behavior.

The conundrum is what is it about measuring that collapses the waveform? It is quite a mystery, and, honestly, very exciting.

(btw, IANAP, but I love reading about it)

<comment><USER5> > When measuring individual photons, you get particle behavior.

Actually, you get wave properties (interference) even with a single photon at a time. This is why it is so fucked up... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double- slit_experiment#Interfer...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double- slit_experiment#Interference_of_individual_particles)

<comment><USER16> Not exactly. The collection of particles, even if you detect them one at a time, displays an interference pattern. However, if you make an effort to detect which slit each particle goes through, you see that each one behaves as a particle, like you would expect, and the interference pattern vanishes.

And this is true whether you detect which slit it passes through before or after its point of impact has been detected.

 _That's_ what's weird. A particle can be particle-like or wave-like, but not both, and the thing that determines which it is is whether or not you _will_ look.

<comment><USER14> It's not about humans looking at it. It's about collapsing the wave function. The only to "look" at a particle is to make it interact with something (trigger some chain reaction that ultimately sends a signal to one of your senses, e.g. a photo multiplier). The moment it interacts with that thing, the wave function collapses.

This part is not mysterious.

The mysterious part is, what in the world could be the thing that acts as a wave function and then collapse to a single point when it interacts with something else? What underlying reality does this hint at?

<comment><USER17> That part is not mysterious either - the collapse simply doesn't occur.

Say you have a photon in a superposition of state A and state B - <USER4> position. If it is in state A it hits a detector, if it is in state B it does not. If the detector is hit, it displays 'HIT' on its screen - otherwise it does not. If 'HIT' is displayed, the researcher thinks photon was in state A, otherwise the researcher thinks it is in state B.

The result of the experiment, without any wavefunction collapse, is a superposition of two states of the entire system:

State 1: Photon is in A, Detector was Hit, Researcher thinks photon is in A

+

State 2: Photon is in state B, detector was not hit, researcher thinks photon is in B.

As you can see, the fact that the researcher never sees a photon in a superposition of states a+b (he doesn't ever see the detector both lit up and not) is explained without any wavefunction collapse.

<comment><USER14> > Say you have a photon in a superposition of state A and state B - <USER4> > position.

Why are you assuming the particle has got to have a "position"?

The fact that a quantum particle can interfere with itself would be experimental evidence that it doesn't in fact have a definite position.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> So does this imply that the universe is deterministic?

<comment><USER19> In some sense yes : If you know the starting conditions, one could just crank it through to the outcomes (assuming the strongest form of their result). OTOH, one can't measure everything, since you'd be collapsing wavefunctions everywhere - changing the state of the universe as you go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> OK, this might be a stupid/ignorant question, but what do they mean by "[it seems very unlikely to be true that] if a quantum wavefunction were purely a statistical tool, then even quantum states that are unconnected across space and time would be able to communicate with each other."? Why is this less likely than the alternative?

It reminded me of the single electron universe hypothesis by Wheeler(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe>) and wonder if anyone can speak to whether this changes perception on seriousness/testability of that idea.

<comment><USER7> > Why is this less likely than the alternative?

Because the alternative is quantum mechanics. If unconnected states can communicate, QM is wrong. QM is extremely unlikely to be wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Question for the more knowable: Does this paper support/say-nothing/deny anything about the view that the "particle-property" we're looking at is a projection into the "space" we sense (at the moment) of a more complex entity uniquely described by its wave-function?

</comment><comment><USER22> Is this about hidden-variable theories? I thought Bell's theorem already nuked those...

<comment><USER23> afaik Bell's nuked local hidden variables, but not non-local, and also not local in a deterministic universe

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> If you want to think about quantum state faster-than-light action-at-a- distance spooky entanglement, look at it this way...

There are two gloves (a right and a left hand glove) and two lockboxes (box 1 and box 2).

Each lockbox contains one of the gloves. Someone other than you has placed the golves in.

You open box #1 and discover that it contains the right hand glove. You now know that box #2 contains the left hand glove (this is amazing to some).

The rational theory is that the states already existed before you looked into either box.

