NovaChat: Multi-Network Chat - <AUTHOR> https://nova.chat/ <comment><USER2> I'm interested to see how they handle the Facebook messenger bridge since FB seems to rather aggressive about the bridge from logging in.

I've been running Tulir's bridge [0] for a few months now and my Facebook account gets locked out every week or so (requiring unlocking and a new password).

EDIT: Looking at the code, they use Tulir's bridge as well. I'd be..cautious about claming production level support with it due to the afore mentioned logout issue. Which is a shame since all of Tulir's bridges are high quality.

The bridgebox repo appears to be a bunch of bridges in docker containers. I wonder if it's really worth running the bridgebox and not a homeserver, versus using matrix-docker-ansible-deploy [1]. You already need the VPS space.

[0]: [https://github.com/tulir/mautrix- facebook](https://github.com/tulir/mautrix-facebook)

[1]: [https://github.com/spantaleev/matrix-docker-ansible- deploy](https://github.com/spantaleev/matrix-docker-ansible-deploy)

<comment><USER3> Ah well I make no claims to this being production level reliability. It's very much beta software. Very beta :) For those who have the capability of setting up a web server and configuring DNS, I would recommend using matrix-docker- ansible and host it all yourself.

The bridgebox is actually designed to run on a raspberry pi, my plan is to give each user a free Pi to run their bridgebox.

Send me a note on matrix, I'd love to chat! @eric:nova.chat

<comment><USER4> Just wanted to ask: I signed up for the beta but did I commit to anything? I don't mind trying it out, but do we have to pay the $10 from the start and is there a minimum term?

<comment><USER3> No commitment at all. You can try it out first.

<comment><USER4> Thanks!

One other Q: What about E2E security? Will you implement this for the comms between the bridges and the browsers? As I understand it I would run the bridges myself so it would make sense to have everything encrypted.

<comment><USER3> Yes there is encryption between your client and bridge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > NovaChat is a paid app with a monthly fee of $10 (price may go up after beta > period)

Wow $10/mo?! Pidgin was the multi-network chat tool, and was free! I'd understand $10 one-time, but not per month. And the price may go up? No thanks

<comment> o-__-o As an original contributor to pidgin when it was marko's gaim, I am flabbergasted at the state of open source chat today.

I wonder if libpurple just needs to be updated to support cloud services/various chat apis. I'd be willing to bootstrap that project...

<comment><USER6> There are already libpurple plugins for various chat systems, for example Discord:

[https://github.com/EionRobb/purple- discord/](https://github.com/EionRobb/purple-discord/)

<comment><USER7> There are many more.

Facebook MQTT: [https://github.com/dequis/purple- facebook](https://github.com/dequis/purple-facebook)

Telegram: [https://github.com/majn/telegram- purple](https://github.com/majn/telegram-purple)

Skype web: [https://github.com/EionRobb/Skype4pidgin](https://github.com/EionRobb/Skype4pidgin)

Pidgin is a life saver.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Between this, Mastodon, Matrix, and others, I feel like we're witnessing the end of the centralized web era (everyone uses one network), and the return to a distributed Internet (lots of different services) with aggregators (Adium or NovaChat).

The recent Twitch/Reddit/Twitter bans should only magnify this effect. Congrats Eric! I'm very excited to use this.

<comment><USER9> I hope that's the case, but I have trouble seeing a future where centralized applications (mostly Facebook, Instagram, and iMessage) will be thrown aside by the masses.

People still use Facebook after multiple proven privacy scandals. If that doesn't push people off the platform, what will?

<comment><USER10> An alternative with a strong existing network effect. I dont really use FB at all anymore, but Im not on Mastodon et al because no one else I know is.

It's a bad catch 22.

<comment><USER11> BeWelcome.org is trying hard to get that "critical mass". I won't explain the whole history of CouchSurfing demanding membership fees and locking people out of accounts, because I don't want to complain. The focus within the community is about volunteering and building a new future together. It's primarily about letting people stay in each others' houses for free, yet there's more to the community that just hosting and being a guest.

It's a very international group, with real-life weekly meetups in several cities. The management structure is like Wikipedia/Wikimedia. The website itself needs a lot of work though.

If BeWelcome gets the network effect it needs, I'm very hopeful that BeVolunteer could start more projects. (BeBook? BeMail? BeChat?)

<comment><USER12> It says its open source, but the only link to this in the faq says you should "get access" to the source via some developers circle(?) which goes to an apache "it works" page

<comment><USER11> Sorry that the link is wrong! This is the Github project:

[https://github.com/BeWelcome/rox](https://github.com/BeWelcome/rox)

There's no closed "developer's circle", it's an open group that anyone can join - I just made an account about a month ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> 2 things.

1) much better name for a matrix client than the others, Nova sounds cool.

2) $10/month is more than Disney+ per month. Could there be the option to accept a $5/month for desktop only and a separate $5/month for mobile? Then a combined $10/month for both?

Massive kudos on it looking good (even if electron) and doing Matrix stuff nicely.

I will be watching this closely, especially when Signal is ready to go.

<comment><USER3> If you don't want to pay, you can always spin up our entire system on your own server. One way is to use Matrix-Docker-Ansible [https://github.com/spantaleev/matrix-docker-ansible- deploy](https://github.com/spantaleev/matrix-docker-ansible-deploy) It is finnicky though. If you promise to give me good feedback and bug reports, sign up for the beta and I will waive the fee though!

<comment><USER14> I'd be happy to provide that to waive the monthly fee, I just filled out your form...

Would love to have iMessage working from my windows computer

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Cool, I'm running a Matrix service like this myself but it's been a bit hit and miss. Keeping all those different bridges running over time is difficult. Especially the signal one is a real PITA, often contacts stop getting my messages from matrix while I still get theirs.

And Whatsapp requires whatsapp web so you need to keep the client running on your phone 24/7 _or_ run it in an Android VM which is pretty heavy.

And finally the whole Matrix experience is a bit lacking IMO. It doesn't really do 1:1 chats so every time someone chats with you you get a 'room invite' from the bridge, which you have to accept, and all those old rooms stay forever cluttering up the system.

I wouldn't mind outsourcing all that work, but $10/month is a lot.. Good idea though! There's definitely a need for this, which is why I've been looking into it too. I'm just getting so sick of all these different chat apps screaming for attention all day, each with their own difficulties. Some don't work on the desktop, others only work on 1 client at a time. And each milking as much data as they can. Why can't people just stick to IRC :)

<comment><USER15> > Keeping all those different bridges running over time is difficult.

The issue is that most of the services Matrix tries to bridge to are basically hostile entities (except IRC and Slack). I'm honestly shocked how _well_ Matrix bridging works when you take that into consideration -- and unsurprisingly the Slack and IRC bridges are the nicest ones to use. But I will admit that I think Matrix's marketing around bridging as being core to their chat model is a bit of a stretch -- while all of the bridges do work, most are a bit dodgy (and some require you to self-host).

For instance, the Signal bridge is actually a hacked-up version of the Signal Chrome App with a bunch of hooks added so that they can simulate you doing things through the web app. There is a project that uses libsignal-service- java directly to create a more usable CLI and DBus interface[1], but unfortunately they haven't switched to using that (and if it became widely used, Moxie would probably decide to block it). Whatsapp is probably similarly hacked-together.

> It doesn't really do 1:1 chats so every time someone chats with you you get > a 'room invite' from the bridge, which you have to accept, and all those old > rooms stay forever cluttering up the system.

Maybe this is bridge-specific, but I have several long-lived IRC 1:1 chats that are all in one room. There's nothing stopping a bridge from doing this correctly (as far as I know). As for old rooms cluttering up the system, I believe that (non-joinable) rooms with no members get garbage collected but I might be mistaken.

[1]: [https://github.com/AsamK/signal-cli](https://github.com/AsamK/signal- cli)

<comment><USER16> I'm not sure I agree with it. The hostility of the services is one thing, but regardless of that there's definitely a lack of UX around "tunneling" into third-party accounts.

Most bridges require your own session on the third-party service (sometimes provided by a session cookie in the config file) and then invite you to a private room for each conversation through that service. There is no concept of a login UI for a third-party service, nor is there a concept of "ghost" users for third-party service users (let's say I have a friend that is both on Matrix as well as IRC and Signal - I want him to be considered as a single entity on the UI, and no need to have "rooms" for one-to-one chats with third- party users.

<comment><USER4> Yes this is another issue. Each bridge has its own way of managing things. In some (like Signal) you have to run a CLI command, in others you have like a bot where you can tell it what to do. It's not really standardized in Matrix.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Trillian, Adium, Pigdin for 2020? Lol. What a mess the internet has become.

<comment><USER18> Those were all free too if I remember correctly?

<comment><USER19> Yes they were, except I think Trillian had a pro version.

<comment><USER17> I remember those! It was free forever then later on that Trillian Pro came around. Adium was my favorite during that time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > Eric Migicovsky

Is this the Eric of Pebble fame? I have a lot of warm feelings here, I actually still wear one. :)

While I prefer open communication protocols and clients, the reality seems to be the world has sadly moved on from this. Hopefully Nova will be of as high quality as Pebble was.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER21> Closed-source, single-dev Matrix frontend that doesn't even mention MS Teams. I want to like it, but for a monthly service fee it needs to be absolutely flawless and it needs to have enterprise auth nailed -- including O365/Exchange. I also can't figure out what this does that XMPP did not do -- XMPP did all of the above and still didn't really last.

<comment><USER3> it's (mostly) open source, actually: [https://gitlab.com/nova](https://gitlab.com/nova)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I was under the impression that WhatsApp pretty aggressively bans accounts using third party clients.

