Until Today, If You Were 17, It Could Have Been Illegal To Read Seventeen.com - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/04/until-today-if-you-were-17-it-could-have-been-illegal-read-seventeencom-under-cfaa <comment><USER2> I wish someone would take the HTTP codes literally:

"200 OK" = You just gave me irrevocable permission.

Or you know, if anyone sues you for copyright infringement, you should sue them back for hacking, since you obviously put the following in your terms of service "you may not access this site if you sue me in the future".

<comment><USER3> HTTP statuses are not a semantic description. `200 OK` means only that the transfer of a document can take place -- the legality of the request is a different matter. This would be like holding DOT engineers responsible for making it possible to drive drunk, since the roads have no features to prevent offenders from entering the highway.

<comment><USER4> >`200 OK` means only that the transfer of a document can take place -- the legality of the request is a different matter. This would be like holding DOT engineers responsible for making it possible to drive drunk, since the roads have no features to prevent offenders from entering the highway.

You're confusing violating _a_ law with violating _the_ law. If getting "200 OK" means you were authorized and can't be convicted of unauthorized access to a computer, but you proceed to purloin credit card numbers and make fraudulent charges to them, you're still going to jail for credit card fraud.

The real issue is that "unauthorized access" is hopelessly ambiguous if you _don't_ use the likes of protocol status codes, and totally redundant if you do.

If you get "200 OK" then you haven't made unauthorized access because _you were authorized_. If you get "403 FORBIDDEN" then you haven't made unauthorized access because _you were denied access_. That interpretation makes "unauthorized access" impossible to achieve, because if access is denied then there is no access to be unauthorized and if access is granted then it is authorized access.

The trouble is that the alternative interpretation is even worse: If you can't rely on what the machine tells you, how do you know when you're authorized? Some cases are really obvious (e.g. you are not authorized to places orders against just any random customer's credit card), but those situations are pretty much always separately illegal regardless of unauthorized access. What that leaves is the hopelessly ambiguous cases, which is what allows prosecutors to argue that violating terms of service or downloading too many journal articles is a federal felony. I'm still not convinced that those cases need to be illegal at all -- and if you can articulate a specific one that ought to be then by all means prohibit it explicitly and stop with the blanket prohibitions on whatever "unauthorized access" is supposed to mean if it doesn't mean what the machine allows you to do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Every time I think about opening up my wallet and donating to the EFF for their various successful efforts, they turn around and post something stupid like this.

They should stop letting 1st year law students write these ridiculous rants. Courts have almost all _rejected_ attempts to criminalize website TOS violations. Indeed, courts have generally held that TOS is binding only against the company, since the company by the terms of the TOS is free to change the terms at will without prior notification to visitors.

<comment><USER6> Fellow named Aaron Swartz might disagree with you there. A big part of the charges against him centered on violation of the JSTOR ToS.

Relying on courts to interpret a law the way that _you_ happen to like seems, well, pretty goddamned stupid. Let's fix the law.

<comment><USER7> The bulk of the Aaaron Swartz case was around distribution of copyrighted material which he was allowed access to but not distribution of. This is not merely a ToS issue as there are laws against distribution of copyrighted material.

<comment><USER8> Not a single violation in Aaron Swartz's indictment [1] is about copyright law. In fact, they nearly all refer to US Code 1030, which is the CFAA you are claiming the Aaron Swartz case was not about.

In fact, you are incorrect that "he was allowed access" in that the wire fraud counts in the indictment (page 10) is based on the idea that he should not have been given access to JSTOR in the first place. (I'm not claiming that Aaron's access to JSTOR was illegal, but rather that the case against Aaron argued his access was not allowed, while the parent argues that Aaron's case was based on the idea that he was allowed access, but was not permitted to distribute)

Your description of what the Aaron Swartz case is about is completely incongruous with the charges filed by the prosecutor.

[1] [http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartz...](http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartzsuperseding.pdf)

<comment><USER9> As far as I understood, Aaron Swartz was also not given access to the MIT network.

I.e. he was kicked off of _two_ different nets, MIT's and JSTOR's.