The irrational theory is that neither of the states existed as "well-defined" until after you looked into one of the boxes.

Quantum physics is just a way of abstracting the underlining reality. And it's gone so far that it has completely de-materialized everything and replaces it with math no one can understand.

Can anyone explain the proof to the irrational theory without more baseless conjecture?

<comment><USER17> As many classical metaphors for quantum mechanics, your explanation is intuitive, convincing, and demonstrably wrong.

There is simply no way to describe the underlying mechanisms of this world using classical physics. However, since our brains are used to the classical picture, the metaphors seem true at a glance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Very good explanation from an expert in the field:

[http://mattleifer.info/2011/11/20/can-the-quantum-state- be-i...](http://mattleifer.info/2011/11/20/can-the-quantum-state-be- interpreted-statistically/)

</comment><comment><USER25> Does this break the non-determinism that makes quantum computing so efficient?

<comment><USER26> AFAIK It's not non-determinism that makes quantum computing efficient, it's the ability to compute on superpositions, which effectively means computing all outcomes at the same time.

<comment><USER25> Ah, right. I meant non-determinism in the sense of a non-deterministic automaton that calculates all outcomes at the same time, not in the sense of introducing randomness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> So this is not a new idea, it's been around for decades, and just fallen in and out of vogue. And now they present an [their] opinion piece on the topic.

I hardly think "shakes foundations" in the HN title and more of the same hyperbole in the article is warranted

<comment><AUTHOR> This article is about a new theorem that was uploaded to the preprint server earlier this week[1], and the article quotes several quantum theorists who describe this new result as important (or even 'seismic'). On what basis do you think it's been around for decades?

1\. <http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328>

<comment><USER28> The actual formal theorem is new and great, but the general battle of asserting the wave function's existence vs. non-existence (whatever either are supposed to mean) vs. saying "I don't know tell me more about the wavefunction and its experimental predictions working/failing" has been around for quite some time. Here's a nice write-up of the ridiculousness of someone definitively saying "I don't know why this works and therefore it doesn't exist!" <http://lesswrong.com/lw/q5/quantum_nonrealism/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> "The wavefunction is a real physical object after all, say researchers."

Mathematics is just a representation of reality, not the reality itself.

No single law in all scientific fields can state that the law itself is the physical object, or a part of the Universe. One may assert that General Relativity can explain lots of observations we can make about this universe. However, even if the observations match the way the universe seems moving 100%, it doesn't indicate that the universe itself is GR. GR is just a successful model of reality that can assert some important relationships among macroscopic observations in this universe.

Assume that someone forged a ultimate theory that can integrate every possible physical observation we can make about this universe. Even if that's the case, he can't assert that "this universe IS the theory." It's merely the theory is a successful model of reality, but not that reality is model itself.

No one can dare to claim that a set of mathematical description of observation equals reality. No wavefunction can be a physical object. That's simply idiotic.

<comment><USER30> Not everybody is convinced that reality deserves to be on a pedestal separate from mathematics. Perhaps the only thing distinguishing our reality from mathematical structures is _that we are part of it_. All mathematical structures with self-aware substructures (such as ourselves) appear to be "reality" from the point of view of its inhabitants.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_ensemble>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_realism>

<comment><USER29> Presented in the criticism sections of your mentioned Wikipedia articles, Gödel's incompleteness theorem is there as a strong rejection to mathematics = reality argument. No mathematics is self-contained, which means it's incomplete to describe the totality of reality.

We shouldn't forget that mathematics is an invention of mortal human beings. For the dwellers in quantum space, the mathematical fundamental might be totally different from our one.</comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft pays $100K bounty to hacker - <AUTHOR> http://business.financialpost.com/2013/10/10/microsoft-corp-hacking-bounty/?__lsa=d344-d1e8

<comment><USER2> Here's a story you guys might appreciate.

I found a cross site scripting vulnerability in Bing.com that was kind of hilarious. Searching for:

      </script><script>arbitrary js</script>

in the main search box would execute the code on the results page. I mean, holy shit. I could not believe it. I emailed their whitehat service and they fixed it but I never received a bounty.

