Retro PowerBook Gets a Mac Mini Transplant - <AUTHOR> https://hackaday.com/2020/01/10/retro-powerbook-gets-a-mac-mini-transplant <comment><AUTHOR> This mod fascinates me as a Mac user. For the past few years I've been interested in projects like the ThinkPad X62 and ThinkPad x210, which are unofficial ThinkPad modifications with updated components. There are some ThinkPad users who prefer the design of 2000s-era ThinkPads, before Lenovo switched to using chiclet keyboards in the x230 and T430 series, and before 4:3 displays were replaced with widescreen displays.

Similarly, there are Mac users who prefer the designs of older Apple laptops when Apple laptops featured non-chiclet keys. I would love to have a Titanium PowerBook G4 modified to have a recent x86-64 processor, 16 GB of RAM, a M.2 NVMe SSD, and a modern display. I love the aesthetic of this model of PowerBook; it still looks modern even after 20 years, and it's thin enough to be comfortable to carry yet not so thin to result in compromises such as soldered RAM and storage.

I don't have the electronics expertise to attempt anything like the ThinkPad X62, but I've thought about buying a broken Titanium PowerBook G4 and connecting the display, keyboard, and trackpad to something like an Intel Compute Stick. The Intel Core m3 versions of the Intel Compute Stick are capable of running macOS based on some forum posts I've read from Hackintosh users. If this works, it wouldn't be quite at the level of the ThinkPad X62 project, but it would be something that I'd be interested in using regularly.</comment>


So you're thinking about investing in Bitcoin? Don't - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/15/should-i-invest-bitcoin-dont-mr-money-moustache <comment><USER2> I tried bitcoin, but what pushed me out was a market that never slept. I was constantly having to monitor it for a wild swings</comment>


A New Blog - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blog/1415-a-new-blog

<comment><USER2> He mentions that it looks fresh everywhere, but the page isn't laid out via responsive breakpoints (as far as I can tell). What technique are they using to load the CSS conditionally on mobile screens versus desktops?

<comment><USER3> It's a separate mobile view entirely- mobile isn't sharing assets with desktop.

<comment><USER4> Awful...

I love size-based adaptability because it works well for small windows on the desktop too, and in general just seems much more robust.</comment></comment></comment>


Unequal Wages: For Women in Tech, Pay Gap Is Unusually Small - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/upshot/flexibility-is-the-reason-for-a-smaller-pay-gap-in-tech-work.html

<comment><AUTHOR> The primary article source, Claudia Goldin's research paper: [http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/goldin/files/goldin_aeapres...](http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/goldin/files/goldin_aeapress_2014_1.pdf)</comment>


Hand to Mouth to India - <AUTHOR> http://www.tomthumb.org/?page_id=27

<comment><USER2> Is "Hand-to-Mouth" a well-known idiom in America and Europe?

In India, it means an existence in which you are constantly worried about getting enough food to survive for another day, and all the money you get from working ("hand") goes directly to feeding you ("mouth"), as opposed to building up some level of savings.

<comment><USER3> Funny, in Costa Rica (and possibly other latin american contries) we have a similar saying: "Coyol quebrado, coyol comido", a "Coyol" is a palm and it literally means "fallen coyol, eaten coyol"

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm going to say it, because I know I am not the only one who must have misread/misunderstood the title.

<comment><USER5> I misread it too - as Hand to Mouth in India.

<comment><USER6> I've been staring at the title all day and debating whether it would be worth my time or not (I'm at work) and tried to make sense of it. I finally decided it was about an alternative mouth-to-mouth technique _in_ India and clicked here... just to see this!</comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC: Running SaaS applications - <AUTHOR>

Is there any special techniques on running SaSS apps? I know some people use EC2 and then charge on top of that. What are the problems or techniques when doing this? <comment><USER2> If you have objects or services that customers want repeatedly it may be advantageous to store the objects in S3, deploy the services from EC2, secure them via authentication/obscurity and charge in proportion to demand using DevPay. Without knowing anything about your application, this generic AWS approach seems as good as any.</comment>


Road-Tripping with the Amazon Nomads - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/10/20687434/amazon-sellers-nomad-merchants-products-malls-walmart <comment><USER2> A fascinating example of arbitrage.

There are a lot of horrible (Uber, counterfeiters exploiting Amazon's product co-mingling etc etc) and horrifying (DoorDash) examples of the modern economy, but this seems like a great example of computing both at the edge (phones) and cloud (amazon's pricing database) for the benefit of everyone (retailer gets rid of those jeep toys; buyer elsewhere can find a jeep toy, and person driving around gets paid to facilitate). I love it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Chris is one of the most generous people Ive seen in the business.

Not afraid of hard work either.</comment>


Teen Solves Newton's 300-year-old Riddle - <AUTHOR> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Teen+solves+Newton+year+riddle/6689853/story.html

<comment><USER2> So this boy is from Dresden, Germany, but I cannot find any german articles on this topic. Strange?!

</comment><comment><USER3> So ... does anyone actually know what this solution is?</comment>


I'm Sorry - <AUTHOR> http://www.drcraigwright.net/homepage.jpg <comment><USER6> He had promised to do the impossible -- cryptographically prove he had access to early coins which he did not in fact have. He had carefully developed two scam-proofs of this.

One scam proof was deployed on his blog where he claimed to sign a Sartre text with a key from bitcoin block 9. He carefully did not give the exact input text, only a supposed hash of the text. The hope was anyone trying to replicate would assume their problem was an incorrect source text. And there was proof that the given hash value was signed by the key. But that did not survive internet scrutiny; it was noticed that the signature came from an old bitcoin transaction. Instead of signing the hashed Sartre text as claimed, it signed the old transaction.

The other scam proof was presented in private to reporters and bitcoin developers Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen. Here Wright supposedly demonstrated the ability to sign arbitrary messages using keys from bitcoin blocks 1 and 9. This scam succeeded: both Andresen and Matonis were convinced. But they were not allowed to keep copies of the evidence, to prevent the trick from being exposed. One speculation is that Wright was able to substitute a doctored version of the Electrum software used for the verification. But without evidence to examine outside of Wright's control, the exact details of the scam are still hidden.

But now Wright is out of ideas. His public-consumption scam failed, and his private controlled-scenario scam can't be more widely replicated.

So this message is his way of backing out, trying as much as possible to save face and keep open the possibility of claiming the Satoshi Nakamoto identity again later.

<comment><USER7> I had not cared that much about this, but his actions are exactly what I would have expected from bitcoin's creator. There are some guys who simply do not want to be found. The guy who created Bitcoin is one of them. Making things develop like this simultaneously repairs much of the damage to his anonymity while minimizing the damage to the two guys who put their reputations on the line for him. By acting the way that you are acting, you are acting exactly like he intended for you to act. There is simply insufficient public evidence to say whether he is or is not. He is in that pesky excluded middle that gives rise to pseudo-Boolean logic.

That being said, people should realize that the creator of Bitcoin does not want to be found and honor that.

<comment><USER6> So you expected the real Satoshi to keep his anonymity by announcing his identity to the world and then backing up the announcement with "proof" that is clearly false?

<comment><USER8> This. And the way he did it. Why would he run to GQ and BBC instead of simply posting online, as with previous communication.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is not an apology or admission of guilt for conning people with his ridiculous stories. This is an enigmatic exit, complete with him still tacitly claiming to be Satoshi. Quite pathetic.

<comment><USER10> _" This is an enigmatic exit, complete with him still tacitly claiming to be Satoshi. Quite pathetic."_

Agreed. "I won't prove that I'm Satoshi anymore, but I am". It's getting more and more like religion -- we don't get to know for sure, we have to _believe_ now.. And I'm sure a herd of idiots will do just that.

<comment><USER11> We are supposed to care about privacy, yet people can't stop trying to find out who is the creator of bitcoins, even though this person clearly doesn't want that to be known. I think we are all naturally hypocritical beings or something.

<comment><USER12> Are people actively trying to find the creator of bitcoin? Personally I don't care enough to actively find out. If someone presented themselves, then I'll have a passing interest - a few articles, HN comments, etc., but I'm not going to change my day-to-day at all.

<comment><USER11> Good point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As I said on the other related thread[1]: Given his history as a prolific liar, I find his post to be utter bullshit. Note how he's still lying about things he was caught at: "When the rumours began, my qualifications and character were attacked. When those allegations were proven false". NO - <USER2> was _established_ (with confirmation from the schools in question) that he lied about having a PhD from Charles Stuart U. and he definitely does not possess 8 masters degrees. Not to mention other lies about having super computers and partnership with SGI to build more with fake reference letter (all clarified by company as false), etc.

Now, because he knows he can't successfully claim Satoshi's identity and in light of possible charges based on ongoing police investigation (fraudulent use of tax credits), he wants to dramatically disappear. I hope the authorities have his passport(s). His thirst for fame is _unreal_.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11635471](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11635471)

<comment><USER14> Serious question, but why are we all so serious? Maybe he's a pathological liar; maybe he wants fame; maybe he's just a conman. Does the bitcoin or tech community gain something from hoping for his arrest?

<comment><USER13> What exactly is unacceptable about hoping that an established liar and conman is made to account for his actions? At the very least, getting millions of dollars from fraudulently claimed tax credits is certainly not a trivial issue.

Also don't understand why it would be acceptable to anyone that he should get away with falsely claiming an identity despite contradictory evidence and potentially smearing the image of bitcoin/community via his actions.

<comment><USER14> I hope he's held accountable too; it's just the vitriol in the threads that surprised me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The home page of [http://www.drcraigwright.net/](http://www.drcraigwright.net/) currently just displays this image. Linked straight to it so that it wouldn't get flagged as a duplicate submission.

edit: Here's a mirror of the image, in case it comes down: [http://i.imgur.com/7lhU0mr.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/7lhU0mr.jpg)

And here's the OCR'd text: I'm Sorry.