<comment><USER10> Everyone has access to the MIT network. There is an open guest wifi network, with a captive portal asking you to provide a name/email to register. He put a fake name (Gary Host) and a throwaway mailinator address (and was charged with wire fraud for doing so).

JSTOR provides unlimited access to MIT and many other schools. Anyone on the MIT network had access to JSTOR. He was not on a JSTOR network.

When JSTOR saw that one user was requesting _a lot_ of files, they assumed a bad motive, and banned the IP address. After he got a new IP address, JSTOR contacted MIT about it, and they banned the MAC address from their wifi network.

<comment><USER9> > Everyone has access to the MIT network. There is an open guest wifi network, > with a captive portal asking you to provide a name/email to register. He put > a fake name (Gary Host) and a throwaway mailinator address (and was charged > with wire fraud for doing so).

That's just it though, that's not correct. What you might have meant was:

Everyone _starts off_ with access to the MIT network. It is not MIT's obligation to continue to provide network services to anyone that they have a previous contract for. And even for those with contracts, it would almost certainly include boilerplate to the effect that services will be terminated for abuse of the network.

> When JSTOR saw that one user was requesting a lot of files, they assumed a > bad motive, and banned the IP address.

> After he got a new IP address, JSTOR contacted MIT about it, and they banned > the MAC address from their wifi network.

So you yourself admit: aaronsw started off with access to both JSTOR and MIT networks, and was explicitly kicked off of them both.

What steps did Aaron take to ensure that he was welcome on the networks again when he later tried to connect?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Perhaps it's time for a new SOPA blackout style campaign based on changing terms of service. If a large number of popular sites modified their terms of service so that it became illegal to view those sites for anyone in public office, maybe the absurdity of the whole thing would become evident to the people behind this.

<comment><USER12> That's actually an interesting idea:

Would a ToS hold up in court that specifically denied access to the company's service by government employees?

If a company had that in their ToS, and they discovered that a government employee had used their service, could they sue for damages?

Are businesses in the US _obligated_ to provide service to government employees?

<comment><USER11> I don't think that government employees hold any special privilege in terms of private contracts, but I don't know. At the very least, it would be interesting to find out.

I know that recently there have been some gun shops that have been refusing to serve government employees, so there is at least a small amount of precedent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Why isn't this being used to aggressively prosecute spammers?

Sending unsolicited bulk email has been against the ToS of many service providers for very many years. There's real financial harm done. And spam is disliked by very many people.

<comment><USER14> Because courts have ruled that it's not actually illegal to violate terms of service.

Note how the headline says it "could" have been illegal-- _if_ the Justice Dept. had decided to prosecute a teenager on these grounds (never heard of that happening), and _if_ a federal judge had handed down a conviction on those grounds (the 9th Circuit actually ruled the opposite).

<comment><USER13> As explained in the article the Justice Department uses fierce interpretation of the law.

While the law stands in its current unclear state people are still at risk of prosecution. Conviction might be improbable, but it's still an unpleasant situation to be in.

Courts show that judges are not unanimous about this. (<https://www.eff.org/cases/u-s-v-nosal>)

Note that the Nosal case was a person who was permitted to access to computer, but who then misused information got from it, and not someone who was prevented from accessing the computer.

([https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/rebooting-computer- cri...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/rebooting-computer-crime-law- part-1-no-prison-time-for-violating-terms-of-service))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As a seventeen-year-old myself, I am now even more glad that I do not reside in the United States.

I wonder if anyone reads T&Cs, though. Perhaps I should prohibit over-18s from using my websites.

<comment><USER16> It would be great to see access log statistics of big websites' terms of service pages.

</comment></comment><comment> Digit-Al The law seems to be fundamentally broken when it comes to minors. This is basically saying "we don't think you are mature enough to look at this content, but if you do look at it we will consider you mature enough to take criminal responsibility.", which is absolute bull __ __. Surely we should either say that they are responsible or that they are not.

</comment><comment><USER17> The law should be changed, or overturned as unconstitutional, but that is a higly uncertain and lengthy process.

In the meantime, could we start a grassroots campaign to get companies to explicitly state at the top of their ToS that a violation of the ToS may be arbitrated only and does not constitute a 'unauthorized access' under CFAA?