</comment><comment><USER3> That is not actually the origin of the term "zero day"; "zero day" is a tongue-in-cheek #hack expropriation of #warez jargon, where "zero days" refers to the number of days from the official release date of a piece of pirated software.

<comment><USER4> The article isn't trying to explain the origin of "zero day". The article is defining it in the context that it's used for the benefit of their readers.

> That vulnerability in Internet Explorer was known as a "zero-day" because > Microsoft, the targeted software maker, had zero days notice to fix the hole > when the initial attacks exploiting the bug were discovered.

<comment><USER3> That's not why the vulnerability was known as "zero-day".

<comment><USER4> So is that the point you were originally trying to make instead of discussing etymology? While we're quibbling prescriptively about terminology, I'd argue that the IE exploit patched earlier this week was in fact a zero day since it was not public knowledge.

> The vulnerability underlying CVE-2013-3897 was found internally at Microsoft > and would have been fixed in MS13-080. However, in the last two weeks, > attacks against the same vulnerability became public, but since the fix was > in the code already, it enabled Microsoft to address the vulnerability, > CVE-2013-3897, in record time.

[https://community.qualys.com/blogs/laws-of- vulnerabilities/2...](https://community.qualys.com/blogs/laws-of- vulnerabilities/2013/10/08/patch-tuesday-october-2013) (unnecessary text omitted)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a huge payout. It's my assumption for such a big payout this security researcher was able to develop or extend upon some of the advanced exploitation techniques we see today.

I think, for such a huge payout, and for what they said they would pay this amount for is a _new_ tactic to defeat Microsoft's DEP[0] ASLR[1] and ROP[2]. All of these defence mechanisms have been broken before, but as I mentioned Mr. Forshaw has probably developed a novel new technique to defeat these checks.

Lastly, and probably least likely, I know academia and MS Research have been working on ways to sandbox applications. It's possible he has developed a way to break out of the sandboxes.

All of this is speculation, I hope soon we will have access to what he was able to accomplish.

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%5EX](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%5EX) [1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASLR](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASLR) [2] [http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/enhanced-mitigation- experienc...](http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/enhanced-mitigation-experience- toolkit/)

<comment><USER6> _a new "exploitation technique" in Windows, which will allow it to develop defenses against an entire class of attacks_

\- the OP

 _new mitigation bypass technique_

\- [http://www.contextis.co.uk/news/congratulations-james- forsha...](http://www.contextis.co.uk/news/congratulations-james-forshaw/)

\- [http://blogs.technet.com/b/bluehat/archive/2013/10/08/congra...](http://blogs.technet.com/b/bluehat/archive/2013/10/08/congratulations- to-james-forshaw-recipient-of-our-first-100-000-bounty-for-new-mitigation- bypass-techniques.aspx)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Internet Explorer, ... the world's most popular browser"

That's no longer true, right?

<comment><USER8> The browser formerly known as the world's most popular browser. [http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp](http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp) [http://gs.statcounter.com/](http://gs.statcounter.com/)

I'm honestly quite amazed. When Chrome first came out, I remember asking my teammates why we were wasting money on developing a browser, thinking it would never be more than a niche product. Another reason why I'm not Google's CEO, apparently.

<comment><USER9> Think strategically. It doesn't really matter what the user base of Chrome or Android are. What they do is raise the bar. Competitors and alternatives need to be at least that good.

Javascript performance was pretty dismal until Chrome came around, and then everyone had to up their game. Until Android, mobile platforms were tightly controlled walled gardens (although Windows Mobile was amongst the least worse). Now everyone wants Google Mail, Maps and Search on their mobile devices.

Google ultimately makes money through usage and the platform + apps/browser don't matter that much financially. Without Chrome and Android, there is a strong possibility of being cut out completely.

<comment><USER10> " It doesn't really matter what the user base of Chrome or Android are. What they do is raise the bar. Competitors and alternatives need to be at least that good."

Yes it does matter, at least some. No one even knows what the bar _is_ if no one is using it.

Someone could put together a wickedly fast browser with fantastic privacy controls, release it tomorrow, but if no one used it, it wouldn't have any effect on major browser makers.