I believed that I could do this. I believed that I could put the years of anonymity and hiding behind me. But, as the events of this week unfolded and I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot.

When the rumors began, my qualifications and character were attacked. When those allegations were proven false, new allegations have already begun. I know now that I am not strong enough for this.

I know that this weakness will cause great damage to those that have supported me, and particularly to Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen. I can only hope that their honour and credibility is not irreparably tainted by my actions. They were not deceived, but I know that the world will never believe that now. I can only say I'm sorry.

And goodbye.

<comment><AUTHOR> Strangely, he's replaced the homepage and every subpage/file with an HTML version of the note, rather than the image. I'm not sure why.

<comment><USER15> Is there any steganography going on here?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Just to save anybody else the effort of pulling times from the jpg:

      20160503T16:00:03Z  First Internet Archive snapshot of extraordinary proof post [0]
      20160505T10:57:08Z  homepage.jpg created [1]
      20160505T11:13:52Z  homepage.jpg saved
      20160505T11:35:21Z  homepage.jpg saved
      20160505T12:11:46Z  First Internet Archive snapshot reflecting change [2]
      20160505T13:30:26Z  Image replaced with text [3]
      20160505T13:52:40Z  homepage.jpg is now an html file

I wouldn't be very concerned about this being a suicide note, I don't think it is common for suicide cases to make bandwidth saving changes to the note hours after the the initial release...

[0] [https://web.archive.org/web/20160503160003/http://www.drcrai...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160503160003/http://www.drcraigwright.net/extraordinary- claims-require-extraordinary-proof/)

[1] [http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=c37a7368be70afd35ef...](http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=c37a7368be70afd35efc49e9a660a45c0b7d71a4.207446)

[2] [https://web.archive.org/web/20160504140906/http://drcraigwri...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160504140906/http://drcraigwright.net)

[3] [https://web.archive.org/web/20160505133026/http://www.drcrai...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160505133026/http://www.drcraigwright.net)

<comment><USER17> Is this a log from some command line tool? If yes, what is it?

<comment><USER16> Sorry, no - everything I touch looks like it came from a TUI... BSD King Midas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Sounds like a suicide note from a distraught individual to me, leaving aside the lack of Satoshi's grammar. I do not know enough about his background to contact the police for a well-being check; does anyone here?

<comment><USER19> At face value, I would agree. But given that he's clearly lying about being Satoshi, and therefore also lying in this note, I figure it's likely that the "suicidal" tone was deliberately chosen. It's just another attempt to stir up controversy.

<comment><USER20> > it's likely that the "suicidal" tone was deliberately chosen

That's a very serious thing to say in regard to something you know very little about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> >" _as (...) I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot_ ".

And I call BS, with BS on top.

How convenient...

<comment><USER22> Yeah, kind of angry after reading that.

<comment><USER20> > kind of angry after reading that

What do you and I have to be angry about? Isn't that just playing into online mob behavior?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If he is not Satoshi and just wanted the attention:

Narcissists have an incredible high rate of suicide, because when they fall from their high horse, the floor is quite some way down and the landing is too hard for them. Rather than being found out as fake, go with a bang... I fear the bang coming...

This note kind of worries me a little bit... no matter what he did wrong, I hope he will be okay.

<comment><USER24> But if he's a sociopath, this might be his gambit to exit with the least pain, and suicide would not be very likely.

<comment><USER23> (still speculating on the basis that he is not Satoshi and did it for reasons of getting attention)

Also a possibility of course... his method to safe at least some of his self- image, depends on how good he is at self-manipulation, people are often very good at it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> At this point, this is bordering on performance art.

(For what it's worth, I'm torn on this note: on the one hand, it's deeply upsetting that someone is writing that they're feeling such torment; on the other hand, should it turn out to have been written insincerely, he's just made it a tonne more difficult for anyone else who _does_ legitimately express feelings like this. No winners.)

<comment><USER26> Honestly, I'm shocked anyone is taking it seriously. Every shred of evidence (from the past few days, and from last year) suggests he's a con artist.

I certainly believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, but it's laughable to think this guy is actually Satoshi, and therefore impossible to see this note as sincere.

<comment><USER25> Yeah, honestly I agree with you, I doubt any part of it is real.

I do feel uneasy about discounting a potential cry for help, though, however unlikely it may be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Forgive me as I'm a newbie to bitcoin and only ever seen it from the outside and watched a few things. I only know who Satoshi is because of the mass amounts of people wanting to know who this mysterious man really is. But my question is, why does it matter if Craig Wright is or isn't? I mean I can understand being upset that he lied about it if he really isn't for attention, but what if he is? The dude is literally being ripped apart left and right by everyone and anyone.

Whether Satoshi is finally identified or not, what difference will it make? I honestly don't understand the deafening attacks at Wright at first for being "outted" as a potential to be Satoshi and now when he says he is.

<comment><USER28> > what if he is? The dude is literally being ripped apart left and right by > everyone and anyone.

Because he's the guy who, when asked for ID to prove he's 21 when entering a bar, shows a piece of paper with "Date of birth: 21 years old" sharpied on it, and when the bouncer says "yeah this isn't actual ID" the guy goes "WOE IS ME! IF I GET THIS TREATMENT AT THE DOOR, IMAGINE WHAT THE ACTUAL BAR WOULD BE LIKE! I DO NOT HAVE THE COURAGE TO WALK PAST A DOOR SUCH AS THIS, ALAS, HORATIO" and feigns fainting.

<comment><USER20> His behavior has no affect on me. Why should I care? Even if your analogy is accurate, that guy at the bar doesn't affect me either.

What is dangerous and does affect me, indirectly in this case, is the online mob behavior and bullying. That does real harm to people and to our society. For example, whoever the real Satoshi is, would they ever want to be subjected to this?

<comment><USER29> Bullying probable conmen is a reasonable way to try and discourage future conmen. Come 'round our town selling snake oil, and you get run out on a rail. It's disproportionate; that's the point. It's a sort of social control.

<comment><USER20> But the bullies often get it wrong. Vigilante justice is not justice at all, just abuse of random people.

<comment><USER29> I never said it was a good idea, but that's why people care about people like Wright walking in and appearing to try to take them for a ride. The response can be completely maladaptive, and cause more harm than good, but that doesn't mean it's completely unreasonable. It's the same reason people get steamed at companies like Theranos.

In this case, it's nuts because everyone agrees on what the standard of evidence is, including him, and he's refused to provide it and acting hurt that people are sceptical. Many people gave him the benefit of the doubt when Gavin et al vouched for him; it's entirely his behavior afterwards that has turned people against him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The worst part about this is he is playing so loose with words that it gives no closure at all. For years there will be people, especially newbies, that will believe Craig and will treat circumstances surrounding the whole affair, like the "leaked" and "hacked" documents alleging his involvement, as at least potentially true. In my view, anyone or anything that lends any legitimacy to Craig as far as bitcoin goes should not be trusted at this point.

For that matter, I believe most public people involved with bitcoin should not be trusted at all either, but that is incidental.

<comment><USER31> Bitcoin definitely attracts fraud, but it's also teaching many people an important lesson in trust. Trust code and math as these things are ultimately verifiable.

<comment><USER32> It's a hard lesson for many, and it'll likely need to be learned many times over. Any number of individuals are willing to take advantage of the trustworthy nature the technology to imply that the things they do are also trustworthy.

And too often, it works - because the technology is secure, not enough people question those who are using it and proclaiming "secure" in a loud enough voice (mt gox, cryptsy, mintpal, and countless others).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It's amazing to me how everyone is drinking the koolaid here on him being a fraud. I really don't think Gavin got duped. And I'm pretty sure they had enough private email discussions over the years that there were things they discussed/shared privately over those years that could be used as a reference point for Gavin to be sure he was talking to the same person. People are more willing to believe that Gavin was hacked or suddenly forgot how bitcoin worked.

I understand the technical proofs put forth have been spurious. I wouldn't be surprised if Craig had an under-qualified underlying who didn't really understand what they were doing who was responsible for some of that. People are forgetting the human part of this equation though. His interviews with the BBC don't strike me at all as someone looking to cash in. I think he is a bit of narcissist and wants to claim some credit for inventing bitcoin, but I also see a very deep fear of being in the public eye that comes through as well. Perhaps because he has done quite a few things he's not proud of and doesn't want to have people publicizing those. But the idea that he's a scammer looking to cash in here just play doesn't out at all. What's the end game? Where's the pile of money he's after? People aren't thinking through the motivations here thoroughly enough. He's risking quite a lot by doing this with the absolute certainty that he would be found out if he was a fraud. You could say maybe he's an idiot and doesn't understand that. No one could watch that interview though and believe the man isn't intelligent though. Why talk about the negotiations with Australian tax authorities when those authorities could very easily come and say that he was lying. None of this makes any sense from the scam angle. There has to be something else going on here.

<comment><USER34> > What's the end game? Where's the pile of money he's after?

He made multiple tax refund claims to the Australian authorities - <USER3> one for $54 million as part of a program where 45% of each dollar invested into R&D are refunded. Another was a $3.5 million refund on sales tax.

The funding source in these transactions were Bitcoin. It adds up to over $150 million invested. The tax authorities asked Wright where this money came from, he told them in an interview that he was Satoshi Nakamoto.

I go through some of this in a blog post:

[https://www.nikcub.com/posts/craig-wright-is-not-satoshi- nak...](https://www.nikcub.com/posts/craig-wright-is-not-satoshi- nakamoto/#ato)

His explanation didn't work, they rejected the claim and penalized him for another and were investigating him further. He fled to London.