How did you get around this? Or is it not an issue afterall?

<comment><USER23> Seems like they're running a chrome process controlled via the automation APIs.

<comment><USER3> not exactly, we're using a library that reverse engineered the Whatsapp Web api: [https://github.com/Rhymen/go-whatsapp](https://github.com/Rhymen/go- whatsapp). I haven't had any problems with the API and I've been using it for a year straight.

<comment><USER24> Seems like your cloudflare got hugged a few hugs too many.

<comment><USER3> haha yeah, I did not expect this so I hadn't paid $5 for more workers. Should work now :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The target customer seems a bit odd. Typically people will have exactly 1 paid service for chat. Like, probably Slack. And that's already $$ per month per user. So is this for individuals that have their company pay for slack, and then like, what also pay for the luxury chat client that let's the employee add like a bunch of personal chat accounts?

On the other hand, if they're expecting individuals to pay for this (at $10/mo and that's during beta) just like, because, that's going to be a challenging market.

</comment><comment><USER25> Since it's just using the Matrix protocol; it should be easy enough to just use bridgebox[0] with an existing Synapse server, right? Is the custom client doing anything that deviates from the standard Matrix protocol?

[0]: [https://gitlab.com/nova/bridgebox](https://gitlab.com/nova/bridgebox)

</comment><comment><USER26> I've built a not for profit multi-platform capable matrix chat client that is now in open alpha called Syphon ([https://github.com/syphon- org/syphon](https://github.com/syphon-org/syphon)) to largely address the issue of proprietary chat clients.

Private, secure communication (with a decent brand and ui) should be accessible to everyone by now. Signal does a great job of filling the void for now but if they fail or are blocked by a country or community, the application interface itself is not a protocol to which people could easily pivot to the "gmail" of Signal.

I'm hoping that Riot's upcoming rebrand will mark the start of this transition. We needed centralized efforts to spread usage of matrix, or even a similarly accessible protocol, but make it easy for those to create or maintain their own connection to that network. If all else fails, I guess we'll have Syphon.

</comment><comment><USER27> We're working on a similar idea at [https://texts.com](https://texts.com)

It supports iMessage as well, isn't based on Matrix and is completely local.

<comment><USER28> is not being based on Matrix a good thing? :D

<comment><USER27> :) Maybe? It has a new abstraction so it's kinda competing with Matrix as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Been using this client for a few months and am pretty happy with it.

Have looked for a replacement for Adium for quite a while and Nova Chat is looking like it will be it. So much relief from not having to juggle multiple desktop chat clients and mobile notifications.

Looking forward to the upcoming features! App is getting some nice updates every few weeks.

</comment><comment><USER30> This is _exactly_ the functionality I want from a chat client, and have been unable to find.

But it's Electron. Pass.

(Unless I find time to go figure out if it can be used with other Matrix clients…)

<comment><USER3> (I made this) It works with any matrix client. But the UI naturally is not as nice. I use it daily with RiotX on Android and it works fine.

<comment><USER31> If the claim of GP is true that your app is electron, why mention this?

>NovaChat is not a browser/Chromium solution that opens many tabs to different chat networks like Franz, Shift or Station

<comment><USER32> Because it's not? It's an app built in Electron that talks to their server. It's not an app built in Electron that opens up the official webpages for each of these chat apps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I remember using Trillian back in the day, and the problem was that they couldn't keep up with features of each chat network, so I had go back to using ICQ, MSN Messenger, etc. separately.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm not sure why this is needed...looks to me like a solution in search of a problem.

<comment><USER35> I could not disagree more. This is a probably for me almost every waking hour. Perhaps this is a US-centric problem, but I have groups of friends on WhatsApp (mostly foreign), Hangouts, MMS/SMS, Telegram, and Messenger. Then there's Slack for work.

Ever since my Blackberry had my emails, SMS, and BBMs (iMessage-like service for BlackBerry users) all in the same inbox with threads, I have been dying for a service where I can just say, "I want to send a message to [person]," and let the app decide how to contact them or continue my existing thread.

I have paid for Franz and Station, both of which were unusable garbage, and now use Hamsket (a fork or Rambox)[1].

1\. [https://github.com/TheGoddessInari/hamsket](https://github.com/TheGoddessInari/hamsket)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is of interest to me, but the Electron thing worries me. I already commit a lot of memory to Electron clients (VSCode, Discord, Slack, etc.). Adding another one, even if it replaces Slack, makes me a little concerned for memory economy.

<comment><USER37> Sounds like once the discord support is available, it would actually _reduce_ the number of electron apps you're running.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I've been running my own Matrix but I haven't really looked at the state of the bridges. Does it allow, e.g, someone on whatsapp to make a video call with me and I see it on Riot?

<comment><USER39> Not as far as I am aware. Most proprietary chat apps have very little support outside basic messaging. Corrections and standard reaction emoji work for platforms that support it, but that's about as far as support goes in most cases.

Video calling, especially e2ee direct communication, would probably be unstable and if poor quality if you require the call to go through an extra translation hop.

Chat support has been getting better though, bridge performance has increased a lot over the past few months. If the web app for your bridge of choice supports calling, I see no theoretical limitation in implementing a call integration, though it would probably be very hard to get it working correctly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> While I'm sure it's a fine app, this oddly looks like a graduation of using Thunderbird in ~2006 as a multi-email client.

</comment><comment><USER41> 10$ per month is a bit much for an app.

</comment><comment><USER42> NovaChat lists WeChat in the "Coming Soon" section. Out of curiosity is it even possible to write a 3rd party client for WeChat? Last time I checked their APIs are extremely limited.

</comment><comment> c-smile While we are on this page...

If someone need my help in creating native Chat UI please let me know, I can help to do it with Sciter: [https://terrainformatica.com/2019/09/23/sciter- chat/](https://terrainformatica.com/2019/09/23/sciter-chat/)

It could be purely native application or something along the lines of Sciter Quark ( [https://quark.sciter.com](https://quark.sciter.com) )

<comment><USER43> I'm making one, it wont be open-source but i'll respect privacy, allow free self-hosting... imagine a discord(call features) + slack(paid for companies).

[https://imgur.com/uSA8AMs.png](https://imgur.com/uSA8AMs.png) [https://imgur.com/P9ckNBn.png](https://imgur.com/P9ckNBn.png) [https://imgur.com/L9fDMKQ.png](https://imgur.com/L9fDMKQ.png)

Ram usage is currently at 12-50mb on windows, up to 90mb with 50 messages with images(unoptimized, no virtual scrolling yet).

The server will be a single binary, there is still a lot to do: pin messages, emojis, avatars, community avatar, search... i want it (server+desktop) to be done by the end of the year.

<comment> c-smile If Sciter sounds interesting for the project, please contact me at [https://sciter.com/contact_us/](https://sciter.com/contact_us/)

<comment><USER43> It already uses Sciter

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Can anyone comment on how this compares to Ferdi?

<comment><USER45> Ferdi is essentially a proxy into the browser version of the apps, but this looks like it's built to proxy the connections to matrix, with a native front- end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Why are we repeating the past!

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not repetition though. It's more like a spiral. I like modern chat apps better. My parents and brother can use Signal but they never could use the previous solutions. Plus, vibrant ecosystems are a good thing. Having several chat applications that compete on features is a good thing.

<comment><USER46> LOL yes it is. Not sure how old you are but we've been here before.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've seen various cycles a few times now. Cycle times in tech are short. Which makes me think I should use the proper terminology and call them spirals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> This has been done so many times, I wonder why it never worked out

</comment><comment><USER48> Why Matrix instead of good old XMPP ?

</comment><comment><USER49> for a minute I thought I had notion app open due to novachat using same favicon.

<comment><USER50> They host the site on Notion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> This is the future.

</comment><comment><USER52> Man if we could get something like this for snapchat.</comment>


Traders set to don virtual reality headsets in their home offices - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/7a551253-1f74-4f9a-8845-f9b7220dccda <comment><USER2> Sounds interesting but sadly paywalled :(</comment>


The rise of passive-aggressive wi-fi names - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19760006 <comment><USER2> There's a trade-in electronics chain in the UK called CeX, and their WiFi hotspots are open and named 'Unprotected CeX' by default which I always found amusing.

</comment><comment><USER3> It would be great if everyone just put their phone number as the SSID.

Phone numbers are unique and let others contact you if they want to use your wifi for some reason. Would probably help neighbors get hold of each other in emergencies as well.

<comment><USER4> But then any random passerby could harvest phone numbers easily. And because of the nature of a) cell phones and b) wireless networks, there isn't really a good correlation from wifi-availability to geographic location to actual phone location. You might know all of your neighbours' phone numbers, but not which goes with whom, nor which ones are on your floor, or even in your building. And just imagine someone phoning them all to try to find out who's playing music at night.

<comment><USER3> Well yes, if you publish your phone number then people will be able to see it.

You're right about the flat number / street number situation though. It might be good to add that to the SSID as well.

Loud music seems like a perfect use case for the information.

<comment><USER5> When I lived in an apartment building our SSID was "internet-304". 304 being my apartment number.

No one ever showed up at my door or anything, but it was there. Seems like the most obvious and succinct way to tie the access point to a physical location, which seems the most obvious way to open communications.

<comment><USER3> Yes, I've had my phone number as SSID for the past three years and have yet to have anyone call it.

I think it'll need to hit a critical mass before it's useful. People don't expect SSID's to have useful information so they don't look for it there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Does anyone else think that using the term "passive-agressive" is somewhat ... passive-agressive?