JS performance went up in other browsers due to Chrome only because Chrome was gaining users (even if the base was small at first), mostly because they were able to push Chrome from Google.com itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Good on MS for paying out such a large bounty.

<comment><USER12> It will also hopefully help more people to responsibly disclose vulnerabilities, rather than selling them on the black market. A pat on the back is nice, but nothing says thank you like cold, hard cash!

<comment><USER13> That's one of the points of bug bounty programmes, isn't it?

<comment><USER12> Sure. But when the amount is small/trivial, you simply give credit to to the finder or you send them a t-shirt, you may then be tempted to find alternatives to get a cash incentive.

<comment><USER13> Yep, that's exactly my point. Bug Bounties are supposed to be realistic alternatives to the black market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The title of this submission: "Microsoft pays $100K bounty to hacker"

The title of the article: "Microsoft Corp pays US$100K bounty to hacking expert who uncovered Windows bug that could have been used to launch remote attacks"

To me, this level of editorializing approaches arbitrarily close to lying.

<comment><USER15> How exactly is it lying? Microsoft _did_ pay a $100k bounty to a hacker. The HN headline just leaves out extra details (what the bounty was for), but doesn't change the meaning at all. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER16> How's this:

        Guy predicts the higgs boson particle.

        World renowned physicist Foo Bar, accurantly models existance of boson particle.

\---

See the difference? The title is BS. I expected a guy from Pakistan or somewhere third world finding the bug.

<comment><USER17> Isn't that rather racist? You assume that if the person isn't being called an "expert" then he's from Pakistan? Are you trying to imply that security researchers in Pakistan are third rate?

PS: A security researcher from Pakistan has been bagging a lot of Bug Bounties recently. Look up news on Rafay Baloch

<comment><USER18> Well no, it's not racist, being that Pakistan is a country and not a race... it sure does make your comment emotive though.

<comment><USER17> Unjust Discrimination either way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> You could buy a lot of microsoft t-shirts with that much money.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think you meant paid his company if your employed as a security researcher his employer will own any rights.

</comment><comment><USER21> How about MS just open sourcing the browser? Is their browser tech really that trade-secret-filled?</comment>


Kubernetes Services and Ingress Under X-ray - <AUTHOR> http://containerops.org/2017/01/30/kubernetes-services-and-ingress-under-x-ray/ <comment><USER2> What does "Under X-ray" mean?</comment>


OCaml for the masses - <AUTHOR> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2038036

<comment><USER2> This was posted a few days ago:

HN discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3047741>

Reddit discussion: [http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/kuhn3/ocaml_for...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/kuhn3/ocaml_for_the_masses/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Good read. I rather like Yaron Minsky's videos on the Jane Street site, too: <http://ocaml.janestreet.com/></comment>


Inside a social network startup - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/212471/micromobs_inside_a_social_network_startup.html

<comment><USER2> Been using Micromobs for over a year now, a very effective communication tool!</comment>


A LAMP development environment for vagrant that's less than 100mb - <AUTHOR> https://r.je/vje-minimal-virtual-server.html <comment><USER2> I think it's cool that you made this for your students!</comment>


Southern California's apartment boom: "Developers still aren't building enough." - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailynews.com/2017/11/13/apartment-boom-construction-hits-26-year-high-as-renter-numbers-soar/ <comment><AUTHOR> California has been underbuilding for decades; for reasons I describe in more detail here: [http://seliger.com/2017/08/30/l-digs-hole-slowly- economics-f...](http://seliger.com/2017/08/30/l-digs-hole-slowly-economics- fills-back-proposition-hhh-facilities-program/), it's going to take a lot to have a serious impact on prices.

This Reddit post: [https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_ar...](https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_architect_in_la_specializing_in_multifamily/) also explains it's virtually impossible to build anything but "luxury" housing in L.A.</comment>


OpenX.org compromised and downloads injected with a backdoor - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sucuri.net/2013/08/openx-org-compromised-and-downloads-injected-with-a-backdoor.html

<comment><USER2> the openx team has unfortunately a long history for not really caring about bugs in their opensource offering.

a few years ago, i had to maintain an openx installation and found quite a few critical bugs, for which i submitted patches to their then-active jira bugtracking. as far as i know, the bugs are still in the "current" 2.8.10 release.

the opensource version was unofficially abandoned when the Enterprise editions where announced - without really telling the users that they would not maintain it anymore.

i'm not at all surprised about the new problems and their lack of communication.