Why he continued to press on with the Nakamoto identity nobody knows - <USER4> based on character assessments from multiple people I know who have worked with him and know him well he is a person who strives for recognition and has a history of deception (see his LinkedIn profile).

It was 2 years ago that he started showing up at Bitcoin conferences and left strong hints that he was Satoshi - he wanted people to come to this conclusion on their own (and some did). Watch these videos from a conference in Australia:

[https://vimeo.com/149035662](https://vimeo.com/149035662)

[https://vimeo.com/149115042](https://vimeo.com/149115042)

(specifically skip to 9:30 in part 2)

Also see this panel discussion, which is now well-known:

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> If the real Satoshi is still around, he musst be cringing at all this. The man can't even accurately describe how SHA256 works, yet claims to be the mastermind behind all this.

Geee Craig, stop playing silly games. Sign the message or simply stfu.

<comment><USER36> He is.

<comment><USER37> Could you elaborate?

<comment><USER38> He is going to stfu.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The only scenario wherein Craig Wright could actually be Satoshi is if Satoshi had burned his bridges -- in the process of abandoning the Satoshi identity, he had deleted all cryptographic evidence of the identity; all private keys and credentials for online accounts.

In that case, if he later (now) decided to assert the identity, then he might be tempted to cobble together fake proof to get his foot in the door far enough that he could begin to assert various forms of social proof with people that he had interacted with while using the Satoshi identity.

It's worth noting that the "scorched earth" elimination of the Satoshi identity is another possible theory as to why nobody has credibly claimed the identity -- because even the individual (or group) that assumed the identity no longer has the ability to cryptographically assert that identity.

<comment><USER40> People have suggested it's possible that the real Satoshi could have destroyed or not kept the original private key, or it belongs with one of the other, now deceased team members. Is there anything to gain by not admitting to it if this were the case?

Even if a message were to be signed with the original key, people suggest that it would still not be proof as it could have been stolen or extorted. It seems there is no way to prove anything at this point.

CSW's backing by "experts" suggests he is not an ordinary conman. Surprisingly, none of the experts have so far backed down on their support of CSW. Even GA's statement does not withdraw support, only expresses regret for posting support too soon. Also CSW's boldness to assume that the real Satoshi would not out him at this point makes it likely that he was involved with the Satoshi team and has some knowledge about his identity (deceased or otherwise). Or, he is gambling.

CSW's writing style in his blogs and elsewhere suggest it cannot be the same person as the author of the white paper, and yet I've heard another say that his academic papers contain a writing style close to the white paper (I have not verified myself).

All of this is obviously bizarre - the backdating of evidence, fraudulent cryptographic proof, etc. Either he severely underestimates his audience, or he wants to be be discredited. There has been a suggestion that CSW wants to discredit himself to throw off extortionists (reported 6 months ago).

<comment><USER41> The Satoshi coins can be publicly destroyed so they will never be spent. Transfer them all to an address like 1BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB. This is much more trustworthy than leaving it in doubt whether the coins can ever be recovered or not.

<comment><USER39> Well, in the "scorched earth" scenario, it would be more accurate to say that they "could have been" publicly destroyed. It's not clear to me why public destruction is necessarily a part of abandoning the identity. I don't understand what you mean by "trustworthy", though; if the identity is abandoned, then what's to trust?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Is this a suicide note?

<comment><USER43> How is this not the first thought people had? Poor guy, with a lot of signs of mental instability. The amount of animosity people have had towards him on HN (and elsewhere) isn't tempered by how obviously imbalanced he is. I think it's because of the disproportionate amount of media attention he's received for something he didn't earn.

<comment><USER42> I did not expect to be the first one to bring it up. People are being very clinical here.

<comment><USER44> To be fair to people here, we're discussing a new message by a person who is widely perceived to be running some type of scam. I hadn't considered the more serious subtext of this message but given the history here you have to consider that that might have been intentional to try to engender sympathy.

<comment><USER45> Yeah, but it still sounds like a _legitimate_ suicide note and some semblance of worry makes sense.. I understand the desire fore fairness, but this was _just_ posted without much followup context. Have a bit of heart for a second.

If this whole story is the a result of a mental health issue, well - <USER5> health is a serious mother fucker.

<comment><USER46> > it still sounds like a legitimate suicide note

"Sounds". Let's not forget the guy's a con man.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> "They were not deceived" \-- yeah, that's the ticket! [1]

Nice use of passive voice to obscure the subject of the sentence. He just couldn't bring himself to say "I did not deceive them." It's technically true that there's somebody in the universe who didn't deceive both of those people.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkYNBwCEeH4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkYNBwCEeH4)

<comment><USER48> I just saw his BBC interview [http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213580](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213580) and his body language (for whatever this is worth) is worse than most politicians. Rhythm, eyes.

<comment><USER49> I thought he was quite convincing in that performance. In fact, what tipped me off was just how convincing he was, the way a conman would be. What about his body language tipped you off?

<comment><USER48> The convoluted way to answer 'Satoshi, is you'. Long pause, look away, answer sideways, pivot back eyes still close, still no eye to eye contact.

Feels like a lot is going on in his mind. Maybe he can't express everything he wants too. Maybe he's just acting over its abilities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> What a load of shit! He can't cryptographically prove something without courage?! WTF

<comment><USER51> "Your skepticism prevented me from providing evidence to allay those concerns".

<comment><USER52> The thing is if he uses actual proof like the community wanted him to there would no longer be any skepticism. So the only reason to not do it is because you can't do it.

<comment><USER41> If only Satoshi had created a way to publicly prove ownership of Bitcoins. :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Well, simple way to stop most of it would have been to prove it. That's all.

But holding the proof and then such a dramatic exit, playing the victim? Wow.

</comment><comment><USER54> Cryptography, a transaction system that tracks the flow of money around the world, coming out a few years after money laundering measures were on the security agenda, working under a pseudonym to keep their identity secret, not looking to convert much of the hundreds of millions to cash when the price went up, total silence on whether or not somebody else is Satoshi...

... something makes me wonder if Satoshi has the initials GCHQ.

Of course, on the other hand, it'd be ironic if it turns out the real Satoshi just didn't expect it to turn into such a big thing, lost the keys on a USB down the back of a sofa, and is hiding out of the sheer embarrassment of it all.

</comment><comment><USER55> I wonder if Craig was hoping that the real Satoshi would move a coin to implicate Craig as Satoshi in order to actually remain hidden.

</comment><comment><USER56> I'm pretty sure Craig Wright is not the real Satoshi, but if he was the real Satoshi and didn't want anyone to know, he would be going about it in exactly the right way :)

<comment><USER57> This has been my thought exactly. The best place to hide a needle in in a pile of needles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> His true aim of writing an auto-biography titled "I am Satoshi" will have to be renamed to "How I fooled nobody that I am Satoshi"

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> BBC has now written Wright's "backing out" of providing proof:

[http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213580](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213580)

</comment><comment><USER59> Basically: "I'm sorry you don't believe me, I am too weak to give actual proof."

</comment><comment><USER60> I feel like this whole thing belongs on TMZ, not Hacker News...

</comment><comment><USER61> I know what cryptocurrency is but I have hardly followed what goes on. I am somewhat familiar with the recent event involving Wright.

Could someone tell me, in plain English, if there are any challenges in Wright divulging the information needed to verify that he is Satoshi?

<comment><USER62> There are only challenges if he doesn't have the key. If he has the key he should trivially be able to sign anything with it or decrypt anything encrypted to it.

<comment><USER63> Is there a reason he hasn't or won't spend some on the original bitcoins to prove his claim?

I don't think spend isn't the proper technical term.

<comment><USER64> The reason is that he's "too weak", supposedly. The _real_ reason is that he isn't Satoshi.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> what's the reason for him showing us a screenshot though?

1) so search engines don't index and remember the text? I suppose search engines only read meta data from images and not OCR them when crawling?

2) if one grants him deeper technical knowledge of information security (I don't) then you could argue he has done the image/screenshot after creating the text in his WYSIWYG editor then after publishing the article, ... so that he could switch off any backend cgi or rdbms capability to reduce his attack surface (from lot of people who are currently digging for ways to poke around his internet facing system for ways of getting in)

<comment><USER44> Some wild guesswork: his website used to disallow right-clicking with a message that said he didn't want to share his images. Obviously people can get around that but whatever, this shows what type of person we're dealing with on a technical level. He might have thought that posting an image would prevent people from...copying the text or something? Searching for it? Who knows.

Of course, now it's HTML again, probably because he realized his website was getting hammered on bandwidth. Which makes me feel a little better about his health and well-being, since being concerned about bandwidth implies long-term thought processes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Here is one hypothetical explanation for this behavior: maybe Craig is not Satoshi, but he wants to know who the real Satoshi is. So he fabricates some evidence, and goes public claiming to be Satoshi, hoping that the real Satoshi will contact him. Once that contact is made, if he figures out Satoshi's true identity he can then blackmail that person, or if not he can extort money from them in exchange for dropping his claim. Probably farfetched..

</comment><comment><USER67> Worth pointing out that the BBC has followed up with another post. Wright asked them to send a small Bitcoin amount to the address used in the first Bitcoin transaction, and he would send it back to the BBC to prove he is Satoshi. The BBC sent their Bitcoin, and then Wright deleted his website.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213588](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213588)

</comment><comment><USER68> If I were Satoshi, and I thought people were sufficiently close to discovering that, a ridiculous media circus showing me claiming and failing to prove that I _am_ Satoshi might well be a good way to throw people off my trail for a few more years...

</comment><comment><USER69> All this ruckus because people dislike others being wrongly credited. Well, so what if he gets a cult following? So what if a portion of people want to believe something without empirical evidence?