<comment><USER7> Also most of the names are pretty direct, no passive aggressiveness there

<comment><USER8> It's passive aggressive because the people aren't directly speaking to their neighbors. Kind of like the notes in passiveaggressivenotes.com - those notes are direct, but they avoid direct confrontation.

<comment><USER9> Then _all_ notes are passive by nature of not being face to face, and they should just be called "aggressive notes." Except many of these aren't aggressive in that they're not deliberately hostile or vengeful, just plain directives that some readers take as personal attacks for some reason.

<comment><USER10> No, not all notes are passive, because they are not transmitted as a wi-fi name.

That's what makes them passive in this instance. They are relayed without actively delivering them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My favorite one in my neighborhood is "Hide Yo Kids Hide Yo WiFi"

<comment><USER12> I enjoyed an entrepreneurial one to the effect of:

"Pay 1711 10 bones for access"

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Not linking back to the Reddit post (as far as I can see). This seems to be a bit of a trend recently. :)

</comment><comment><USER14> I have two networks, a private one and a public one. The public one has no password, and the SSID is "My Address Guest". I've received thank-you notes. If overuse gets to be an issue, I'll throttle the public side, but it hasn't been so far.

<comment><USER15> And what if someone uses it for illegal activities? The buck would stop with you (or at least start there). I'd be very wary about an Open WiFi these days....

<comment><USER14> Having been stuck without access in the past, I think the benefit to others is worth the risk.

See also:

[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/my_open_wirele...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/my_open_wireles.html)

<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/04/open-wireless-movement>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Surprised the 'FBI Van' one wasn't mentioned as I've seen that more than a few times in the wild and posted around the internet.

<comment><USER17> It was on the example pic about half way down.

<comment><USER16> True, but as it's become a bit of a geek in joke I was surprised it wasn't mentioned during the article as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've recently run across a handful of political messages in prominent locations. Taking the train from Tampere to Turku, Finland, for example, someone on the train was broadcasting a really long SSID that translates roughly to "Support tram construction in Tampere and Turku!"

</comment><comment><USER19> "FBI Surveillance van" wasn't directly mentioned, but it does partially appear in one of the photos.

<comment><USER20> That person is a genius imo

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> No 'Free Public Wifi' ?

Awesome windows virusy-thing that was...

<comment><USER22> Actually not a virus, just a bug in Windows XP - [http://www.npr.org/2010/10/09/130451369/the-zombie- network-b...](http://www.npr.org/2010/10/09/130451369/the-zombie-network- beware-free-public-wifi)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've been using "just sit down and have a nice cup of tea" for some time. I use hyphens in the actual name. Alas, my neighbours still have SKY-some-large- number or the BT equivalent. They all do have wpa2 turned on however.

<http://www.poetrylibrary.org.uk/exhibitions/current/?id=50>

I think goto10 have automated the id string thing. I saw something like this in Birmingham some months ago, goto10 did a residence then.

</comment><comment><USER24> Quick hypothetical scenario.

If I were to open a free wifi network and let anybody use it, say call it: "Free Internet!" and many people used it.

Could I intercept those users personal information suck as Facebook usernames, passwords, emails, etc?

How deep would me penetration go? Or will I only be able to intercept packets?

I always tell my wife to not use online banking etc when she visits a cafe with free internet, but it's just a hunch - not based on my actual knowledge on the matter. That's why I'm asking. Thanks!

<comment><USER25> > Could I intercept those users personal information suck as Facebook > usernames, passwords, emails, etc?

Yes. You'd have to do a bit of work, since the info would be encrypted, but by being in-path you would get all the info you need to decrypt the messages.

> I always tell my wife to not use online banking etc when she visits a cafe > with free internet, but it's just a hunch - not based on my actual knowledge > on the matter. That's why I'm asking. Thanks!

Unless she does her web browsing over a secured vpn, then there's a chance that information could be seen by someone.

<comment><USER26> Not necessarily. Facebook now uses SSL for login and I'm assuming any sane Online banking service does the same.

On the other hand there things to watch out for like SSL strip.

<http://www.thoughtcrime.org/software/sslstrip/>

So make sure that you are actually using the HTTPS version of any site.

If you are using standard HTTP (or another unencrypted protocol) then you can assume that the network owner can intercept everything you are doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Paper always works.

[http://static-mb.minutebuzz.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/06/c...](http://static-mb.minutebuzz.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/06/chers-voisins-1.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER28> Am i the only one who doesn't broadcast their SSID?

<comment><USER29> You're almost certainly not the "only one." But, most of us don't bother because it doesn't provide any additional security (and might mislead you into thinking you can make your network less secure).

See "Why Non-broadcast Networks are not a Security Feature" at [http://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/library/bb726942.aspx#EDA...](http://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/library/bb726942.aspx#EDAA)

<comment><USER30> Doesn't it also make it more difficult for neighbors to check for channel conflicts?

<comment><USER31> No, it doesn't. Spectrum analyzers can detect WiFi signals regardless of whether or not they are broadcasting an SSID, which includes discerning what channel they are on. By extension, most software built-in to WAPs that automatically chooses the channel to reduce conflicts will do similar spectrum analysis. You can read GP's article from TechNet for more information on this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> A couple of years ago visible form my student house were "227 epic house" and "229 even more epic house".

</comment><comment><USER33> My favorite are the ones that leave you wondering what's going on where, such as "Make Out Party".

</comment><comment><USER20> Does it make me a bad person if I find some of these really funny and creative?

</comment><comment><USER34> Ultimate passive agressive one would be "I'm not mad, just disappointed".

</comment><comment><USER35> One in my apartment building is: "Inside Bristol Palin's Uterus".

</comment><comment><USER36> my wireless SSID has been 1337haxz0r for the last 6 years. Nobody has attempted to break in, I hope to confuse people who don't use 1337 speak or scare off people that do...

</comment><comment><USER37> this really isnt news I mean back when everyone left thier routers open be default alot of the network names where even more aggressive its funny they know howto change the sisd but not the damn password or encryption type lol

</comment><comment><USER38> I stick to "Honeypot".

<comment><USER39> Not everyone knows what that is. They might just assume that you're a fan of Winnie the Pooh.</comment></comment>


Google may be skewing how the public views nanotechnology - <AUTHOR> http://euraeka.com/articles/6216482-Google-may-be-skewing-how-the-public-views-nanotechnology

<comment><USER2> The day that I hear that google is trying to write search engines that do anything other than rank based on relevancy is the day I stop using google.

TFA suggests that google is pushing people towards results that cause people to worry about the health concerns associated with nanotech, rather than the possibilities. Why would google jeopardize all their goodwill over such a relatively obscure topic? I don't buy it. (It later admits that it might be the mainstream media that is skewing the availability of evenhanded article and sites, and google is just transparently passing along that bias).

</comment><comment><USER3> Isn't this EXACTLY what should happen?

First you get excited about a new tech, then you start worrying if there are any problems with it.

Google seems to be tracking that perfectly according to this article, and it's exactly what I would expect.</comment>


Google Ads is currently serving malware - <AUTHOR> Steps to recreate:
Go to https://www.google.com
Search for 'walmart'
The top result is an ad that appears to be for Walmart.com
WARNING - MALICIOUS URL:
https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwjOg4vXwK7TAhUFgGkKHS9vC9EYABAAGgJpcQ&sig=AOD64_3_4octTbmC5G2Nb3xDVZ2NSTPRXA&q=&ved=0ahUKEwjUsIPXwK7TAhVB7IMKHcbiCZ4Q0QwIIw&adurl=
The link redirects to techsuppoortcenter.us [sic]
I tested these steps 1) on a Windows 7 PC (both Chrome and IE) on a corporate network 2) on a Mac with Chrome over a VPN 3) on an Android phone with Chrome over cellular internet
Note that "data-preconnect-urls" includes both walmart.com and the malicious (non-walmart) website:

    <a href="https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=L&amp;ai=DChcSEwiovvW-y67TAhUBEWkKHT5LC9sYABAAGgJpcQ&amp;sig=AOD64_0rRlaI552aSP76PKakt3W_BAHSlQ&amp;q=&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiU-u2-y67TAhUs4oMKHTcXBNMQ0QwIIw&amp;adurl=" id="vs0p1c0" onmousedown="return google.arwt(this)" data-preconnect-urls="http://www.walmart.com/,http://techsuppoortcenter.us/" jsl="$t t-zxXzjt1d4B0;$x 0;" class="r-i_4sBuVBkxq8">walmart.com - walmart - Frash Products</a>
 <comment><AUTHOR> Here are screenshots from my various tests: [http://imgur.com/a/eRxd4](http://imgur.com/a/eRxd4)</comment>


What's Snapchat's AR Endgame? - <AUTHOR> https://artillry.co/2018/09/05/whats-snapchats-ar-endgame/ <comment><USER2> Snapchat's global endgame is bankruptcy due to an unending series of terrible product decisions. Everything else is an antecedent to that.

<comment><USER3> Oh, come now. Someone might buy them first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> With their spectacles (albeit failed (1)) product, I always just suspected they were playing the long psychological game by getting consumers used to wearing an oversize eyeglass frame with built in cameras. Then, when someone with actual decent AR display tech is ready to integrate, they would already have a platform generally accepted (with little privacy foul complaining) and ready to go. While they waited maybe they could make a little $$$ with basic non-AR pic/vid apps. It seemed like it as the anti-Glass at the time. Alas, didn't pan out.

1\. [https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/28/why-snapchat-spectacles- fa...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/28/why-snapchat-spectacles-failed/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't know you tell me

Isn't that why people write articles? To share information? Instead of posing questions?