Obviously the EFF would have to draft the exact clause, so that actual destructive hacking can still be prosecuted.

This sounds tricky, but if the EFF can't write something we could put in the ToS to protect users from the Feds trying to extort cooperation from users by abusing CFAA (a la Aaron) then how can we expect legislators to get it right?

Specifically some things the ToS should define is how "damages" will be defined, proper ways to disclose vulnerabilities, things which are NOT considered subverting access control, and a lower standard for trespass of online chattel which required actual damage or dissemination.

</comment><comment><USER18> It's a good thing nobody actually reads seventeen.com... except advertisers who are trying to figure out what people much younger than them are supposed to like. Which of course is all wrong because it's created by older people.

<comment><USER19> _Which of course is all wrong because it's created by older people._

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The demographic for many magazines are people aspiring to be something they're not and actively seeking to know what they _should_ like.

e.g. The demographic for Seventeen is 10 to 16 year old girls that want to feel older and more mature; the demographic for GQ is mostly men that can't afford most of the things on display in GQ.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> "But the real problem is the CFAA, which allows prosecutors to use these silly terms to manufacture computer crimes."

This is all ridiculous. While I understand the point of the post, and it makes for great mainstream media play, it's total hyperbole. The fact that prosecutors can do something and what they would reasonably do are two different things. To wit exceeding the speed limit by 1mph _could_ get you a ticket but almost _never_ gets you a speeding ticket.

<comment><USER21> Yes, but heres the thing, on a bad day, if the police decide to single you out, you _can_ get a traffic ticket for being 1mph over the speed limit.

Usually it doesn't make the news because the consequences are something between having to stand up to the police in court and a 300 dollar fine. Nobody cares if you get a speeding ticket over nothing.

The way that the CFAA is written, you can levy felony charges against basically any internet user with impunity. So if the Department of Justice decides to single you out, they can hit you with crazy multi-decade felony charges for the lulz.

And then you end up on the front page of the New York times for killing yourself.

<comment><USER22> Police don't enforce laws, judges do.

A judge would throw this out (this being either the 1mph over ticket or the 17-year-old reading Seventeen), and the prosecutor who brought it forward would end his career.

<comment><USER21> Yes, the literal example of a 17 year old reading seventeen is highly implausible. I think their fear is that by using a more complex example they have to try and argue that the complex example did the right thing in the first place. (Like say, Aaron Schwartz) This way they get to use a simple reductio ad absurdum argument that pretty much anybody can understand.

Weather this is an insult to the intelligence of their readers, or carefully calculated propaganda probably depends on who you ask.

<comment><USER9> His name is Aaron _Swartz_.

But either way, Aaron is actually a bad example as what he was charged with was still wrong to do (even if you agree with the end result he was trying to bring about). Not "felony" wrong perhaps, but even weev would have been a better example for what you're talking about.

<comment><USER22> In any event, 'charged with' is not synonymous with 'convicted of'.

<comment><USER9> Absolutely.

On the other hand, "convicted of" is something that matters to the government, not to the rest of us. I'm not going to pretend that someone _didn't_ do something just because a jury never returned a conviction, if there's enough evidence to support the claim in question. Likewise it's possible for a jury to convict people of crimes they've never committed; I won't deign to consider someone "guilty" of something they obviously didn't do just because a jury and legal process said otherwise. I'll leave the splitting of fine hairs to the legal process.

<comment><USER10> What is it that you think he did that was wrong? It recently came out that his project was not to dump it in a torrent like everyone assumed, but to do an analysis on who was funding research. If that's actually true, no laws, in spirit or in letter, were actually broken.

<comment><USER9> > If that's actually true, no laws, in spirit or in letter, were actually > broken.

If you think that, it's because you have latched onto the idea that Aaron was being prosecuted only for thoughtcrime, which is incorrect.

To put it quite simply, Aaron decided to gain access to networks he was quite clearly ejected from. Aaron had access to JSTOR from his own Harvard campus account, so Aaron's own actions (going so far out of his way to do so from MIT's net) indicate he thought he was doing something at least a little bit wrong.