Not like it hasn't ever happened before. And it will continue to happen no matter how many call bullshit.

</comment><comment><USER70> Flounce level 1000, a new high score.

[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Flounce](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Flounce)

</comment><comment><USER71> he has some serious issues

</comment><comment><USER72> best counter "proof" that he isn't satoshi is the source code. compare this html5-masterpiece to the first bitcoin.org website: [http://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org...](http://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/)

I doubt the real satoshi would have started to learn sophisticated html in the past 7 years

</comment><comment><USER73> That's right, Craig. It's time to end your troll of the most gullible people in tech and HN. It's time to end it with one more scam: a fake confession of the broken man... who really is honest... who society just couldn't come to grips with. A cliff-hanger that should ensure any book or business deals will still be profitable if merely dependent on a few believing in his con.

Red flags and bullshit from start, especially presentation style in conference interview, to finish. Craig, if you see this comment, please aim for a Darwin Award next as you'd be doing humanity a favor.

</comment><comment><USER74> First rule of a credible "reveal".

You do not reveal yourself; someone else must reveal you.

The art lies in the orchestration of the latter.

</comment><comment><USER75> The Internet... Still undefeated.

</comment><comment><USER76> It comes as a surprise to me that this is too close to religion.

Some trustworthy people saw Jesus, God and the miracles. Some people did not believe and some people might have claimed that it was fake.

But most people believed it anyway, and it's still believed by a big number of people to date.

<comment><USER77> Some people were deceived by a con artist named Wright. When he was called on it, he made a bunch of people think he was going to die soon, and made a bunch of other people feel marginally guilty for questioning his authenticity. Now, despite overwhelming evidence of trickery, despite perfect proof of his claims being _trivially_ easy to create, there are still people _in this very thread_ who think he's genuine. And probably will be for years to come, since those who believe him and defended him are emotionally invested in it, and those who disbelieve him will have ceased thinking about this embarrassing debacle a year from now.

Yes, it's a pretty good analogy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> It does read like a suicide note, as someone in the other thread noted

</comment><comment><USER79> Did anyone notice his pronunciation of "moniker" on the BBC piece? Needed a second or two to parse "monkier". Before seeing the weight of evidence both sides of the argument, this awkward language was my first whiff of BS. Just me?

<comment><USER80> noticed that too, maybe he's dyslexic?

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> I too lack the courage to out myself as satoshi nakamoto!

</comment><comment><USER82> So, like... Is this a thing now?

I guess... I'll be the new Satoshi?

</comment><comment><USER83> I'm confused what part "courage" plays in executing a public transaction using known Satoshi Bitcoins?

Would even that transaction still be subject to scrutiny?

</comment><comment><USER84> Apologies accepted :)

</comment><comment><USER85> I believe the guy is Satoshi.

People were expecting the next Jesus Christ and now everyone's so disappointed that "Satoshi" is just an average geek with human weaknesses - not the messiah everyone expected.

Had he started a Unicorn startup, nobody would have even thought to question it, but now that the myth of Satoshi has been blown to astronomic proportions, people refuse to believe that their guru is just a "simple" guy who makes mistakes and is clumsy at PR.

Look at the source code of bitcoin-0.1 and you'll notice that Satoshi was an average C++ programmer who wrote sloppy code - yes it was a prototype - but it wouldn't have stood a chance if other people hadn't gotten involved to develop it into what Bitcoin is today.

Besides, if you look at the code, he wasn't even sure he was creating a currency - it looked like he was trying to create a marketplace, complete with products and chat.

Interestingly, a lot of people treat him like a fake prophet - and are proverbially crucifying him for not being able to perform the "miracle" of making a transaction from block 9.

\---

He's not Jesus and he's not Buddha, he's just a programmer who had a brilliant idea and now tries to claim his invention.

But then again, maybe I'm wrong and Craig Wright is just an idiot compromising his reputation and career for a "moonshot" and a minute of glory. That would be totally stupid for a guy who has a family and a company and who's a cryptographer - to make a fool out of himself like this. Unless, what he claims is true..

Who knows, in the end it doesn't really matter that much.

<comment><USER86> Look at discussions about Wright from earlier this week. He has an established reputation as a scam artist.

<comment><USER85> Too much noise - all of them opinions and speculation...too many emotions.

The fact that Gavin Andersen (and others?) met him and talked to him and then said that he is "the father of Bitcoin"... means that either Wright is a _very good_ con artist, good enough to convince the chief scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, or he is the real deal.

I've also watched the interview... if he is a con artist then he is also a very good actor too.. to me Wright looked like a person in deep emotional turmoil.

Compatible with what one would experience if he were holding the private key to billions of $ worth of bitcoin, while the public were pushing him to use it.

<comment><USER86> Andersen and Wright have explained the methodology used to 'prove' Wright is Satoshi and it has already been torn apart, here and other places on the net. I recommend you do further reading.

> if he is a con artist then he is also a very good actor too..

these two things very typically go hand-in-hand.

>Compatible with what one would experience if he were holding the private key to billions of $ worth of bitcoin,

the only thing he would need to do is sign a message using the private key from an early block. This is extremely straightforward, widely known and expected, and he instead provided an bizarre and discredited method of proof. This also comes months after he tried to use easily discredited methods to take credit, like backdated blog entries. He's a scam artist.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


'Stealth bomb' antibiotic vanquishes drug-resistant bacteria in mice - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/stealth-bomb-antibiotic-vanquishes-drug-resistant-bacteria-1.18696 <comment><USER2> This is a new technique for me, very interesting!

 _Genentech... borrowed a concept used in cancer treatment, in which an antibody — a protein designed to attach to particular cells — is connected to a cancer-fighting drug.

Sanjeev Mariathasan, an immunologist at Genentech, and a large team of co- workers adapted this strategy — which they tested in mouse cells — by gluing an antibody against Staphylococcus aureus (Staph) bacteria to an antibiotic, a modified version of the drug rifampin, which is used to treat tuberculosis_

They start with two ineffective drugs, an antibody that needs to be used in very localised locations to work (like inside a cell), and an antibiotic that can bind to the bacteria in any location in the body but is not effective at killing the bacteria by itself.

They glue these two together in a way that still enables the antibiotic to bind to the bacteria and travel along with it wherever it goes. Once the entire group enters a cell, enzymes within the cell break the connection between antibiotic and antibody, releasing the antibody into an environment that it is effective within.

Extremely interesting stuff, hopefully they have success applying it to the relevant cells etc in humans.

</comment><comment><USER3> Figure 2f and "Extended Data" figure 3a show dose responses to the Rifampicin and Rifalogue antibiotics. These are INSANELY steep dose response curves. Can anyone explain what the mechanism of these compounds is supposed to be?

</comment><comment><USER4> Wow, lots of moving parts, but it seems to work great. Actual paper here: [http://rdcu.be/eHrW](http://rdcu.be/eHrW)

</comment><comment><USER5> What a waste of time and money when we've had the solution all along: its in 9th Century Anglo-Saxon literature!!!!

[http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england- nottinghamshire-32117815](http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england- nottinghamshire-32117815)

</sarcasm>

</comment><comment><USER6> I think there's at typo:

 _" First, the antibiotic component docks onto Staph bacteria that are floating freely in the mouse's body."_

should probably be "the antibody component"

</comment><comment><USER7> IANAMD, how does a TB drug help against Staph?

<comment><USER8> The Microbiology 101 version:

Bacterial infections are broadly categorized into two classifications based on their cell wall, Gram Positive and Gram Negative. Very generally, if you know what type of infection you're treating (Gram+ or Gram-), you can prescribe a class of antibiotics that works on that type of bacteria. In this broad classification, Staph and TB can be treated with similar drugs.

More specifically the drug in question, Rifampin, targets a specific RNA binding site that both Staph and TB use to replicate themselves. By inhibiting this binding site, the bacteria stop reproducing and your immune system can fight off the infection.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: 100% Exam DIY BS Computer Science Degree for Less Than $5,000? - <AUTHOR> I want to do a DIY BS degree in Computer Science. I have 12 years work experience in IT so I am confident I have most of the knowledge already. I just want the piece of paper to prove it.
- I'm not interested in the teaching
- I want to keep this as cheap as possible (under $5,000)
- I'm looking for a 100% exam assessed course
- I want to take the exams at my own pace (ideally complete within 9 months)
According to this website there are at least 3 colleges that offer this: http://www.doityourselfdegree.com/get-started/
- Excelsior: BS in Computer Technologies
- Thomas Edison: BA in Computer Science
- Charter Oak: BS in Computer Science
Questions:
- does anyone have any experience doing a DIY degree?
- does anyone have experience with the 3 colleges listed above?
- can anyone recommend other USA colleges/Universities that offer accredited BS computer science degrees that match the above criteria?
- any other advice/recommendations welcome <comment><USER2> May not fit your exact criteria, but many universities offer life experience courses. For example, University of Maryland University College you can earn credits for various work-based experience. So instead of taking a traditional course, you apply to have your work experience equal credits. This is a huge shortcut to completing a degree if you have real world experience.

Also, a note on accreditation. Even though right now you may not think you are going to pursue other degrees or whatever, you still want to attend a school that is accredited by a nationally recognized organization. The problem you can run into is that if you elect to further your education down the road, some or all of your credits may not be transferable or the school you are applying to may make you take additional testing/courses. So what equals a shortcut not costs you more in the long run.

Long story short, don't go to a school just to get a degree so you can say you have a degree. That, IMO, is the wrong approach and not worth your time or money.

<comment><AUTHOR> There are other reasons I want the degree besides saying I have one. It would give focus to my learning to get tested on these subjects. Plus it helps on visa applications.

Excelsior & Charter Oak have institutional accreditation but not specialised accreditation for Computer Science.