<comment><USER6> relevant: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

<comment><USER7> So the answer to "What's Snapchat's AR Endgame?" is "no"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Can someone at artillry.co explain if artillry itself reached ramen profitability?</comment>


Linux is obsolete (1992) - <AUTHOR> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/6e6f6d1b-95c3-46df-8a26-b7efd8ee4b57/entry/linux_is_obsolete_a_must_read_debate_between_andrew_s_tanenbaum_and_linus_torvalds34?lang=en <comment><USER2> VERY MISLEADING TITLE.

I'm all for people reading up on the famous discussion, but with this link- bait title it seems that IBM is announcing that Linux is obsolete, which is far from the case here. Someone who can blog at IBM is just linking to a 22-year-old discussion without actually offering an opinion or anything new.

</comment><comment><USER3> The title is misleading, should add the date of the important content: 1992.

> "Portability is for people who cannot write new programs"

I like the fact that Linux has now been ported on a bunch of other architectures and it does not contradict the meaning of the quote. Focusing on portability gets you exactly what you want: a portable program; if you want a great and usable software, focus on that. The (relatively) easy portability is a by-product of a good design chosen for maintainability.

</comment><comment><USER4> The battlefield was not 'technology', micro-kernels are technically in many ways that you can actually measure superior to macro-kernels, just not in the one that everybody is always focussing on (raw throughput, which hardly every is the actual bottle-neck).

The battlefield was 'community', and because of Linux's more open nature it won that particular battle hands-down.

The problem seems to be that people interpret Linux's widespread adoption as a triumph of technology.

<comment><USER3> The same goes for Microsoft's and Apple's OSes. The intrinsic quality of a technology is poorly correlated with its commercial success. There are a few cases where a great technology did make a huge difference, but most people do not care if what they are using is efficient, maintainable, or more often that you would think, easy to use (what does matter is the steepness of the learning curve around t=0).

The few cases where great technology made it to a broad use is when it opened _new_ ways of doing things. I may be wrong but I think that personal computer advertising was quite poor but still gradually got users because of what you could do with it. Yet, is was really cumbersome to use at the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The thing is, linux IS obsolete. The winner may not be microkernels. Maybe exokernels or library OS's or whatever. But it's taking a long time to realise (the essence of the technology will likely win eventually, despite the competing incarnations), and so it looks like linux is winning.</comment>


Putin Orders Russian Move to GNU/Linux - <AUTHOR> http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2010/12/putin-orders-russian-move-to-gnulinux.html <comment><USER2> Putin already has enough money from gas'n'oil, he doesn't give a shit. And it's not about money, it's about power.

Talking bout piracy - there is majority of illegal software in business, universities and schools. Not to mention homes. I'm talking about Windows, Office, Photoshop, Games. Even the biggest Russian social network (vKontakte) is currently largest unlicensed mp3/video storage.

I always wondered, what they need OpenSource for.. Maybe it's like Medvedev's obsession with Skolkovo - the new Silicon Valley, which will never ever happen. While there obviously are bright minds here - they tend to leave the country.

<comment><USER3> What exactly do you bribe a guy estimated to have 40 billion in liquid assets with? It's funny because I am sure a corrupt Russian politician must have a strange existential crisis when they get that much money. It's like that guy who built the $300 million dollar custom yacht because you literally can't spend that much money on a house if you tried. There's this website EnglishRussia.com where they have regular features on $500,000 Bentley's that have been abandoned in a ditch somewhere. It seems these corrupt politicians have all this money and don't know what to do with it all and are just buying expensive cars and crashing them in some sort of nihilistic denial that there is any other point to life than acquiring loot.

<comment><USER4> > _...that guy who built the $300 million dollar custom yacht because..._

Because it is one of very few ways of moving the money out of the country. Having 300M in Russia does not exactly compare to having 300M in a Swiss bank, and Russia has _severe_ capital export restrictions. They were established by none other than Putin himself, so rest assured they are very well enforced. One can still hoard a huge pile of money, but it _will_ stay in the country unless you manage to find a way to spend it abroad _on yourself_. Say, by building a yacht.

<comment><USER5> Um, I'm pretty sure there are better ways to transfer 300M out of country without making everyone notice it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Considering recent developments like stuxnet worm, Chinese cyber attacks, the fact that cyber crime was one of the main topics discussed during latest NATO summit I think its more about strategy and security than about money.

<comment><USER7> There is no doubt that this is a matter of securing important infrastructure. Had it been a money question something like the education system or the administration would be more obvious choices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There have been numerous attempts to move to open source in Russia. Most of them failed.

Example: Linux in schools.

1\. Teachers don't know much about linux

2\. Computers aren't fast enough to work with GNOME (which is default in most packages they install)

3\. Kids don't get it. Open office is the only familiar-looking application there.

4\. They won't be able to apply their skills anywhere

add: 5. Microsoft makes some _generous_ discounts. Simply because _something_ is worth more than nothing. Piracy is very widespread here (this part is changing on corporate level, though).

<comment><USER9> I can see those being setbacks, but on each point:

1\. I'm not sure on the situation in Russia, but in the US, a lot of teachers don't know much about Windows or OS X either, but unless something breaks they wouldn't have to.

2\. Gnome's memory footprint is rather large, sadly. Depending on whether the Russian authorities roll their own custom distro or image though, they could use XFCE instead.

3\. As things move more towards the cloud, I think that kids would mostly just have to learn how to use a web browser. Those are mostly the same on all modern platforms.

4\. Having to learn something new is not a useless skill. Being able to use more than one platform demonstrates the ability to adapt to change. That's a useful skill to have.

<comment><USER8> Yup, every point is solvable. Thinking of how life changed between 2007 and now, I can imagine how in 2013 we'd have linux in bigger cities, but not earlier.

1\. I believe you still need someone to maintain the system and someone to teach how to use it. This makes a requirement of at least one unix specialist (informatics teacher) per school. Takes a lot of time to train them but not impossible.

2\. Probably faster hardware and unix specialists could make a distro fast enough for education (is edubuntu such a distro?)

3\. Most schools have some crappy connection, though (128 kbit/s). Some schools don't have internet at all; however, those aren't very well equipped with computers anyway.

4\. You're right. However, some people expect a person out of school to have some computer literacy and experience with whatever they use at work. And most of "them" use microsoft solutions for office.

5\. I added a point to the initial comment. It is probably cheaper to have microsoft products now. Especially, considering support and retraining costs for open-sourced software.

<comment><USER10> 1\. we had a Linux specialist in a small town high-school in Eastern Europe in 1998, a time when we barely had Internet access

5\. I never saw a comprehensive costs analysis of Windows versus Linux that wasn't sponsored by Microsoft, which makes me believe this is a myth perpetuated by people too conservative to change even small habits (if it wasn't for the social factor, I would home-school my child)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't think Microsoft will let that happen. In Poland such initiatives ended with Gates or Ballmer making a visit, shaking hands with few officials and jointly announcing renewed bond.

<comment><USER12> A visit from Ballmer is not required. Russia is consistently rated as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. I think sometimes people who haven't lived in eastern Europe don't realize how pervasive corruption is. It's not just a few politicians at the top taking bribes - it's most of the civil service.

I can't think of any other country in the world (developed enough to have widespread IT) where it would be easier for MS to buy influence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Bill Gates is probably getting onto a plane for Russia about now, to make Putin an "philanthropic" offer he can't refuse. That's usually how it goes.

<comment><USER14> Not exactly. More like the IIPA filing more complaints against Russia and keeping them on the Special 301 list: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_301_Report#Complaints_b...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_301_Report#Complaints_by_US_companies)

Bribing in Russia is a home game, so no go there. Putins plane might have a malfunction though.

<comment><USER15> Are you seriously suggesting that Microsoft will attempt an assassination of a country leader? Or did I misread your comment?

<comment><USER16> Hey, most people probably believe that NURV was really Microsoft, and that they really do murder open-source hackers and steal their code; and bribe government officials... not a big leap to assassination.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Are you sure that's not GRU/Linux?

<comment><USER15> Parent is making s subtle joke: GRU is the Russian Army intelligence office, while GNU, is well, you know GNU. So GRU/Linux would be military-"influenced" linux.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The world is moving to Linux. Slow but sure. Asia is moving to Linux.

<comment><USER19> Stats? Cite? The use of Linux may be increasing, but enough to qualify Asia as "moving to Linux?" Piracy of MS products is common throughout Asia, regardless of the occasional bootleg clampdown theater.

<comment><USER18> Because its free its difficult to track stats. Many are not connected to the Internet in Asia. China has mandated that all Internet cafe's use Red Linux. Schools are also changing to Linux. Type "linux India" into Google news and you will see evidence. Ms are common but that will change. Many were burned on vista, many will not upgrade to seven and when XP runs out, some more will go to Linux.

<comment><USER18> Lets not forget Chrome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Lets see if it happens. I might be a provocation for Microsoft, a bluff.

</comment><comment><USER21> Is he punishing Microsoft for reluctance to participate in actions against dissident organizations accused of using pirate software?

</comment><comment><USER22> Populism, Populism, Populism!

</comment><comment><USER23> In Soviet Russia, source open you?

<comment><USER24> In Statist Russia, leadership is closed and software is open.

In Plutocratic America, both are only open to those who pay...</comment></comment>


Turbocharge PuTTY with 12 Powerful Add-Ons - <AUTHOR> http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2008/08/turbocharge-putty-with-12-powerful-add-ons-software-for-geeks-3/ <comment><USER2> I just use Console2+Cygwin</comment>


Ask HN: What tools do you use for good habits/performance? - <AUTHOR> Mine include a combination of calendars, email, to do lists, and OneNote. But I hate the fragmentation personally.
Any pain points?
I also believe that our brains should primarily be used for thinking, and not storage. What would an ideal productivity or personal management app look like?
Esp features that promote task completion and continuous improvement. <comment><USER2> Any org-mode fans out there? I would like to hear how to make habits around org-mode and capturing the information necessary. I want to treat my notes as a brain assistant to free my mind of having to think of future events and tasks.