<comment><USER3> I had a similar experience, briefly maintaining an OpenX install until one day we had a security issue. Turns out that nobody had been applying software updates and that software has lots of problems with it. I spent a week getting it up-to-date to be sure I had everything cleaned out from the hack.

At the end of the week I decided that the client wasn't allowed to run OpenX anymore and we found a different solution that worked within their CMS. Less bells and whistles, less problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you were using OpenX at one time and never removed it from your webserver, you can consider yourself compromised. Get that shit removed.

<comment><AUTHOR> +1. Most of the compromises we find is due to old/test/never used/demo/debug tools that were once installed and forgotten.

<comment><USER4> Right. It's amazing how many companies have public-facing openx installs that are no longer used or updated. Makes for an extremely easy target.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> grey-area I suspect this goes back longer than 7 months ago. I saw a customer site using openx with constant unusually high CPU usage over 1 year ago. It was also running a custom drupal and I didn't get a chance for a close look but I suspect the openx was compromised, as even with low visitor nos to drupal and caching it was using high CPU constantly. Thank goodness the server has now been replaced and the data migrated to another system... In the logs for months after replacing the site I saw odd requests for long openx urls, so it was probably serving up files for someone, and google had over 100,000 urls indexed...

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm not surprise at all.

Their products are a bit shotty and so is their website. I can go on and point out even more problems with their websites... but that would be consulting.

I applied there and got shot down, it seems like they only hired people from prestige university (caltech, stanford, etc..). This view is also backed by a few reviews on indeed. They're very smart and create some very very unique stuff (rolled their own db on top of riak, live auctions, erlang), unfortunately all those awesome algorithms doesn't help their shotty products.

</comment><comment><USER6> I understand the concerns brought up in this thread as I experienced some of them myself in the past; but what good open source/free software can you recommend to replace OpenX?

</comment><comment><USER7> OpenX downloads are not working on OpenX web site, e.g. [http://download.openx.org/openx-2.8.10.zip](http://download.openx.org/openx-2.8.10.zip)

<comment><USER8> This seems to be the latest version: [http://download.openx.org/openx-2.8.9.zip](http://download.openx.org/openx-2.8.9.zip) with time stamp 2013-08-05T18:00:31.000Z.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> How does PHP code inside a JS file get executed? Sounds to me like that's not the only problem in the code...

<comment><AUTHOR> The .js file is actually included in one of their templates (using include()). So the <?php code is executed at that point.

<comment><USER10> Why isn't the Javascript code in a PHP comment? That is the usual way of "embedding" stringly-typed languages.</comment></comment></comment>


The Meaning Of Life for C Programmers - <AUTHOR> http://jones.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/why-42-is-the-meaning-of-life-the-universe-and-everything/

<comment><USER2> Nah, that's just lame. It would "make sense" with whatever character that would happen to be.

Space? Makes sense.

New line? Makes sense.

Hash. Certainly does make sense.

<comment><USER3> '*' is commonly used in globbing schemes to represent everything/anything. To my knowledge neither spaces, newlines, nor hashes also are.

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Glob_%28progr...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Glob_%28programming%29)

<comment><USER4> This is C programming language we're talking about, right? The `*' asterisk stands pointers in C: both defining and dereferencing 'em. In a way, the free access to pointers is (a large portion of) the meaning of C -- and, by extension, C programmers' lifes.

Anyway, a nice joke ;-)

<comment><USER3> Eh, of all the possible contexts that '*' could be interpreted as having significant meaning, I'd definitely say unix name globbing comes before pointers in C.