I don't think that evading network bans by itself is necessarily a horrible offense, but I certainly don't think it's completely OK and as far as I know the law doesn't either. In fact the CFAA could apply based merely on the cost of the MIT techs' time it took to track him down, even if he never intended to copy documents.

Where intent _did_ play a role is that it made the existing charges he could have received _just for his actions_ more severe. But he could have wanted to donate to charity and his acts alone would have been illegal.

And, I also think they would have been morally wrong, just as I wouldn't trespass on someone's property if they asked me to leave, no matter how innocuous my purposes are otherwise.

Don't just take my word for it, even Dr. Lessig agreed with that much (that Aaron's actions could be construed as wrong): "...if what the government alleged was true — and I say "if" because I am not revealing what Aaron said to me then — then what he did was wrong. And if not legally wrong, then at least morally wrong." [http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor- as-bull...](http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> With the right case, I don't see how this would withstand Supreme Court review. The Ninth Circuit doesn't seem to like it (Drew/Duval). My guess is the the SCOTUS wouldn't approve of private parties drafting their own criminal laws.

<comment><USER24> Do you want to run foul on multiple felonies (1 per day per ToS violation) along with dozens of other "felonies" that you undoubtedly commit without knowledge.....

Just so you can petition the Supreme Court to take your case, knowing that they can just sit back instead and do nothing?

Wasn't there this Aaron kid that got hit by that very tactic? Hmm. He didn't take the "decades in prison" so well, did he?

<comment><USER9> > He didn't take the "decades in prison" so well, did he?

So the example you take from what happened to Aaron Swartz is to apply yet more propaganda from the other side, instead of facts?

It's not even something you have to mislead about; 2-3 years in prison as an upper-end estimate is bad enough to make your point without being evasive, and even the ~6 months upper limit that the prosecution had offered in a plea bargain is said to be serious enough to make your point.

You could even mention that Aaron would have been a "felon" should he have been convicted or plea guilty on those charges and you'd have been accurate.

And yet you choose the only outcome that _wasn't_ actually possible to push your point forward...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wonder if particularly serious violators would be tried as adults.

</comment><comment><USER26> This law seems analogous to allowing arbitrary code execution; a public website can write it's own law for anyone visiting the site, and hit them with a felony.

</comment><comment><USER27> What do you get when combine horrible lawmakers with horrible corporations?

                    ▲
                    |

</comment><comment><USER28> TOS violations can be analogized into one of several types of real-world crimes -- trespassing, vandalism, or theft. Generally all of these crimes require the victim to press charges. Except they occur through that lovely Internet, so the feds involve themselves and who knows under what circumstances they would disengage? Certainly Hearst did not intend to keep teen girls away from Seventeen -- who else would read it? The option to press charges is probably all that's needed.

</comment><comment><USER29> How can a TOS tell someone (a minor) that the person is forbidden to accept an agreement, while simultaneously holding that person subject to that agreement?

It's a paradox in the space-time continuum.

Has any court tested the theory that a minor can be held in violation of a TOS? Contracts entered into by minors are void on their face.

This seems a lot like having a "NO Trespassing" sign in the bathroom of a coffee shop, and then prosecutors charging people who walk in the front door.

<comment><USER15> Hmm, it's an interesting problem. Does the ToS cover the ToS page? Am I breaking the ToS by viewing the ToS?

<comment> Digit-Al Good point. If you put a final clause on your ToS that said "Reading these terms of service is a criminal offence" could you make criminals out of everyone who reads your ToS? :-)

<comment><USER30> Well if you're in a real country with real laws (like, y'know everywhere), only governments can make criminal offences, not private individuals.

You can put that "Reading this sentence makes the sky yellow" in your ToS if you want as well. Doesn't make it true.