Particularly, the habits of capturing tasks when off desktop.

<comment><USER3> > ...the habits of capturing tasks when off desktop.

* email to myself from my phone

* pen and small paper notebook

I put captured info in appropriate org files when I'm at the desktop.

<comment><USER2> Hmm. I should do the pen and small paper notebook thing. I had tried to make it a habit once, but maybe I just need to try with a few sheets of paper in my wallet.

Notes on the phone - maybe I need to reduce the number of clicks to be able to capture them faster (Google Keep widget maybe?)

<comment><USER3> I've tried using few pieces of paper tied by strong paperclip.

Doesn't work for me - I've lost some notes that way. For me notebook as temporary information storage is better.

<comment><USER2> Good to know! I'll stick to a tiny diary. Will make a habit out of it. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sublime + PlainTasks for to do.

Sublime for quick notes and drafts.

Workflowy for nested notes. Not as a todo list. It's a good way to nest notes in notes. For example, I made a list of tropes, categorized them by heroic vs villainous, male or female, personality, description, and so on. And added lots of notes and tags for each. This is a mess if you try to do it in Evernote, but perfect for Workflowy.

Google Assistant is awesome for a variety of tasks, mainly related to reminders and timers. Have to leave the house fourty minutes? "Okay Google, set a timer for forty minutes" No calculations needed.

I would like to see a complex note taking tool that just works. Evernote is a bloated mess. Notion is sluggish. One Note seems to require too much thought. I've been making do with small note takers but I still need something heavy duty.

<comment><AUTHOR> What are some "heavy duty" things that are missing in today's tools?

<comment><USER4> Image, maybe some tables. I've plopped a spreadsheet into Evernote once but a mini calculator will do.

I do use Evernote's business card scanner a lot but I'd rather just pay for a specialized business card scanner app.

Evernote does all this but it lags too much when trying to read from my phone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use Spark to have all my mails in 1 place. I could do it with Apple Mail as well but for some reason I like Spark more. It also contains a build in calendar. And thanks to it's syncing feature whenever I'm on a new device I just need to log in with 1 email and everything is synced.

As for my todo's I use Things. I tried to make as much use of Area's and Projects as I can to split up my todo list in a logical sense.

For notes I use the Bear Notes app. Thanks to it's # tag style structure I can easily flesh out my own dir structure on it.

Last but not least: paper + pen. Nothing beats that when I'm working on a feature and I need to keep track of todo's that still need done. All of these todo's are done by the end of the feature off course. Nothing long term on paper.

</comment><comment><USER6> [https://bulletjournal.com/](https://bulletjournal.com/)

having a monthly, weekly, and daily spread really calms the chaos.

</comment><comment><USER7> Mostly Trello, with a kanban-style To-do list. I feel good when I slide a card from "Doing" to the "Done" column.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have used Trello for a brief amount of time for a team project. Any pain point with task organization around time or calendar integration?

<comment><USER7> Sorry, but I can't really tell. I work alone most of the time, so I never used Trello in a team context.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think about the terrible and miserable future awaiting for me if I don't do what I know I have to be doing.

</comment><comment><USER9> I've been wanting to journal more consistently, so I set up an automator task to open up my journal app at the same time everyday (typically sometime during my daily, so I come back to my computer and it's there just waiting for me).

</comment><comment><USER10> Pen (fountain pen) and paper.

I schedule 30 minutes at the end of the week to write down what has happeded, what went well or better than expected, what to improve, and what to do next.

These are the most productive 30 minutes of the week, btw.

</comment><comment><USER11> i use workflowy. [0] it is an incredible tool that lets you build a tree of things to do or note. it's been helping me keep my mind clear as to what to do next.

i have my phone and mac calendars synced so i don't have any schedule conflicts and keep track of events easily.

[0] [https://workflowy.com](https://workflowy.com)

</comment><comment><USER12> i use git. i do write down what i want to achieve in terms of program specification. and it kinda works [https://gitlab.com/dzmitry-lahoda- ideas/additive-addictive](https://gitlab.com/dzmitry-lahoda-ideas/additive- addictive)

</comment><comment><USER13> Sloppily I leave it all in trello mon,tues,etc...

Each day had a check list for production.

Each Monday I reset it all.

I don't love it but it works.

<comment><USER14> Currently doing exactly that, too, but not very happy with it. - As I'm currently trying to get more into web development and looking for a sideproject I thought doing a "Trello clone" focused on this particular approach could be fun. Any non-obvious, specific features you would like to have?

<comment><USER13> I would like to see a calendar organized as cards.

I don't know what that means exactly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I like using Things on iOS / MacOS. I wish it had a web interface also.

<comment><USER16> +1 Things

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Visual Code & Tasks+ plugin for the same.

</comment><comment><USER18> I use gitlab's project management tool</comment>


Show HN: Style – Basically Prisma for OS X. Runs locally on video&large images - <AUTHOR> http://macdaddy.io/Style/ <comment><USER2> I tried this. It attempted to use ~45 gb of memory to process a 1mb image.

<comment><AUTHOR> It does use a hell of a lot of RAM, but not that much usually. For a 1MP image it'll usually use ~8GB. I think there's something else wrong. What sort of machine are you using? & OSX version?

<comment><USER2> Late 2011 17" MBP. Quad core 2.4GHz i7, 16GB RAM, SSD.</comment></comment></comment>


The brains of jazz and classical pianists work differently - <AUTHOR> https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-01-miles-davis-mozart-brains-jazz.html <comment><USER3> I really dislike these kinds of headlines not because they are obvious (jazz and classical require different kinds of thinking), but because they make it easy to jump to the conclusion that the ability to play classical or jazz or xyz is dependent on the physical nature of the brain. From there all sorts of erroneous arguments stem from the "fact" that "oh I'm just not wired to play xyz"instead of the reality that it takes consistent work in a style to understand that style better. Basically the whole nature vs nurture argument, except that people tend to worry about nature rather than work on nurture.

<comment><USER4> It seems likely (to me, as a neuroscientist who studies learning and brain plasticity) that the ability to play classical or jazz or xyz (at very high levels) is dependent on the physical nature of the brain. But you get the brain you build through practice (nurture), not the brain you were born with (nature). The consistent work in a style to understand that style better is what wires a person's brain to play xyz.

But I agree that the article could be written to point out that nurture, not nature, is the cause of these neurobiological observations.

<comment><USER5> Would you happen to have any literature on practice in Computer Science? I've read through most of Ericsson's work on deliberate practice but would love to find more. My PhD research is on examining the benefit of different CS exercises used for teaching

<comment><USER6> Woah, please share. I'm really interested in seeing your research.

<comment><USER5> I'm still very new into my research but I have a link to my current research platform in my profile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > For them it is about playing pieces perfectly regarding their technique and > adding personal expression. Therefore, the choice of fingering is crucial. > Jazz pianists, on the other hand, concentrate on the "What". They are always > prepared to improvise and adapt their playing to create unexpected harmonies

I minored in music at college and studied both jazz and classical composition/theories. One key takeaway I had from my education is that notes that may considered to be dissonant in classical music are in many cases acceptable in jazz, given the chordal context and how a player chooses to resolve it as progression goes.

I'd even expand a bit further and say that not only musician's brains work differently, but also brain activities of the audiences might differ when listening to jazz and classical pieces. Typically a classical audience might be a bit uncomfortable hearing a dissonant note and treat it as a "wrong note" while a jazz audience might think a dissonant note as being temporarily "out of box" to create tension and expect it to be resolved later.

<comment><USER8> (Improvising musician porkpie hat on)

 _All_ music based on western harmony is about dissonance. Or more to the point, the movement of dissonance to consonance, tension to resolution. I once had an excellent lesson that explained it to me. Movement around the Circle of Fifths is a measure of increasing tension - each step becoming increasingly dissonant, until you hit the halfway point (the tritone) and start resolving back toward consonance.

So even a simple fifth is "dissonant". It creates tension and demands resolution. It's not perceived as "dissonant" because it is "normal". It's only when you push out of the listener's comfort zones that it becomes weird and wrong. In other words, the perception of dissonance isn't musical, it's cultural.

Jazz music pushes harmonic dissonance a lot farther than "classical" does, so jazz listeners are much more accustomed to it. It doesn't sound wrong to hear tritones, or minor seconds, or diminished and altered triads, or stacked fourths. Dissonance is welcomed and encouraged. Even resolutions are often decorated with dissonance.

<comment><USER9> >Jazz music pushes harmonic dissonance a lot farther than "classical" does

Not sure why you say that. Except you're imagining Mozart vs free jazz or something. Both musics have pushed dissonance pretty much all the way.

By "a simple fifth" do you mean e.g. the note G in the key of C major? (depends what harmony exactly) or C and G played together with no harmony, or..

And when you say a simple fifth is "dissonant", do you mean it's dissonant, or "dissonant" (i.e. not dissonant)? So, theoretically dissonant, but not really?

I once lived with someone who listened to no 15 (I think it was) of Messiaen's _20 Glimpses of the Infant Jesus_ constantly. It's very slow, nothing but super-weird chords. After a few minutes there's a major triad, which sounds _sooo_ weird, like a super-weird chord. So.. that makes "the perception of dissonance isn't musical, it's cultural" not sound exactly right either.

It demands resolution? In what way? Like what? You need to hear a root note after it?

>It doesn't sound wrong to hear tritones

Like in a G7 chord?