(though I also think interpreting '42' as an ascii sequence is looking for something where there is nothing...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> More plausible theory:

1 digit is to simple. 3 is too many. 2 is about right. Something non-prime of course, but with three prime factors. 42 is nice. Rolls off the tongue, and ends in "ooo".</comment>


Show HN: JavaScript coding challenges on top of GitHub and circleci - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/engintekin/javascript-coding-challenges-using-github-circleci <comment><AUTHOR> I thought that I can make coding challenges using github & circleci. I find it quite exciting, what are your thoughts about it? Should I continue improving it or should I stop wasting my time on it?</comment>


Australia to refund $720m in Centrelink 'debts' calculated by unlawful algorithm - <AUTHOR> https://tech.newstatesman.com/public-sector/australia-to-refund-centrelink-debts <comment><USER2> Anyone with a minimum of common sense knew where this was going. I actually was shocked when I learned about robot debt 3 years ago. I knew people would die, I knew there will be bugs, and I also knew that they would not apologize for the simple reason is that they don't have a simple clue. Also, they can't be fired, and they know each others since they share the same school - ACT is a small country town....

So anyone who did a shit job there never been told to change anything.

I am not surprised, and this will happen again.

</comment><comment><USER3> Robodebt is definitely going to join the Tacoma Bridge collapse as an anti- example in ENG1001 Professional Engineering in Australian universities.

<comment><USER4> I'm pretty sure it was delivered exactly to spec.</comment></comment>


What will robocars actually be like? - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2015/10/07/robocars-are-at-peak-hype-heres-what-theyll-actually-be-like/ <comment><USER2> Personally, I'm looking forward to owning (or even building) a self-driving tiny house sort of vehicle.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you  manage the sales "funnel"? - <AUTHOR> I am a freelance mobile developer, and business is picking up to the point where managing potential clients through gmail labels will not suffice.
How do you manage contacts, track where they are in the sales cycle, and gather statistics for later feedback and analysis?
Is there a particular methodology or software that is used?
Thanks, Curtis <comment><USER2> Might be a bit overkill to start, but we started early on with salesforce.com, which provided a good framework that we've grown into. Other CRM solutions like sugarcrm would work too.

</comment><comment><USER3> Fat Free CRM (<http://www.fatfreecrm.com/>) is a pretty nice self-hosted, RoR, option. There's an iOS app for it called Senbei, off the top of my head, although it is a little limited.

</comment><comment><USER4> For the first two I use Kanban: I have one bin for "On Radar" (people I need to send proposals to, etc), and "Followup". The card for each person has their email address and when I should follow up with them

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm using Pipedrive (<http://pipedrive.com>)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I've been looking at FreeCRM, and for the price, well, it looks pretty good.

</comment><comment><USER6> It may be cliche around here, but I'm a big fan of 37 Signal's Highrise.</comment>


Our moral code is out of date - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/16/brook.moral.code.outdated/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

<comment><USER2> Fantastic! More Any Rand gibberish.

If we're converting to a world where giving away your fortune is reprehensible immorality and greedily amassing a Scrooge McDuck-sized pool of gold is the new golden rule, count me out.

What the Randians never seem to understand (as I hop on my soap box) is that the world they want so badly to exist has. The world, red in tooth and claw, existed for millions of years. And here's the thing: it sucked. That's why moral systems developed and evolved beyond their biological inevitability. In a world where individual success is elevated over concern for others, Saddam Hussein is a moral hero. I'll pass on that world. I'll stick with boring old Mother Teresa.

(hop off soap box)

<comment><USER3> The irony is that the Randian "individual" is applied collective entities like corporations.</comment></comment>


Epstein Suicide Conspiracies Show How Our Information System Is Poisoned - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/11/opinion/jeffrey-epstein-suicide-conspiracies.html <comment><USER2> An HN discussion around how information systems become poisoned could be great. Arguing about the specific conspiracy theories will lead to pointless flamewars. May I suggest engaging with the former?

<comment><USER3> Simply engaging the former grants TFA's argument that "poisoning of information systems" is indeed what is happening with the Epstein suicide, as opposed to sensible questioning of official narratives.

If I say "our information systems are poisoned by establishment media sources which converge on talking points like 'Epstein conspiracies are baseless' without even asking any basic questions about the events" is that in line with your suggestion?