[http://www.excelsior.edu/about/accreditations](http://www.excelsior.edu/about/accreditations)

[https://www.msche.org/](https://www.msche.org/)

[https://www.charteroak.edu/aboutus/accreditation.cfm](https://www.charteroak.edu/aboutus/accreditation.cfm)

It would be good to find a 100% exam based course that has specialised accreditation. ABET seems to be the main body for this:

[http://main.abet.org/aps/accreditedprogramsearch.aspx](http://main.abet.org/aps/accreditedprogramsearch.aspx)

Thanks for the suggestion on Maryland. If I could use this to keep costs down and reduce the number of exams that would be a big bonus.

Another suggestion I've had is to go straight to an MA. I have a BA in English Literature so I might be able to jump straight to a BS masters if I can persuade them I have enough work experience to make up for the lack of a BS degree. Do you know of any colleges in USA/UK/Australia/Canada that offer this?

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately I am not familiar with anything outside of the Maryland program, but I do know most colleges offer life experience credits.

With that said, also double check the accreditations. Just because they say they are "accredited" you need to research who they are accredited by. The only reason I bring this up is I had a friend who earned a "BS" degree in computer science from what he was told was an "accredited" school. He went to get a Masters later and was told his BS degree was basically useless. The accreditation was essentially a generic accreditation that didn't mean much. That is why come schools you will see warnings that your credits may not transfer. In the end it cost him more. Luckily he was able to convert much life experience and some of the course work into life experience credit at Maryland so that helped.

With life experience courses you still pay for the credits, but it is deeply discounted. I would check in-state programs if you are in the US to further reduce costs.

<comment><AUTHOR> Okay thanks very much for the advice, I'll give them a try</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Saving web pages as PDFs in 2019, a real challenge - <AUTHOR> https://www.humaneinterface.net/article/saving-web-pages-as-pdfs-in-2019-a-real-challenge <comment><USER2> Firefox (Mac) is not even able to print this article into a PDF. It gives you only one page and the page ends with a half sentence with the letters cropped in the middle. One third of the text is missing.

I cant count the number of times I had to take screenshots to save crucial information from web pages.

</comment><comment><USER3> A tip if you're using iOS/iPadOS: In Safari, taking a screenshot now supports taking "full page shot", which you can save as a pdf. You get this option when you tap the tiny screenshot preview.

<comment><USER4> I had no idea. I've been using an app called Tailor to stitch together multiple screenshots of web pages. Until today, that is, thanks to your tip. Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> >Saving pages as HTML is not ideal because a) you get an HTML file plus a folder, not very practical if you want to retrieve them later, and b) you never know how that page is going to render in future versions of your browser.

Yes but for my use case, which is better scientific communication means, PDF is not enough.

Consider for example slides for a presentation. The typical mathematician does them in TEX which outputs a PDF. Then the PDF is (sometimes) made available online. I realized that PDF slides are far inferior to HTML slides (where you can add demos and whatnot, shameless example [0]). Just put all in a github repository and anybody can take them home.

[0] [https://mbuliga.github.io/emergent-10-years/presentation.htm...](https://mbuliga.github.io/emergent-10-years/presentation.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> I gave up on the idea of reliably saving web pages in PDF.

I use now "SingleFile", a Firefox or Chrome extension that helps to save a complete page (with CSS, images, fonts, frames, etc.) as a single HTML file.

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/single- file/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/single-file/)

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/singlefile/mpiodij...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/singlefile/mpiodijhokgodhhofbcjdecpffjipkle?hl=en)

[https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/SingleFile](https://github.com/gildas- lormeau/SingleFile)

<comment><AUTHOR> Great job! I suggest that you go deeper into how the annotation feature works in the add-on description, as that could be potentially useful. My main issue with this solution is whether this file format is going to be reliable in the future. As with MHTML that was mentioned in another comment, formats that are not widely used may one day not be supported the same way they are today. Not sure how you've achieved this as clearly HTML cannot hold media file by itself (unless there's something I am not aware of), so it must do something at a file system level, so I wonder is it going to still work in future versions of the operative system?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I recommend [https://webrecorder.io/](https://webrecorder.io/) to reliably capture websites.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks so much for your comment. I've read the original blog post ([https://blog.webrecorder.io/2019/08/29/desktop- app.html](https://blog.webrecorder.io/2019/08/29/desktop-app.html)) and it sounds like a very effective mean of capturing web content. I was not aware there's a standard for web archiving purposes, that sounds like something that would kept being supported in the future. And from what I read it's better than PDF as it captures interactive elements, as well. I will give it a try.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Shouldn't the UI/UX/Whoever was responsible for the design, have supplied CSS styles for printing?

[https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2018/05/print- stylesheets-i...](https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2018/05/print-stylesheets- in-2018/)

</comment><comment><USER9> I had similar problem and wrote a browser addon: [https://2read.net/](https://2read.net/) It converts websites to "readable" form and if you have IPFS running, it will also "pin" content locally. In most cases it works better than just printing an article. Here is an example with mentioned article: [https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmYPkcXgKLBye3L8M1VJWsGAb2mJXkJSEncqcSC...](https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmYPkcXgKLBye3L8M1VJWsGAb2mJXkJSEncqcSCkFTdHhi/)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is brilliant! I like the fact that it also cleans up the page. I don't know much about MFS but I see there's a video linked from the add-on description so will take some time to listen. My main concern is what format is going to be always readable in the long term, so it should be either something widely accepted and distributed like PDF, or something that is going to be retro-compatible and always running smoothly in future machines. Thanks for your answer.

<comment><USER9> There is also HN discussion about this addon: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18965729](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18965729)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >Saving pages as HTML is not ideal because a) you get an HTML file plus a folder, not very practical if you want to retrieve them later

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

<comment><USER11> I don't know about other browsers but Safari doesn't support it.

Not only that but HTML/CSS/JavaScript has been a moving target over the last couple of decades, sometimes people need something with longevity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This has been a problem for years, which is too bad. No one really uses MHTML or any alternative. Hopefully Web Bundles* becomes a commonly supported spec.

* [https://web.dev/web-bundles/](https://web.dev/web-bundles/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Problem is, technology that is not widely used/distributed/supported is not reliable for archiving purposes. The idea is in principle good. I've just learned that there's an open format called WARP that was explicitly created for web archiving purposes, any relationship with what you are describing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Isn't this what read mode is supposed to be for?

<comment><USER2> Reader view is (to my understanding) a heuristic that gives you the biggest wall of text of the article. If it works, it is nice. But in these cases you can usually also c&p.

However, it does not work if what you want to save is not a wall of text. Some table, some receipt, etc. It does not work for the Google search box, for facebook, or Amazon, just to give an example.</comment></comment>


Microsoft translates Chinese to English with the same accuracy as a person - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.microsoft.com/ai/machine-translation-news-test-set-human-parity/?wt.mc_id=74788-mcr-fb&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral <comment><USER2> If you want to play around with it: [https://translator.microsoft.com/neural/](https://translator.microsoft.com/neural/)

EDIT: It's unclear whether this is actually the system that is the subject of the article. The article links here under its "Related" links, but a banner at the top of this tool reads:

> "This system is NOT our human-parity system..."

<comment><USER3> They clarified that this is part of their system.

 _It 's the best single system labelled "SV1" in Table 2 in our research paper._

Results are pretty good but definitely not human quality yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is really exciting. I'd love to be able to regularly read Chinese news sources

<comment><USER5> Me too, I've been waiting for something like this for a while.

If I was somewhat younger or if AI wasn't booming, I would try learning Mandarin, but learning a third language is a pain in the ass, especially if you're past your early 20s and the novelty and excitment of communicating with foreign cultures has faded out.

<comment><USER3> I don't think being older has anything to do. My uncle learnt Swedish at 60, my girlfriend is learning English at 40, and I'd love to learn a 4th language.

What fades after your 20s is the available time - I see a lot of retired people learning languages here.</comment></comment></comment>


Primecoin: The Cryptocurrency Whose Mining is Useful - <AUTHOR> http://bitcoinmagazine.com/primecoin-the-cryptocurrency-whose-mining-is-actually-useful/

<comment><USER2> "The underlying mathematics behind why six confirmations is a fairly safe threshold is independent of block confirmation time, so the Primecoin transaction at six confirmations is no less secure"

I think this is wrong. 6 conformations in Bitcoin means that 1 hours worth of work has gone into sealing the transaction into the blockchain. To invalidate these 6 blocks you would need, for example, twice the compute power of the honest nodes for 2 hours. With primecoin you would only require this power for 12 minutes, which is 10 times less work.

Lowering the confirmation time only increases the granularity of the confidence in a certain transaction over time.

<comment><USER3> This is actually a common misconception, and you're wrong. If you read Satoshi's original paper, the probability of someone with substantially less than 50% of the total compute power decreases exponentially as the number of confirmations increases. The reason Bitcoin uses 6 confirmations is because this was judged to give the best balance between time taken to confirm and probability of a sub-50% attacker succeeding.

It has nothing to do with stopping attacks by someone with a majority of the total compute power - realistically, if requring someone to dedicate that amount of compute power for 12 minutes isn't enough to make an attack infeasable, making them dedicate it for 2 hours is unlikely to do the job either.

Edit: Also, requiring only one confirmation - which is what you'd have to do to make Bitcoin as fast as 6 confirmations in Primecoin - is especially risky because it allows any attacker capable of generating a block in a reasonable amount of time to double-spend with very high probability at the cost of one block's payout.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Well, no, primes aren't very useful, though this might have lead to a bit of an arms race in probabilistic prime-finding algorithms - which would be good, I suppose.

I wonder if you could make a proof-of-work algorithm based on, say, protein folding?