<comment><USER31> The point of this article is that breaking a ToS is illegal, so ToS's themselves are de facto laws.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Danc's Miraculously Flexible Game Prototyping Tiles  - <AUTHOR> http://lostgarden.com/2007/05/dancs-miraculously-flexible-game.html

<comment><USER2> He's posted an update of sorts:

[http://lostgarden.com/2009/03/dancs-miraculously-flexible- ga...](http://lostgarden.com/2009/03/dancs-miraculously-flexible-game.html)

<comment><USER3> In fact, he's posted numerous collections of free tilesets and sprites, in a number of genres. For example, graphics from an unfinished RTS game:

        http://lostgarden.com/2005/03/game-post-mortem-hard-vacuum.html

A 2D top-down medieval RPG:

        http://lostgarden.com/2006/07/more-free-game-graphics.html

Graphics from Tyrian, a vertical shooter he worked on:

        http://lostgarden.com/2007/04/free-game-graphics-tyrian-ships-and.html

The full list of free-game-graphics posts:

        http://lostgarden.com/labels/free%20game%20graphics.html</comment></comment>


The Impending Demise of the University - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/don-tapscott/the-impending-demise-of-t_b_213702.html

<comment><USER2> Only a "new technology" expert would write something so unbelievably dumb. And I don't even disagree with him.

Yes, the teacher that sits at a podium and delivers a lecture is worse than a teacher that's interactive with students. That's always been the case. When I went to college they even had names for them. "Good Teacher" and "Bad Teacher" we called them.

There's nothing inherently different about this new generation. It's certainly not going to bring down the University. Heck, as long as tenure exists it won't even bring down the bad teachers.

For better or worse (probably worse) college has become more an experience than a learning institution. Kids go to college to avoid the world for 4 more years and get a credential for their trouble. Anyone interested in learning (like I was with computers) knows most of the curriculum before they walk in the door and is just there to get a diploma.

Honestly, the first 2 years is dedicated to reteaching what you already learned in High School. That should be a hint.</comment>


The Golden Butterfly and the All Weather Portfolio - <AUTHOR> https://www.listenmoneymatters.com/all-weather-golden-butterfly/ <comment><AUTHOR> The Golden Butterfly (is a modified All Weather Portfolio)

> _Stocks: 20% Domestic Large Cap Fund (Vanguard's VTI or Goldman Sach's > JUST), 20% Domestic Small Cap Value (Vanguard's VBR)_

> _Bonds: 20% Long Term (Vanguard's BLV), 20% Short Term (Vanguard's BSV)_

> _Real Assets: 20% Gold (SPDR's GLD)_

The All Weather Portfolio:

> _Stocks: 30% Domestic Total Stock Market (VG total stock)_

> _Bonds: 40% Long Term, 15% Intermediate-Term_

> _Real Assets: 7.5% Commodities, 7.5% Gold_

<comment><AUTHOR> What about investing in sustainable, innovative startups and small businesses (and crowdfunding campaigns)? What about direct capital investment? What about the American dream?

(Small businesses are a significant source of growth in our economy today and for the future)</comment></comment>


This Woman Wants to Be Your Networking Wingman - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681787/this-woman-wants-to-be-your-networking-wingman?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fastcompany%2Fheadlines+(Fast+Company)

<comment><USER2> UNSUBSCRIBE</comment>


Greek island to run on wind, solar power - <AUTHOR> https://techxplore.com/news/2018-08-renewable-resort-greek-island-solar.html <comment><USER2> That's a good start, now if only the Greek government would allow us individuals to use wind and solar energy (with a proper plan including a battery storage system) without breaking the law. It's illegal to own a house not connected to the national grid.

<comment><USER3> Would it be legal to connect a house to the national grid, and attach the meter to a whole panel that has basically one live 230V 10A circuit on it, with a 15W lightbulb connected? The rest of the house could have its own offgrid panel and inverter system, islanded from the grid-connected breaker panel.

<comment><USER2> To answer your question (and a similar comment directly below) that's one solution, but you still have to pay monthly charges and taxes even if you have a "dummy" connection. Besides the fact that if the utility worker that checks the electricity meters (yeah they're not online!), comes around for a reading and sees that you have solar/wind you're screwed.

<comment><USER3> You're screwed how? Because it's not allowed to have a photovoltaic system that is separate from and islanded from the grid? As long as your meter and the panel it is connected to are up to legal code, what is illegal?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The Greek regulatory authority for energy is actively planning the connection of most of the islands to the continental grid using submarine cables. [1]

On top of that Euroasia Interconnector will be connecting the grinds of Greece, Cyprus and Israel forming the world's longest submarine power cable. [2]

Connecting the power grid is cheaper long-term. Greece has roughly 200 inhabited islands.