<comment><USER2> Questioning official narratives by broadcasting your own unsubstantiated theories, made up from your armchair, is indeed poisoning the system.

The most reliable way to find out how someone was killed is to examine the body, talk to all the people the victim had contact with, etc. There's a whole profession devoted to doing that, and they're about to go into action. When they announce their findings, there'll be some real information upon which to base theories.

But at this point, any theory is baseless. The NYT is careful not to float any theories, as we should all be.

<comment><USER3> Since you are pointing the finger at me specifically, I will point out that nothing I've said so far is at all "unsubstantiated." Even if a thorough medical examination shows that Epstein did indeed kill himself without any outside assistance, the _facts_ in this case are:

a.) Epstein's trial held the possibility of releasing extraordinarily incriminating details about dozens or even hundreds of wealthy & powerful figures,

b.) Given a.), huge swathes of people correctly predicted ahead of time that there was a risk Epstein would die before seeing the inside of a courtroom (this was widely dismissed as "conspiracy theories" at the time),

c.) Epstein had already been found grievously injured and placed on suicide watch,

d.) Given b.) and c.), to not have Epstein under constant, redundant surveillance is "incompetence" of such a staggering extent that it suggests willful negligence,

e.) Given that Epstein's death probably marks a convenient clean break for many of the people mentioned in a.), it is _entirely reasonable_ to raise the possibility that one or more of them with the power & influence to do so helped bring d.) about.

At this point, the processes which were at place in MCC and the decision- making which led to the lax monitoring of Epstein are far more important than any medical details surrounding his actual death.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Indeed they are poisoned: few ppl trust the mass media.

Because, honestly, as a jailer, how could you f up more than having Epstein hang himself? A man who, before he hung himself _everone_ thought: "wouldn't it be convenient if he got suicided?" Why did we think this way? Let's see:

-Women who have credibly accused this man have also accused a Prince of the UK - a power structure that it's known has shielded pedos for decades (BBC, Thatcher's cabinet, liberal party leader).

\- The sleaziest two presidents since Johnson (or maybe ever!) are involved with this asshole.

\- His lawyer (Alan Dersowitch), one of the most important constitutional lawyers in the US, is accused to having been partaken in the abuse. A.D. has behaved quite bizarrely with his request to unseal and keep sealed court records.

\- The original court case was sealed!

Also, a la Harvey Weinstein fiasco, everyone in his circle appear to have known about his peccadillos _with children_

Now he's conveniently dead. And I'm supposed to prostrate at the NYT, who didn't break this story, when they tell me there's nothing to see?

Ha!

</comment><comment><USER3> It's really interesting to watch establishment media congeal around the notion that _any_ speculation of foul play -- or indeed any deviation from the official line of "whoops he killed himself lol" \-- is "baseless," to be placed in a category of "conspiracy theories" alongside chemtrails and reptilian overlords, a tragic consequence of the internet's proclivity to spread viral fake news, etc.

I mean, here you had a potential witness who we _know_ may have had the goods on a member of the British royal family and a former U.S. Senator and state Governor, just from the slight trickle of documents that have made it out to the public (in addition to the Miami Herald reporter, we also have conspiracy nutbar Mike Cernovich to thank for that). Both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump had long associations with him. The source of his wealth is an utter black box, which suggests at the very least an absurdly rich benefactor, if not an extensive blackmail scheme or even support from some state actor. There's practically an entire army division's worth of people with their hands on the levers of power who may have had everything to lose if Epstein made it to trial. And Epstein himself was an unrepentant sociopath with delusions of grandeur who hardly fit the profile of a defendant who would off himself.

So far, all we've been told is that he was inexplicably not under 24/7 monitoring, that there may not even be conclusive video evidence of activity in and around his cell, and the body was taken to a hospital somewhere. And we're supposed to think it's just _completely off-the-reservation crazy_ to cast doubt on the official narratives here? Even to think that maybe someone helped create the conditions at the prison under which it was even _possible_ for Epstein to kill himself?