<comment><USER5> That (or any other useful work beyond just finding primes) would be great, and it's mentioned in the article (as something that cryptocurrency "newbies" commonly suggest), but the concern with all of that is efficient verification.

<comment><USER6> Another issue is that the input to the calculation has to be, at least in part, the transactions which you're verifying. That's not a problem if you're just looking for hashes, and I imagine they have a similar process when looking for primes, though I'm curious about exactly how they do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r6c_Ul6...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r6c_Ul6H8hUJ:bitcoinmagazine.com/primecoin- the-cryptocurrency-whose-mining-is-actually-useful/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk)

</comment><comment><USER8> Claiming that finding prime numbers is _useful_ seems like a stretch to me.

<comment><USER9> Not necessarily. See [http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/ask-ars-why- spend-tim...](http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/ask-ars-why-spend-time- and-money-finding-new-prime-numbers/)

<comment><USER8> I'm still not convinced. I did read the whole article, but the subhead sums it up well:

> That new 17-million digit Mersenne prime number _might_ matter. _Someday._

(Emphasis mine, but that's not much of ringing endorsement of the usefulness of prime numbers.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This could become a new Proof-Of-Work function for Bitcoin itself.

Dan Kaminsky assigned 0% probability that the current proof-of-work function will be used by the end of this year, due to problems with ASICs and the centralization of hashing power: [http://bitcoinnews.io/dan-kaminsky-predicts- the-end-of-the-c...](http://bitcoinnews.io/dan-kaminsky-predicts-the-end-of- the-current-proof-of-work-function/)

<comment><USER10> Zero probability? So will he pay out all his bitcoins to me if his prediction fails? That's the meaning of _zero %_.

<comment><USER7> I'm not quite sure myself, it might have been hyperbole. He doesn't seem to participate in this bet however: [http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=1432](http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=1432)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This more or less addresses all of the major complaints I have about Bitcoin; you know, minus the whole insane deflationary spiral which arguably is also its' main feature.

<comment><USER12> Pretty sure the "spiral" part is not lauded as a feature. Or accepted as an inevitable outcome, for that matter.

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure about the spiral, but the deflation aspect is definitely part of the plan.

Those most in love with BTC seem basically to just want to sit on something and get richer, because anything else is the government/other people/moochers stealing their money through inflation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does Primecoin cryptography depend on the difficulty of finding prime numbers and then try to find them?

<comment><USER15> PrimeCoin searches for prime chains. For example 6 is at the center of a bitwin prime chain of length 2.

6 - 1 = 5, prime 6 + 1 = 7, prime 6 * 2 - 1 = 11, prime 6 * 2 + 1 = 13, prime

The design paper is a light and interesting read:

[http://ppcoin.org/static/primecoin- paper.pdf](http://ppcoin.org/static/primecoin-paper.pdf)

Also:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunningham_chain](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunningham_chain)</comment></comment>


Rackspace to go private again - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/26/rackspace-to-go-private-after-4-3b-acquisition-by-private-equity-firm-apollo/ <comment><USER2> AWS and Digital Ocean basically beat them. Mailgun is awesome though. Love using it. I see rackspace as being a perfectly wonderful private company that makes good money but they don't have enough glitz to really make it as a publicly traded company. Not enough product innovation or new markets or anything like that.

<comment><AUTHOR> We've been using Rackspace and haven't evaluated Mailgun yet. Can you help us with a quick comparison based on your experience?

<comment><USER2> Mailgun is a transactional email service that is basically free unless you are doing huge volume. The api sets the standard for documentation. If you need more features with your transactional emails you can sign up for Sendwithus.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Built an app this summer, tinder for top tech news - <AUTHOR>

This summer a buddy and I talked about how we weren't too satisfied with how we got our tech news. There were either too many features on one app or not our preferred sources. So we decided to quickly build something that we wanted to use.
We borrowed the Tinder UI and added our favorite tech sources. You can swipe articles left to discard and right to save for later, and you'll never see the same article twice. Been using it privately amongst friends but just now releasing it to public. Please check it out @ pilotreader.com .
I think we did alright for ourselves, and more importantly we have a better understanding of how well we work together. We decided to continue to work on some more ambitious projects together. Let us know what you think! <comment><USER2> Just trying it out now.

One quick question though - if I read an article and then go back and swipe left to get rid of it, would the app interpret that as me not liking the article?</comment>


I Don't Do Coffee - <AUTHOR> http://idontdocoffee.com/

<comment><USER2> I don't see why this is even an issue. I imagined the link would contain a perspective on why coffee is bad in some way to productivity or personal health but instead I see a length conversation on how to reply to "let's do coffee sometimes."

IMHO say "sure", and then just don't have coffee. Does anyone really care _what_ you drink – I always though "getting coffee" was more of a social norm to have conversation over warm beverages?

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's the thing - there's a _huge_ variety of answers there, all coming from the different backgrounds, contexts, abilities, and situations.

How can I care? How can I assess? How can I analyse?

Why is this not just a waste of time? I flashed through several in under a minute and have decided that reading this is less value than having a coffee with someone I might actually make a connection with.

</comment><comment><USER4> Redirects to quora.com</comment>


A different way to build gRPC webservices - go-masonry https://github.com/go-masonry/mortar <comment> go-masonry Mortar is a GO framework/library for building gRPC (and REST) web services</comment>


C implementation of Tic-Tac-Toe in a single call to printf - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/carlini/printf-tac-toe <comment><USER2> Oddly enough I find that the #define macro soup detracts from the performance here. I was rather unimpressed at first because obfuscating C code by just #define'ing a bunch of code is a trivial and rather uninteresting way to write unreadable code. Of course you can make any arbitrary code look like a printf call with enough macros!

But it's actually a lot more clever than that.

I feel like this would be a lot more impressive if it was written in simple and clear C since then you'd see that there really isn't any tic-tac-toe logic being explicitly implemented the way you'd expect.

<comment><USER3> One time, I had to maintain C code That somebody had #define'd to look like FORTRAN. It was impressive.

<comment><USER2> I've had to deal with code like that, only poorly mimicking Lisp instead: `#define unless(_x) if (!(_x))` etc...

One of my favourite accidental features in Rust is that macros are so annoying and cryptic to write that people think twice before abusing them.

<comment><USER4> I understand the temptation. I keep catching myself on writing `unless( ... )` in C++ every couple days, and I've considered adding a macro for it, but ultimately decided against it, as the rest of the team would not understand why I _need_ it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am afraid that the author has disqualified himself by publishing the source code before the judging of IOCCC 2020 is over. See catch 22 in the rules: "The judges STRONGLY prefer to not know who is submitting entries to the IOCCC."[1] Even the winners are asked not to publish the code until it is available on the IOCCC web site.[2]

[1] [https://ioccc.org/2020/rules.txt](https://ioccc.org/2020/rules.txt) [2] Personal communication

<comment><USER6> 'Strongly prefer' != disqualification

<comment><USER7> 'Strongly prefer'== banned for life

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Relevant talk on the motivation for printf-programming:

[https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity15/technical...](https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity15/technical- sessions/presentation/carlini#:~:text=Control%2DFlow%20Bending%3A%20On%20the%20Effectiveness%20of%20Control%2DFlow%20Integrity,-Authors%3A&text=Control%2DFlow%20Integrity%20\(CFI\),is%20believed%20to%20be%20secure).

Very interesting. Roughly, that the existence of Turing-complete functions within programs creates a fundamental vulnerability that even rigid control over the control flow of a program cannot avoid.

</comment><comment><USER9> > %n takes a pointer and writes (!!) the number of bytes printed so far.

> Okay, everyone probably knows this. Let's get a bit more advanced.

Ok, but I didn't know about that. What's the use?

<comment><USER10> One use is aligning outputs:

      char *prefix = "example";
      char *line1 = "line 1";
      char *line2 = "line 2";
      printf("%s: %n%s\n", prefix, &n, line1);
      printf("%*s%s\n", n, "", line2);

will output

      example: line 1
               line 2

That's a bit more robust than using _strlen(s)+2_ , where you have to keep that magic constant 2 in sync with ": ". Moving ": " to a variable and using _strlen(s)+strlen(separator)_ would fix that, though (at the price of speed, unless you've a compiler that optimizes that away)

<comment><USER11> This only works if you're not dealing with Unicode, where the number of bytes, the number of characters, and the width of those characters can all vary.

<comment><USER12> This makes me wonder if there's some sort of Unicode equivalent for this?

<comment><USER13> wcwidth()

<comment><USER12> Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. Here's a man page for anyone else that was interested: [https://man7.org/linux/man- pages/man3/wcwidth.3.html](https://man7.org/linux/man- pages/man3/wcwidth.3.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is just crazy and I love it <3

From a description on the author's website[1] of a Doom clone written in 13k of JavaScript.

> Until recently all content on this website was research, and while writing > papers can be fun, sometimes you just need to blow off a little steam.

I think more companies should allow for their employees to have some plain old fun with no strings attached on a regular basis.

[1] [https://nicholas.carlini.com/](https://nicholas.carlini.com/)

<comment><USER15> >I think more companies should allow for their employees to have some plain old fun with no strings attached on a regular basis.

Maybe we could call this additional 'holiday pay' or a longer 'weekend' and mandate it through law so that everyone benefits.

<comment><USER16> Ha, if I had a longer weekend my wife would demand I use it taking her out.

<comment><USER15> Do you not like spending time with your wife? That seems a shame.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > in a single call to printf

> while(*d) printf(fmt, arg)

How's that a single call ?

<comment><USER18> > How's that a single call

syntactically it is. But it's not a very clear description. So how would you describe that single call location getting executed in a loop so everybody understands what is really meant? A single line of code is worse.