>or stacked fourths

The jazz originators of this called it a Ravel voicing.

<comment><USER8> I put "classical" in quotes for a reason - I meant baroque/romantic kinds of classical music. Mozart, if you will. Listen to Charles Ives, and you'll hear dissonance as challenging as anything in jazz.

And yes, theoretical vs actual dissonance. All note combinations but unison are dissonant to some degree. C and G, played together, are more dissonant than C and C, but not as dissonant as, say, C and B together (which is also why there's some piquant clanginess in a maj7 chord, despite its lush sound).

Also yes, in the right harmonic context, a major triad can sound really weird. But being major isn't itself proof against dissonance. If you're in D major, a D# major triad is going to sound very dissonant. "Perception of dissonance is cultural" is a generalization, I'll admit, but it's a good one. What sounds terrible to ears accustomed to Pachabel is merely juicy to ears that dig Ellington.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> No huge surprises here - classical training focuses on playing a piece exactly as the notation goes + personality on tone, emphasis of notes, tempo. When playing a classical piece (in typical classical training) you don't generally start dicking around reharmonising it, changing voicings or playing an improvised solo.

Jazz charts (and training focus) looks very different - basic chord structure and the main melody is written down, everything else is up to you - <USER2> voicings, on-the-fly reharmonisation, improvised solos. It's a different type of training and thinking.

Of course these are the "textbook" or cliche interpretations of classical and jazz music. Classical and jazz are very broad, ultimately meaningless terms, and many musicians have experience playing a wide variety of music.

<comment><USER11> I think you are oversimplifying this.

Many classically trained pianists are excellent at improvisation. Wagner, Beethoven, Mozart were respected pianists. Wagner wrote the Hollander by improvising on the piano reciting the lyrics. Beethoven was feared by other pianists for his level of skill at improvisation. Mozart improvised most of his piano sonatas as far as I remember.

Gould made a recording of Strauss songs I think. The singer said in an interview, that Gould just started to improvise in Strauss' style and harmonics (Strauss is pretty damn difficult).

Contemporary pianists often know both. Anecdotal evidence: A colleague of mine from music university studied classical piano and was a regular at jazz clubs in Dusseldorf.

It is very interesting to see differences in brain structure from classical to jazz pianists. Maybe a hint at how (muscle-)memory and motion planning is stored? A hint at how volatile brain structure is? It would be interesting to see, if e.g. a classically trained pianist switching to jazz exclusively also has a significant restructuring of his brain.

Edit: Now that I've read the article and the abstract of the paper (the paper is behind Elsevier's paywall), I understand that jazz pianists are quicker at planning new movements (a.k.a. Chord progressions) with the downside of making making more mistakes, while classically trained pianists are slower here, but faster at recognizing and repeating unlearned ("unusual") finger movements.

Would be interesting to see a comparison to pianists doing both jazz and classical music.

<comment><USER11> And as my top poster dharma noted: Jazz and "classical music" share many similarities. Definitely true. Think of Scriabin piano somata No 5 written in 1907. Or even go back to Beethoven No 32, 2nd movement.

<comment><USER12> When I first heard that Beethoven part you're referring to, I literally got up to check what CD I had in the player:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCgwYl-W4ts&t=14m22s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCgwYl-W4ts&t=14m22s)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I especially appreciate pianists who seem to bridge this divide. Jon Schmidt of the Piano Guys seems to be able to fluidly combine classical style and jazz improvisation in the same song. Check this out:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZPSV78iQxg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZPSV78iQxg)

I saw them perform the song live and he (they) really did switch styles without missing a beat.

<comment><USER14> If anyone is interested in exploring this style of music in more depth, I recommend looking into "Third Stream" music. It's meant to be a sort of fluid combination of both jazz and classical styles, and is often pretty interesting. There's a whole lot of things that third stream music /isn't/ (and famously, a list that attempts to define the genre in terms of what it's /not/ supposed to be), and as such, many people who try to write third streammusic end up creating music that's a lot less subtle.

It's not really my cup of tea (more of a jazz guy), probably because there isn't a huge repertoire of third stream music out there, but it's definitely worth checking out if you think you might be interested.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Famously, violinists have over-represented left hand non-thumb fingers in right motor cortex: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18028115](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18028115)

Plasticity is normal.

<comment><USER16> Conservatory grad here. I used to joke with fellow music majors when one of us would do something particularly clumsy that it was very ironic since we were essentially majoring in hand-eye coordination. This study is news to me, thank you for sharing.

<comment><USER17> Hmm...but most of the required fine dexterity is in your non-dominant hand. I wonder if some right-handed brain real estate is being repurposed for your left hand (if you are a righty).

<comment><USER4> Right brain controls left hand (the brain brain is weird that way) so the dexterity required for fingering in the left hand is governed by plasticity and over-representation in the right brain.

<comment><USER17> Right, but there is also a lot of evidence (or at least it looked like there would be when I was in the field 5+ years ago), that it isn't that simple, and there is also considerable ipsilateral motor control in the cortex as well. This would make sense for activities that require coordination between both hands, so that, in the motor cortex, we wouldn't have the case where "the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing." So, if there is MORE coordination required than in a typical cortex, maybe non-coordinated tasks become clumsier? I have no idea. Maybe musical people tend to spend less time doing non-musical athletic things, and aren't as graceful? Maybe both, or something else? Sounds like a cool imaging project for a neuroscience or BME grad student.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Study: Musical genre-dependent behavioural and EEG signatures of action planning. A comparison between classical and jazz pianists

Citation: Bianco, R., Novembre, G., Keller, P.E., Villringer, A., Sammler, D., Musical genre-dependent behavioural and EEG signatures of action planning. A comparison between classical and jazz pianists, NeuroImage (2018).

Link: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.058](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.058)

DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.058

Abstract: It is well established that musical training induces sensorimotor plasticity. However, there are remarkable differences in how musicians train for proficient stage performance. The present EEG study outlines for the first time clear-cut neurobiological differences between classical and jazz musicians at high and low levels of action planning, revealing genre-specific cognitive strategies adopted in production. Pianists imitated chord progressions without sound that were manipulated in terms of harmony and context length to assess high-level planning of sequence-structure, and in terms of the manner of playing to assess low-level parameter specification of single acts. Jazz pianists revised incongruent harmonies faster as revealed by an earlier reprogramming negativity and beta power decrease, hence neutralising response costs, albeit at the expense of a higher number of manner errors. Classical pianists in turn experienced more conflict during incongruent harmony, as shown by theta power increase, but were more ready to implement the required manner of playing, as indicated by higher accuracy and beta power decrease. These findings demonstrate that specific demands and action focus of training lead to differential weighting of hierarchical action planning. This suggests different enduring markers impressed in the brain when a musician practices one or the other style.

Highlights:

• Real-time imitation of piano chord sequences with unexpected harmony or manner.

• Genre-specific strategies at high (harmony) and low (manner) levels of planning.

• Jazz pianists revised harmony faster (earlier negativity) at the cost of manner.

• Classical pianists had conflict in harmony (frontal theta) but excelled in manner.

• Focus of practice may cause enduring brain marks at different action control levels.

</comment><comment><USER19> My college degree was in classical piano, while I've mostly emphasized pop and jazz since then. I honestly don't really understand the study they're writing about here, but I have to say I don't really identify with Keith Jarret's quote here. Jazz is just another way to do music and it requires a different way of thinking, but I've never really looked at it as requiring any kind of "rewiring" or context shift.

In general when playing classical I miss the playfulness and individuality of jazz, and when playing lead sheets I miss the narrative sweep of classical music. At least with my pop songwriting I can try to bring in a little of both.

<comment><USER20> > Jazz is just another way to do music and it requires a different way of > thinking, but I've never really looked at it as requiring any kind of > "rewiring" or context shift.

They're using overly dramatic language like "rewiring" to talk about a different way of thinking. Of course it's a different way of thinking, classical is performance, and jazz is improv. Nobody would be surprised if they said that doing dishes vs differentiating polynomials used different parts of the brain, but somehow it's supposed to be news that classical and jazz music do.

<comment><USER21> >They're using overly dramatic language like "rewiring" to talk about a different way of thinking.

I don't see the word rewiring or rewire anywhere in the article.

<comment><USER20> Thanks, yes, the article doesn't use that word specifically. I quoted the parent comment. The article, and especially the headline, does use somewhat misleading language (as both @tunesmith's comment and the very top comment here is pointing out, among others) that is trying to imply that the brains of these two types of musicians is fundamentally different, e.g., "their brains started to replan the actions faster than classical pianists" and "their brains showed stronger awareness of the fingering". The language is implying a rewiring, and objectifying the brains of different musicians as being static and responsible for the difference, rather than talking about the plasticity of the human brain and the learned differences between wildly different tasks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This makes sense, one is far more focused on precise articulation of a prepared score, while the other is focused (in large part) on improvisation.

<comment><USER23> I would also say that in Jazz the rhythm of the music plays an outsized role as compared to classical. If you don't "swing"* you can't play with anyone and certainly can't play jazz. On the other hand, classical musicians care about dynamics and tone in a way that doesn't register wth Jazz musicians. Neither way is better, but they are almost like opposite approaches to music.

*By swing I mean more than just syncopate with the rest of the band. "To swing" in a jazz context means to be able to play exactly in time with the rest of the band, except when you don't (but you are in control). A very confused concept, read wikipedia for more info.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_(jazz_performance_styl...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_\(jazz_performance_style\))

<comment><USER22> Very true that rhythm plays a huge role in jazz.

Although, I'm not sure that I agree that dynamics and tone aren't as important in jazz.