Literally half the world _predicted_ this would happen in the first place! So color me a bit unconvinced that what the conspiracy theories really demonstrate is that the hoi polloi don't know how to distinguish fact from fiction on the internet. And if Bill Clinton didn't want to feature in those theories, well, maybe he could have not taken quite so many rides on the Lolita Express.

Of course, this is all coming from many of the same media sources which spent the first two years of Trump's presidency barking up the tree of secret Russian pee tape kompromat and Putin as the secret puppetmaster of Manchurian Candidate Trump.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've been arguing with people about this since it happened. Sure, there are a lot of people with incentives to kill Epstein, but if you say it's murder, then you have to explain how the killer did it _while he was in federal custody._ Even Trump couldn't do that without getting caught.

#ClintonBodyCount is particularly absurd, because I'm supposed to believe the Clintons had all these people killed, with no evidence pointing back to them. This doesn't make sense in a reality where Trump can't even keep one porn star quiet.

The simplest explanation is that he committed suicide, because he was prematurely let off suicide watch. Occam's razor strikes again.

<comment><USER3> What's the simple explanation for why he was not under constant surveillance when the whole world knew there was a huge risk he'd wind up dead before trial?

<comment><USER5> Incompetence is probably the simplest, followed by "this guy is a piece of shit. I don't care if he kills himself."

<comment><USER3> This was the prison that kept El Chapo alive and in custody through his whole trial. Was the Keystone Kops shift away on vacation while he was there?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Incredible. The NY times have managed to "both sides" this. Genuinely impressive.

<comment><USER7> They didnt. They said both time, with a different point of view (different bias if you will), that this is too early to draw conclusion. Any rationnal person would do the same.

<comment><USER8> That depends on the conclusion. Concluding that something fishy is going on here, that's likely murder being covered up and that hard questions need to be asked of is rational. Assuming someone found dead with bruises on their neck without even a rope being mentioned killed themselves, and calling it a suicide from the get go, is not rational, it's not neutral, and accepting it without a peep is practically siding with killers, whoever they and their motives may be.

[https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/journos-debunker-mentality- rus...](https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/journos-debunker-mentality-rush-to-rip- conspiracy-talk/)

> Witness the mainstream media's rush to tsk-tsk the deluge of social-media > speculation in the aftermath of Jeffrey Epstein's death in federal custody. > Within hours of the story breaking, writers at mainstream outlets went > patrolling the Internet for "conspiracy theories" to debunk, usually with > that tone of superiority and self-satisfaction that so endears the blue- > check Twitterati to the American public.

But hey, let's not rush to any conclusions, just to the gatekeeping -- let's just move on, if we never get back to this, no biggie either. That's not rational nor noble, it's just saying "not my problem".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > especially with corruption and conspiracy at the heart of our biggest > national news stories (Epstein, the Mueller Report, mass shootings), and the > platforms themselves functioning as petri dishes for outlandish, even > dangerous conspiracy theories to flourish

Now the media uses the word "conspiracy" to try to delegitemize all media, sources, narratives and stories they disagree with. "Trump posts conspiracy theory on Twitter." "Without proof, Trump makes claims."

The NY Times pushed the biggest conspiracy of all: Russian collusion. Bombshell after supposed bombshell fell as the Times and CNN and other anti- Trump media braced us for the crushing outcome of that would come with the Mueller report. And then it turned out to be nothing. Zero.

</comment><comment><USER10> What's worse?

1\. People getting 2-3 narratives from mainstream news sources, one of which they believe, both of which are often false.

2\. People getting 100 narratives from unknown sources, none of which they fully believe, a handful they think are plausible, most are false.

It's good to have everyone on the same page believing what is true, horrible to have everyone on the same page believing what is false. Given that the mainstream can't be trusted, I'll go with #2.

<comment><USER11> Am I getting a false dichotomy here? Why do we need false narratives at all in the mainstream news? It didn't used to be like that, and there is certainly some reason to expect falsehoods are not inherent and unsolvable.

<comment><USER3> Well, when the paper of record's take on the Epstein events is a "what, me worry?" level of incuriosity, I'd say there's a loooooooooooot of problems to be solved.</comment></comment></comment>