<comment><USER19> printf once in a while

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> In case you're wondering (like me) how you'd get input from printf():

> We ab^H^Huse [the Turing-completeness of printf()] to implement a the logic > of tic-tac-toe entirely within this one printf call (and a call to scanf() > to read user input).

So it should be "one printf() and one scanf()."

<comment><USER21> Should be "an infinite number of printf()s and scanf()s".

<comment><USER22> Would you say that an infinite loop has infinite lines of code?

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h It has infinite instructions, yes. (Well, "unbounded" or "endless", if we're being picky.)

<comment><USER22> No it doesn't. It has finite instructions for the loop body, and then one jump instruction for the loop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Title correction: Tic Tac Toe written almost entirely in #defines.

<comment><USER24> And executed in the Printf virtual machine

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I was expecting the tic-tac-toe to be written in machine code in an array, and printf would smash the stack to jump to it.

</comment><comment><USER26> thanks. now i have nightmares.

</comment><comment><USER27> It isn't really a "single call" to printf if it's in a while loop, is it?

<comment><USER28> That's what you are getting hung up over?

There is a call to scanf in the middle of the arg #define

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> If you're reading these Nicholas, thanks for your super help in CS 161 Spring 2016!

</comment><comment><USER30> Holy Crap Batman!

Never in a million years would I have thought that printf() was Turing- Complete -- and yet, here's the proof that it is...

And then there's this related paper:

[https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurit...](https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity15/sec15-paper- carlini.pdf)

Page 175: "Printf is Turing-complete"

</comment><comment><USER31> I thought the program was going to consist of _only_ the call to printf(). But alas, that is inside a while loop.

</comment><comment><USER32> Excellent obfuscation. It ticks all the boxes:

\- esoteric modes of operation of a common function

\- truly novel use of macros

\- visibly beautiful

</comment><comment><USER33> I am jealous of people who have time to do things like this.

<comment><USER34> I hear you on that. But for me, the jealousy dissipates quickly once I realize that even if I had /lots/ of time, I don't think I would come up with this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Love the attempt the blindside the reader with funky formatting showing "%N".

<comment><USER36> That's not too unusual for IOCCC entries. Of the top of my head, there's a flight simulator shaped like an airplane, and an addition routine shaped like a full-adder.

A more subtle touch is that the #defines spell out NOUGHTs AnD CRoSSES.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'm impressed with the aesthetics, and humor: formatted 'fmt', "printf oriented programming"...

Suggests in my mind, somehow, thought I'd share: "CTRL-F oriented programming" :)

</comment><comment><USER38> ttt.c(25): fatal error C1091: compiler limit: string exceeds 65535 bytes in length

Aaargghhh MSVC 2019 doesn't like this :(

</comment><comment><USER39> fake news, single call to while

</comment><comment><USER40> Looks a bit like scientific codes from 3 decades ago :)

</comment><comment><USER41> Some advanced clickbait we have here.

<comment><USER42> Nah.

 _Dennis Ritchie HATES him. Program like a pro with this one weird trick! You won 't believe what happens!_

That's proper bait.

<comment><USER43> Hence advanced bait. printf() is called in a while loop, so it is hardly a single call.

<comment><USER44> I don't want to jump on the title hate bandwagon - what the author has done is definitely creative and clever and this discussion detracts from it - but it also uses scanf.

<comment><USER45> Where?

        int main() {
            while(*d) printf(fmt, arg);
        }

<comment><USER46> On line 57: [https://github.com/carlini/printf-tac- toe/blob/master/printt...](https://github.com/carlini/printf-tac- toe/blob/master/printtt.c#L57)

<comment><USER45> Ah, well spotted, thanks. I didn't think it was fair to call the title click bait just because it used a while loop to drive the calls to printf, but also including a scanf call is definitely not in the same spirit.

<comment><USER47> Alas, it's technically difficult to get input from the user using printf.

<comment><USER10> If you're willing to lose almost all portability, I think you could read a value from an I/O port, pass that to _printf_ , use that as the field width for a string to print, count the character length of the resulting string using %n to move it into a variable, and then backspace over that to prevent the output from dirtying your output. You could only use the results in a subsequent call to _printf_ , though.

Of course, just hiding an assignment in a _printf_ argument would be much easier, but wouldn't be fun.

Of course, that would lose lots and lots of portability, and you could, likely, only get it to work on systems that don't do memory protection between processes, and then, not all of them.

I guess it would not be very hard to use this trick to have printf read joysticks on many micro's from the 1980's.

<comment><USER48> In that case it might just be easier to ROP your way to scanf.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: A Chrome extension to open your frequently visited website instantly - <AUTHOR> https://anyshortcut.com <comment><AUTHOR> I'm so excited to announce that our chrome extension Anyshortcut([https://anyshortcut.com](https://anyshortcut.com)) is finally out! We created Anyshortcut to help people use keyboard shortcuts to open their frequently visited websites instantly.

It is simple, intuitive and straightforward. You only need a Google account to get started, all your shortcuts are synced everywhere automatically.

Two more auxiliary features are quick switching between two recent tabs, auto- jumping to home URL.

We are just launching on Producthunt. [https://www.producthunt.com/posts/anyshortcut](https://www.producthunt.com/posts/anyshortcut)

Welcome to give it a try. We appreciated any question or advice.</comment>


Freelance web design under my name or build a brand? - <AUTHOR>

Basically just as the title says. Just looking for some feedback on the best way to set myself up for freelance. While having a brand would be nice, it may be a little strange operating under a brand with just one person in it.<p>Thoughts?? <comment><USER2> I've just started doing freelance programming work with a brand (Sole Propietorship, d/b/a).

One reason I made that decision is that my name is very common and I want something I can tell people that they have a chance of finding with Google.

Another is that if I release iOS apps, I'd rather have my brand on display in the store than my name.

Having a d/b/a also removes on potential trouble spot for companies who are concerned about contractor vs. employee issues with the IRS. Writing a check to Joe Smith is a potential audit red flag, a check to JS Design isn't. IMHO, this is more a perception of an issue than an actual issue, but when you're trying to get business it doesn't hurt to remove even perceived roadblocks.

I try to be very clear on my website that I'm a one-man shop. I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to look bigger than I am. I avoid writing "we," etc.

<comment><USER3> This is all solid advice. On the last point ("one-man shop"), Jason Fried wrote a column for Inc. on being a one-man company and feeling and fighting the need to exaggerate its size: [http://www.inc.com/magazine/201106/dont- exaggerate-your-size...](http://www.inc.com/magazine/201106/dont-exaggerate- your-size.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your help - that's a great article!

<comment><USER3> You're very welcome. Good luck! If you do decide to come up with a brand name there are lots of articles online on methods and things to consider.

I always remember the tale of George Eastman. He was looking for something short, something that was easy to spell and unambiguous to pronounce in lots of languages, and something that meant nothing. The result? Kodak.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea for sure. Going into the design industry, I would like it to be something fun and down-to-earth. My favorite (already taken) ones are "Running with crayons" and "Who you know". Any recommendations on favorite articles?

<comment><USER3> None at hand -- but I do think the Wikipedia page for brand is an interesting read.[1] It has a section on branding approaches and unlike a lot of articles I found on a quick 15 minute Google just now it's refreshingly dry and hype- free.

Having said that about articles, I think for every method that people claim is the "perfect way to come up with a brand", there's a story of brands that became established but had origins that didn't involve mindmapping, brainstorming, SEO tests, research groups and the like. Two examples from the UK, one now a little faded: Amstrad, which is just AMS Trading shortened, AMS being the initials of Lord Sugar, and Virgin, which one of Richard Branson's early employees suggested because none of them had a lot of experience of running a business.

Go for a walk and one might pop into your head. You never know! If you're in NZ as your username suggests (?) then you certainly have the scenery for inspiration :-)

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> In my experience working under a business name gives me the flexibility to have diferent team configurations based on the type of client. If it's a bigger type company you can hire people and work under the biz name, and for smaller projects you can present your work as a personal portfolio giving the client a more personal feel.

Edit: DBA type

</comment><comment><USER5> Once you start getting your work out there your name will become the brand. Of course a brand/biz name that comes up in searches, etc is going to a plus. But also consider how much even for the biggest brands they are defined by the leaders, e.g. Apple: Steve Jobs, Microsoft: Bill Gates, Oracle: Larry Ellison, Linux: Linus Torvalds, etc.

</comment><comment><USER6> Based on what have been said you could try to establish your name as a unique brand: such as the "CharlesSchwab" for web design or like Donald Trump uses his name for his products.</comment>


Microsoft Office 15 to Support Facebook Chat, productivity drops? - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/next_version_of_microsoft_office_to_ship_with_face.php

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess you could say in a way Google Docs has always integrated with Facebook as it's in a browser heh</comment>


A New Kind of Science (2002) - <AUTHOR> http://psoup.math.wisc.edu/491/Batshit.htm <comment><AUTHOR> Just a disclaimer, while I don't want to take a position on what is being said in this article (apart from the statement that its worth sharing), I do want to say that the tone is ... a bit unforgiving. I understand the author is a bit bitter because of the legal troubles mentioned at the top of the article, but I don't think it color's their opinion, just their language.

<comment><USER2> Many other reviews were just as critical.

Scott Aaronson wrote good professional critique where he just politely debunked the main points of the book. [https://arxiv.org/abs/quant- ph/0206089](https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206089)</comment></comment>


Python 101: Introspection - <AUTHOR> http://www.blog.pythonlibrary.org/2010/10/14/python-101-introspection/ <comment><USER2> Python's easy to use introspection helped me break away from my Visual Studio Intellisense crutch. I remember the days when I didn't know how people code program in a plain text editor (or even vim), because I was so dependent on Intellisense to help me figure out what properties or methods an object or class library had available.