<comment><USER8> Tone isn't _that_ important in jazz. Hence, the importance of the saxophone, an instrument rightly reviled in classical music for mostly sounding awful.

I'm only half joking here. I'm a guitarist, and was having a conversation with a trumpet-playing friend once. I was talking about the technical struggle of legato playing at speed, something hard for trumpet players as well, but easy for saxophones. My friend was like "Yeah, but they have to play the saxophone". Few players can get a beautiful sound out of it, and only after years of struggle. Brass and guitars, on the other hand, have naturally beautiful tone, and are easy to get to sound nice.

The importance of melody over tone, and the melodic advantages of the saxophone, explain its popularity in jazz.

<comment><USER9> You don't like the sound of saxophones? Wow. Well, everyone has their own sound on saxophone, 'the sound of saxophones' doesn't mean much.

Not sure why you think trumpet is vastly easier to get a beautiful sound from than saxophone. That's silly.

The importance of melody over tone? Wow, never heard of that. All you say sounds like you are judging jazz by classical (I imagine) criteria, and of course it doesn't do well.

<comment><USER23> Saxaphone is 'reviled' in classical music because its tone is very crunchy and uneven compared to most of the other instruments of the band. I think in tone it is pretty similar to the bassoon, but even a chunky, honky instrument like the bassoon is very smooth compared to sax. Bassoon 'sings'[1], saxaphone 'yells'[2]. Given that, sax has very little place in a classical setting because it doesn't have that bell-tone or sine-wave sound that most other classical instruments try to achieve.

[1] [https://youtu.be/cKBrnjxlKgU?t=34](https://youtu.be/cKBrnjxlKgU?t=34)

[2] [https://youtu.be/pGaUlferotY?t=59](https://youtu.be/pGaUlferotY?t=59)

<comment><USER21> Unvarying unvarying belltone or sine wave sound would be more appropriate for something focused only on melody and not on tone, which is the opposite of OP's point. Sax tone has a lot of variability and control.

<comment><USER8> The melodic advantages of the saxophone are mechanical, not tonal. For example, to play a scale fragment on saxophone, one need only move fingers, while continuing to blow, creating a smooth, legato sound that can be done very fast. Contrast with guitar, where a note must be fretted and then picked, two separate motions that are difficult to coordinate. Smooth legato playing at high speed is extremely hard. Trumpets have a similar problem, tonguing notes to make changes.

And yes, saxophones have a great deal of tonal expressiveness available, especially once overblowing is brought into play. It's just not _pretty_ tonal expressiveness, compared to other instruments.

<comment><USER21> You can still do legato on guitar: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTI2s4svE2s&t=1m24s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTI2s4svE2s&t=1m24s)

<comment><USER8> Meh. Legato on guitar comes at a cost of expressiveness and note choice. When hammer-on and pull-off are your only ways to sound a note, you lose all the coloration available from dynamics, palm muting, distance from bridge, pick angle, and the million other little things guitarists do to make a note special. And note choice? Scales of any substance will force either difficult position shifts, or legato-breaking string switches.

It can be done, and I certainly do it. But it can't be all that's done, or your sound falls flat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> >half of them were specialized in jazz for at least two years, the other half were classically trained

 _Two years_ only? Uh..wtf. I didn't read the original paper, but that sounds ridiculous. Why not compare them with people who'd been playing, nay, specializing in, classical for 'at least two years'. Oh, because that would be ridiculous.

<comment><USER7> If someone is classically trained prior to studying jazz, 2 years is rather reasonable to pick up given they might already be well versed in basics such as proficiency in certain instrument(s), fundamental theories, sight reading, ear training, etc.

<comment><USER9> Well, it doesn't sound reasonable to me. 2 years sounds like 'pretty much total beginner' level. No-one will be a good jazz player after so little time, and I doubt their brains would be those of jazz musicians with decades of experience either.

<comment><USER7> I recently attended a Joey Alexander concert at SFJazz and was amazed how mature his playing is at his current age, given my standard of 'good musician' is rather high as a professionally trained jazz musician myself. He started playing jazz at age of 6 and started performing professionally when he was 9.

I agree that people need SOME time to learn the ropes but with proper training, 2 years is enough to be good. Note that proper training doesn't mean practicing certain technique, scale or etude hundreds of times. Nowadays there are systems designed over the years by schools such as Berklee effective enough to make someone a good jazz musician within 2 years, similar to many athlete training systems. No system can make legends, but decent musicians for sure.

<comment><USER9> Nice to at last read someone making sense on this page. :-) Ok, but 1 child prodigy learning in 3 years (?) hardly disproves my point.

Also, I don't believe in "proper training". I believe in learning from the recordings of the greats, and from playing music with people. Sounds like that's how Joey Alexander learnt[0]. I believe that, like many things, jazz can be learnt but not taught. Someone trained in some system will sound like the music equivalent of the academic artist - expert at following someone else's rules, but nowhere as an artist.

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

edit: Most people who go to Berklee are already pretty good when they get there, aren't they? Hardly starting from scratch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is amazing. I'm a classical guitarist and pianist (not any good, but it's very clearly the way I'm oriented). Jazz just seems to escape me, although I work much harder at it.

<comment><USER20> Depends a bit on what you're trying to do, but jazz requires a lot more theory up front in order to be good at it. It might be extra difficult to approach jazz as a classical musician, to try and use the same tools and techniques. There might be ways to think about jazz that make it a lot easier for you, if you are interested.

One of the things that has really helped me with jazz is going through the older standards and singing the voice line while comping the chords on the guitar. Not only is it super fun to play and sing at the same time, but it gives a much better understanding of why the chords are there and what they're trying to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> "Similar to research in language: To recognise the universal mechanisms of processing language we also cannot limit our research to German."

As an American living in Germany who taught English between IT jobs, I've come to describe spoken English as playing jazz, and German as performing classical music. Sure, you can put some personal touches on spoken German, and new expressions do crop up, but there's a lot more latitude for improvisation in English, and the catchy improvisations are more likely to be picked up by other English users and become part of the language.

I thought this was my bias as a native speaker of English and very academic learner of German, but my German colleagues agree with the comparison.

<comment><USER26> > there's a lot more latitude for improvisation in English

Lately I've been hanging out on the English Language Learners Stack Exchange. It can be a discouraging place. Too many people answer simple questions with complicated explanations of English grammar, when the real question they should answer is "How can I say this the way a native speaker would?"

An example:

[https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/152764/is-this- sente...](https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/152764/is-this-sentence- correct-make-vs-made/152787)

OP wanted to know if this sentence was correct:

"Your kindness has (and will continue to) made a difference."

The top-voted answer explains that "This sentence is an attempt at parallelling, where a sentence branches into two or more parts. In this case, it also rejoins at the end. The parallelled part must join on to the common part in the same way." And that's just the beginning. The answer goes on to explain about "eliminating the duplicated word sequences" and finally arrives at this sentence:

"Your kindness has made, and will continue to make, a difference."

That's grammatically correct, but hardly any native English speaker would ever say or write it. In fact, someone commented that the sentence "sounds more German than English to me."

My zero-rated answer was "I like to find the simplest way to say things. You can thank a person for their past, present, and future kindness all at once: 'Your kindness always makes a difference!'"

I don't care much about the votes, I'm just a bit sad that so many of the high-rated answers on ELL seem to answer the technical questions of grammar instead of helping people sound like native English speakers.

<comment><USER27> I suppose in the context of this post it's similar to asking "How can I sound like Mozart" and expecting an answer along the lines of "press these keys in this order" rather than any technical information about scales, progressions and dynamics. The end result may sound the same but there will be no actual understanding of the "why".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> " _When the scientists asked the pianists to play a harmonically unexpected chord within a standard chord progression..._ "

Can someone ELI5 (and essentially never played) what they mean by _harmonically unexpected chord within a standard chord progression_?

edit: formatting

<comment><USER29> Basically there are a finite number of places that you can "go to next" in any musical context, and some of those destinations are more normal than others.

Like, usually we go to work and then home. But some days we stop by the bar. Maybe we planned a trip to the zoo and stopped for ice cream afterwards.

That all seems normal-ish to me.

But sometimes it's like, we are on our way to school for the day, but let's stop off in Times square for 5 min, and then Mount Rushmore, and then a dentist office in Iowa land on the moon, get a hot dog... and now we are at school for the morning.

<comment><USER29> Or like, in folk guitar you might play a C chord, followed by a C chord with a B as its root, then an Am chord... that happens all the time.

But very rarely would you play a C chord followed by an Eb major chord in folk music. But if you're playing Jazz, you might be more open to that possibility.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I wonder how this applies to pianists who excel at both classical and jazz-- Keith Jarrett, for example.

<comment><USER31> Not sure whether parent is deliberately trolling but literally, the first two words of the article are Keith Jarrett. The statement describes how it applies to his music.

<comment><USER32> The mention of Jarrett in the article is what led to me asking throughout the article, "But what about musicians who are famously accomplished at both?!" They quoted Jarrett but didn't really expand on it, other than to use it as an argument from authority in support of what they think their study means about how the brains of musicians work.

The study included people who aren't at all like Jarrett (they are either/or musicians, while Jarrett is a both and then some musician), so the quote felt vaguely forced into place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> i feel like you can get a little bit of insight in to this if you arent a musician: imagine the difference between having a conversation with a friend (jazz) and reciting a piece of literature (classical). this is a borderline heinous simplification, but just imagine where your mind goes for each. you relax and let the thoughts flow in the first, you probably dont think very tangibly about diction. in the second you focus and probably think about the actual act of speaking more

</comment><comment><USER34> To the extent that classical training is about 'flawless performance' and jazz 'training' is about 'fluid improvisation', in my experience these are very different skills.