Fast forward a few years and I can hardly stand to use Visual Studio, it's just so slow and clunky! Who needs Intellisense? Just open up the python interpreter and if you're not sure about something you can dir() it :-) But I find myself reading a lot more of the source code and documentation for third party libraries that I'm using. I'm a far different programmer now than I used to be, and I thank Python for helping me progress so quickly.

</comment><comment><USER3> Also "bpython" is useful for exploratory programming in python and is an able replacement for the standard python shell <http://bpython-interpreter.org/> The screenshots speak for themselves: <http://bpython- interpreter.org/screenshots/> Some of the features I love are:

* Readline-like autocomplete with suggestions displayed as you type.

* In-line syntax highlighting.

* Displays expected parameter list for any Python function.

* "Rewind" function to pop the last line of code from memory and re-evaluate. etc

<comment><AUTHOR> I _love_ bpython. It's "just enough" for me, versus ipython, which feels like an 800lbs gorilla.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Also useful: Try running pydoc -p 8000 and then navigating to <http://localhost:8000/>

</comment><comment><USER5> Also check out the "see" module. A human readable version of dir():

<http://github.com/inky/see>

<comment><USER2> That looks awesome, I can quit doing this:

print '\n'.join(dir(my_object))

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't use python much anymore, but I am often surprised when talking to python programmers, that if I mention ipython and introspection (e.g. dir() ) they look at me funny. They are missing half the niceness!

</comment><comment><USER7> Tab completion in the shell makes things even better. I would say simply "check out IPython" but let's say you want to stick with IDLE, you can still get things nice like this:

1\. Put this in your user shell RC:

      export PYTHONSTARTUP="~/pycode/pythonrc.py"

2\. Put this in pythonrc.py

      import readline, rlcompleter
      readline.parse_and_bind("tab: complete")

</comment><comment><USER8> Is there a statically typed version of Python? Not a 'language inspired by Python', but a true interpreter derivative that does type enforcement and inferencing?

I ask this because the type() function is awesome.</comment>


Microsoft Answers Coder Cries Over New Development Kit - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/visual-studio-pricing/ <comment><USER2> It seems like the risk of not collecting $500 from a bunch of developers is peanuts compared to the real threat MSFT now faces of people choosing to develop non Windows-specific apps which happen to still work on Windows. How many "apps" have you installed lately which are really just local servers with web front-ends? Qt-based stuff? Java SWT/Swing? What else? While many of these apps likely are built upon 3rd party components developed using Visual Studio (perhaps a free version), the makers of these apps almost always provide a Mac and Linux version. Microsoft has passed a dangerous tipping point where it is now like Apple in the early 90's -- fighting to attract developers who will provide killer, platform-specific apps. We all laughed as Ballmer screamed, "Developers, developers, developers!" However, he's all too well aware of the danger Microsoft faces of losing its dominance as a platform provider. I'd say "lost" as I believe they're already running on fumes, but they still control a huge portion of the desktop market. They should be worrying that developers won't develop anything at all which relies on their APIs and forgo the overly ambitious goal of buying developers' use of Metro. In a storm, any 'ol port will do.

<comment><USER3> True they still control a huge proportion of the desktop market, but most of that is business desktops. Apple's market share is heavily lopsided towards the high end consumer market. It's similar to their position with the iPhone. They have a minority market share, but its the most valuable part of the market.

For over a decade Microsoft has essentially been able to behave as if they have no competition, while Apple still has a culture of being lean, mean and hungry - plus they now have a hundred billion dollar war chest. I'm glad I'm not working for a competitor of theirs right now. At least

Microsoft does seem to be well aware of the problem, but the question is are they too big and slow to be able to react effectively? In mobile the answer was no. On the desktop they have the advantage of a real and significant market share dominance. It's going to be very interesting to see where things stand in 3 or 4 years time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Off topic: the "headlinese" title of this article results in syntactic ambiguity.

I read it as: The coder who built Microsoft Answers (<http://answers.microsoft.com/>) cried because of a new development kit.

Related:

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

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_blossom#In_headlines>

<comment><USER5> Same. Then I read the article and couldn't figure out who was crying. Had you not posted anything, I'd have spent the rest of my evening scratching my head on that one.

<comment><USER6> For everyone else who is still confused (including me until a minute ago), join coder and cries with a dash.

<comment><USER7> Thanks, I now parse it as "Microsoft replies to coder concerns about new development kit".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In before the hate train starts rolling full steam ahead right over Microsoft. This is a fantastic decision, they obviously really had no choice otherwise a lot of people would have abandoned Windows 8 development and Microsoft would have looked bad launching an OS that didn't have many supported applications.

As for Windows XP support, why would Microsoft add in support for an OS they don't really support any more? It has been 11 years, well almost 12 since XP came out and the fact people want to support the outdated OS is like asking Google to start supporting Internet Explorer 6 again.

<comment><USER9>
         As for Windows XP support, why would Microsoft
         add in support for an OS they don't really support
         any more?

Because Windows XP is stable, it works and a lot of companies and people are still using it.

If anything, Microsoft is to be blamed for not providing a compelling reason to upgrade. Windows Vista was awful, while Windows 7 is just a re-branded Vista with a little more polish applied. Which is why at home I still have Windows XP on my desktop.

         It has been 11 years, well almost 12

Windows 7 was released at the end of 2009, while XP was released in Aug 2001. That's 8 years in which people had no real upgrade option. Can you really blame them if they are a little conservative?

         the fact people want to support the outdated OS is like asking
         Google to start supporting Internet Explorer 6 again

That's not a fair comparison, as downloading Firefox/Chrome is painless, is free, doesn't require a hardware upgrade, normal people can do it by themselves and they don't risk losing their data ... saying that upgrading Windows is painful would be an understatement.

<comment><USER10> That's wrong. 7 is really good. Comparing it to vista or xp shows you don't know what you are talking about.

<comment><USER9> Name 3 differences between Vista and XP that don't involve minor UI tweaks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Are they going to include 64bit support? The earlier versions of Visual Studio Express didn't which was a right royal pain for me. I produce a Python library and since Windows users don't have compilers have binary downloads available. To get 64 bit command line compiles I had to do an unholy wedging of VSE and the platform dev kit. (I'd much rather the Python developers used free software instead of forcing this stuff onto the rest of us.)

If anyone is curious you can see the downloads and popularity at <http://code.google.com/p/apsw/downloads/list>

<comment><USER12> I think that if you install the Windows 7.1 SDK, you should be able to choose Platform SDK and target it, rather than the built in compilers.

WSDK7.1 is VS2010, but at least latest IDE would be used.

<comment><USER11> If only it was so easy. The existing Python versions need VS2008 so I have to use Platform SDK 7.0 (not 7.1). Then it and VS2008 won't play nice with paths, so in the end I just hardcoded them in my setup script. <http://code.google.com/p/apsw/wiki/Win7build>

The next Python release is using VS2012 so I'll have to have it, whatever it takes to get it and 64 bit binaries, plus VS2008 and PSDK 7.0 all installed at the same time.

The ultimate cause of all this is Microsoft bundling the C library with the compiler, and not being able to have more than one version of the C library in a process which forces the executable and all dlls to be compiled with the same compiler version.

<comment><USER12> Yup. For that reason I stick with the WDK 7.1 (and target MSVCRT.DLL by linking with msvcrt_win2000.obj, and this works on XP). Yes this would not work for Python built with VS2008, but it would not require me to carry MSVCRxx.DLLs everywhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm still converned over the fate of the x64 compilers.

</comment><comment><USER14> Funny ... I haven't heard anyone crying.

Oh yeah, they're all developing HTML5 applications that will run on Chrome and Firefox and maybe Internet Explorer. Why worry about the OS' look and feel?

<comment><USER15> Given that there were about four or five posts on the front page about the changes to the express version changes it would that a lot of people care.

I'm glad Microsoft listened to people on this one.

<comment><USER16> I've only seen this one. Is HN bubbling us in? By this I mean an effect similar to google search results being personalized to the person who is searching.

<comment><USER15> Sorry I meant when they announced a few weeks ago that the expression version wouldn't support native Windows apps.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Snipline – Shell command snippet organiser - <AUTHOR> https://snipline.io/ <comment><AUTHOR> I've been working on Snipline since around November and I've finally got it to the point where I'm happy to release it :).

My idea is that, instead of keeping commands in a note app or re-searching the web for them, you use them and then store them in Snipline for quick reuse. There's also the added benefit of being able to replace context-specific parameters with each use. e.g. In a curl command, you would want to change the URL, the request type, headers, etc.

Some of the other features include, vim keybinds, multi-device sync, desktop apps as well as a web client. I'm currently planning on clients for mobile and command line in the future.

<comment><USER2> Congrats on launch!</comment></comment>


Is It Unethical for Professors to Sell Students Their Own Books? - <AUTHOR> https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/professors-selling-own-books <comment><USER2> My EE professor of the static fields course taught us from drafts of his book. Much later I learned that it was the primary book in the field. So I would say yes.</comment>


Fathom – First consumer-level underwater drone - <AUTHOR> http://www.fathomdrone.com/ <comment><USER2> Not the first. There was a Kickstarter project several years ago. Might not be as visual appealing, but it exists and it is open source: [http://www.openrov.com/](http://www.openrov.com/)

It has a strong community and had lots of improvements over the years as well.

In that time I was actively supporting several Kickstarter projects (30-40 ?). That is where I learned to never pre-order again ;-) Just wait until its finished. If by then its still a good product (most are not) they take your order then for sure as well.

</comment><comment><USER3> Seriously? They expect pre-orders based on a test video in an aquarium tank? I love the idea but this is very early. I'm excited to see where it goes.

edit: I see the pre-order link just takes you to a 'sign up for updates' form.</comment>