The question is: how does such a study decide whether the 'brains ... work differently' because the tasks are so unalike, or because the brains themselves are somehow different.

Another question is proficiency: clearly 'virtuoso' pianists are different from 'amateurs' on both sides of the aisle. Are the brains of the 'virtuosos' more 'different'?

</comment><comment><USER35> I remember reading a book decades ago about how people that play musical instruments tend to be good programmers. It might have been Jeff Dunteman's Assembly Language Step by Step, but not sure.

But that always stuck with me, and makes a lot of sense considering patterns and preciseness that you need when playing piano or some other instrument.

</comment><comment><USER36> Here's a (apocryphal) story about legendary classical pianist Vladimir Horowitz meeting legendary jazz pianist Art Tatum:

[http://www.classicalmusicblogspot.com/horowitz-and-tatum- whe...](http://www.classicalmusicblogspot.com/horowitz-and-tatum-when-jazz- met-classical/)

</comment><comment><USER37> The piano is an illusion used to make us believe that playing jazz and classical music is the same activity.

</comment><comment><USER10> Jazz piano:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8HzMEwobvM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8HzMEwobvM)

Classical piano:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rywN8MoiEk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rywN8MoiEk)

</comment><comment><USER38> Last night my wife and I were talking and it turns out that my inability to "get" music comes from me not being able to listen to the music side and the words side of a song simultaneously. Is there anyone else out there like this?

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm going to assume you would find the same difference between bus drivers and race car drivers. Airline pilots and fighter pilots. Poets and video gamers. Olympic triathletes and combat soldiers. Yoga practitioners and boxers.

<comment><USER7> But how they differ could be an interesting subject.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I don't know how relevant this could be, but anyway, when I was like 11 or 12 there was this school mate of me who was a gifted classical pianist: he already played concerts at that age and apparently had its future already planned. Now one thing I recall vividly: at a friends party after playing some incredible piece of classical music he was asked to play some famous top-chart pop tunes and he failed completely: he was literally paralyzed for not having a sheet of what he was asked to play. This reinforced my belief that classical musicians are trained to be perfect executors but lack a lot in creativity, or perhaps players with these characteristics are more attracted by the more formal world of classical schools.

</comment><comment><USER41> Bad headline: "Miles Davis is not Mozart"

Besides being trivially true, MOZART WAS A MASTER IMPROVISOR!!

Classical musicians were great improvisors for generations… until the late 19th century boon of the symphony orchestras and all these conservatories focused on getting musicians to follow the notes perfectly and watch the conductor and ignore creativity. In the 20th century, improvisation was rubbed out of classical music.

Today's classical pianists are pathetic improvisors. But don't think Mozart or Beethoven or Bach etc. were like that. They were much more like the jazz pianists.

This study is mostly just further proof of the tragic impoverishment of classical tradition over the last few generations.

</comment><comment><USER42> I actually appreciate Jazz more than classical, and I'm sure I can play Jazz if i put my mind to it. Would that make my brain work differently before I even play jazz?

</comment><comment><USER43> Jazz includes a big deal of improvisation (real-time composition within certain theme) whereas classical music decouples composition from performance.

</comment><comment><USER44> There is a strong tradition of classical improvisation too - check out Alma Deutscher's youtube videos

</comment><comment><USER45> jazz players use more the ear, the classical more the eye

</comment><comment><USER46> Is no one going to point out the fact that Miles Davis is not a pianist?

<comment><USER8> He was a keyboardist, though. His post-1970 live output is filled with him playing organ, often to set the harmonic context and direction for the rest of the band, as he was doing full-band improvisation at that point.

<comment><USER46> OK fair enough, but was he really the right choice for the title of the paper?

<comment><USER8> well, how many jazz musicians can most non-jazz people even name? Miles, maybe Louis Armstrong, maybe Duke Ellington. If they'd said "Cecil Taylor", who'd have recognized him?

<comment><USER46> Thelonius Monk, Bill Evans, and Herbie Hancock are all nearly household names. Yes, not as famous as Miles Davis, but up there.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The iPhone Of The Future - <AUTHOR> http://www.twistimage.com/blog/archives/the-iphone-of-the-future

<comment><USER2> _MITCH JOEL BRINGS YOU DIGITAL MARKETING, NEW MEDIA AND PERSONAL BRANDING INSIGHTS, PROVOCATIONS AND FORESHADOWS FROM HIS ALWAYS ON/ALWAYS CONNECTED WORLD._

Wait...you can get a job, a paid job, doing this?! I'm in b-school and that even sounds like crap to me!

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure that's a job, I'm not sure he's getting paid...</comment></comment>


William Gates Senior dies at 94 - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/william-gates-sr-a-guiding-hand-of-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-dies-at-94/2020/09/15/4715b8c8-9456-11ea-91d7-cf4423d47683_story.html <comment><USER2> Bill Gates III had a living parent? This blows my mind, thinking about the kinds of extended families one could have with that kind of lifespan! For comparison, I'm just over half Gates's age, and my father died of a treatable, chronic, and somewhat stigmatising disease, in a developing country, 15 years ago, and it seemed totally normal.

<comment><USER3> Broadly speaking, the more money you have, the longer your life expectancy. This is known as the Preston Curve [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_curve](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_curve).

Also: [https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/04/for-life- expe...](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/04/for-life-expectancy- money-matters/).</comment></comment>


Show HN: Trailbot – Monitor Your Data and Act Upon Unwanted Modifications - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/trailbot/client <comment><AUTHOR> Hi community!

We have just open sourced Trailbot, a files and logs tracking daemon for GNU/Linux that triggers Smart Policies upon unwanted modifications.

Current security solutions are based on an obsolete paradigm: building walls and fences. Companies advertise their overcomplicated perimeter security systems as if they were impenetrable. But nevertheless we hear everyday about cyber security breaches at even the largest corporations. It's not a matter of "if" but "when" the perimeter will get breached.

In any case walls and fences will not protect you at all from internal breaches and insider threats. Furthermore, most data resides nowadays in the cloud, where walls, borders and fences fade and blur.

With Trailbot you can rest assured of the integrity of your data, being it a system log or any other important file. It doesn't matter if an outsider got access to your systems or an insider decided to go rogue—you are now in control.

Would love to hear your thoughts and feedback!

<comment><USER2> How does it compare to Tripwire or AIDE? At first look it seems Trailbot is closer to "real time" detection than the others.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Darío,

When compared to Tripwire, AIDE, Graylog or other conventional SEM solutions, Trailbot offers a much more extensible and powerful policies engine that allows anyone to write, fork, customize and share their own smart policies written in javascript or coffeescript.

Other big point in favor of Trailbot is that we are strong believers and supporters of the technological sovereignty movement, so we open sourced all the components in Trailbot's stack so that you can self-host the whole thing in case you don't want to trust any third party.

In addition, all traffic going between Trailbot Watcher and Trailbot Client is encrypted end-to-end using asymmetric cryptography (PGP with 4096 bits keys).

Thanks a lot for your interest, we hope you find Trailbot useful :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's too bad this submission didn't get more attention. It seems like these files/logs could help inform the "walls and fences" to better fight intrusion in the first place (root cause analysis). I think at the enterprise level, intrusion detection is used to help prevent intrusion in the first place. Minimizing the latency b/w these two functions seems like the thing to optimize for.

<comment><USER4> Thank you! We focused on building a product that is very easy to extend. Smart policies bringing the functionalities you describe can and will be built.</comment></comment>


Nokia patent app: Eye-tracking & "touch sensing" auto-stereoscopic 3d display - <AUTHOR> http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2011044936&IA=EP2009063420&DISPLAY=STATUS

<comment><USER2> I'm not _certain_ this passes a non-obviousness test. Given Johnny Lee's wiimote head tracker (and I'm sure there are earlier examples out there), eye tracking and a 3D screen, the combination seems fairly trivial. Still, I'd love to have a play with this thing.</comment>


Can you guess the starting salaries at popular IT companies in Japan? - <AUTHOR> http://en.rocketnews24.com/2014/04/08/can-you-guess-the-starting-salaries-at-popular-it-companies-in-japan/

<comment><USER2> The one thing you need to remember is these are 'salary' not hourly positions. Japanese work culture is very different from the US.

-Most positions award 15 vacation days a year, but works will never take more then 7 (generally).

-It is standard practice to claim '8' hours of labor, even if 12-14 are worked. Likewise the first 40-60 hours of overtime each month are unpaid normally.

-The 'normal' work day is 12-14 hours, not 8. Also after a 2-4am session its normal to be back in the office at 9am.

-Japan is also the only country is a legal term for 'Death by Overworking'. In which a family can sue the employer for forcing their loved one to work to long.

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

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoshi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoshi)</comment>


Our Microbiome May Be Looking Out for Itself - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/14/science/our-microbiome-may-be-looking-out-for-itself.html?ref=science&_r=0

<comment><USER2> This reminded me of a discussion of the "Red Queen Hypothesis"[0] in the book Daemon by Daniel Suarez[1].

It's alternately interesting and disturbing... the implication that much of our social behavior is to further the aims of microscopic puppet masters.

[0][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis) [1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(book_series)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_\(book_series\))

</comment><comment><USER3> This implies quite a lot of coordination. I participated in americangut.org and my guts contained 45 species of bacteria in measurable numbers (just one sample). Good tests for fungi are getting closer, but I don't have a hard number here, but I would assume at least a handful of species. And we have recently heard about bacteriophages interacting with bacteria in our microbiome as well. Unless all of these organisms developed similar mechanisms for manipulating us to similar ends, I would expect a microbial rugby match, not a puppet master.</comment>