[1] [http://www.ekathimerini.com/230518/article/ekathimerini/busi...](http://www.ekathimerini.com/230518/article/ekathimerini/business/third- phase-of-project-to-connect-islands-to-mainland-power-grid-put-to-tender)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroAsia_Interconnector#/media...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroAsia_Interconnector#/media/File:EuroAsia_Map.jpg)

<comment><USER5> From what I gather, the price of local generation has reached the point where it is less than the cost of high voltage transmission. Add to that battery storage will reach about 100kwh in the next two years and there's no reason anywhere should need to be connected to the massive grids we've known in the past.

<comment><USER6> What's the meaning of that battery number 100 kWh?

<comment><USER7> I guess he means 100$/kWh...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Speaking of islands... How about Hawaii? They burn a lot of oil to generate electricity. I wish we could speed up the move to wind and solar there.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power- plant...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power- plants/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c878c73f2d01)

<comment><USER9> Hawaii has _too much_ sun, because of the isolated nature of its electric grid, meaning they have nowhere to shift power to or from. If we had a good storage option, or if one was deployed in Hawaii, the situation would change dramatically.

<comment><USER10> I wonder if they could do some sort of pumped hydro with the ocean. Dam off a bay somewhere?

<comment><USER11> Salt water is hard to work with.

Here's what a vaguely correctly sized station looks like:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power_Plant)

The upper reservoir is measured in miles and is 300 feet above the lower reservoir.

One half as big would still be pretty useful, but that's still big.

<comment><USER12> Also, the volcanic geology of Hawaii means you want to have a very reliable seal on the bottom of that reservoir or you will be leaking tons of salt water into the local groundwater system. Possible, as modern landfills are sealed this way, but much more expensive than a fresh water lake. Not sure it has ever been done, actually.

As for damning off a bay; that does not work so well as you would want a decent elevation drop for energy storage.

Edit: Reading over the Ludington pumped station wikipedia page, it does have a sealed bottom. It is on another naturally porous geologic setting, sand dunes, and is above the water table. Thus the need for a sealed reservoir.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I was bummed to learn that the electricity on some islands (like Providencia) is provided by a diesel generator that runs 24/7\. This in a climate that is sunny and windy pretty much all year.

<comment><USER14> This is the case for almost every island in the world!

<comment><USER15> Notably, Block Island, off the coast of Rhode Island[1], is powered 100% by five offshore wind turbines.[2] The Block Island generators were switched off in 2017. It is awe inspiring to see the turbines up close via boat. It feels like a vision of the future.

[1]: for international users: Rhode Island is a small US state which is not actually an island.

[2]: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_Island_Wind_Farm](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_Island_Wind_Farm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Hypothesis: the development of batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels, combine to make it less necessary to live near to large population centers. There was a time when the mill needed to be near a source of running or falling water, and then later fossil fuels made that unnecessary, and industrial production moved to different places. Batteries + wind/solar might have a similar impact, making islands (and other remote places) have less of a disadvantage then before.

Just a thought I had, which I have given about 90 seconds' consideration to. Might be wrong.

<comment><USER5> You're right. In the future you may have a holiday home on the beach that you power using your car when you go on trips for the weekend. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66D6spRemGk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66D6spRemGk)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is awesome. There are a so many places in the aegean where its cost prohibitive to connect to existing electricity (even when its available within a few kilometers). That problem, coupled with consistent presence of wind and sun, makes its an excellent place for off-grid solutions to flourish.

<comment><USER18> Yes, it potentially also helps solve another problem many greek islands have: water shortages. With surplus clean energy they could invest in desalination plants to produce drinking water and stop depleting their natural resources.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > TILOS—Technology Innovation for the Local Scale Optimum Integration of > Battery Energy Storage

Not that it really matters, but I think somebody doesn't understand how initials work.

</comment><comment><USER20> Costa Rica IIRC leads the world in renewables, followed closely by some North African and Middle Eastern countries.

<comment><USER21> There are several countries that run near 100% renewable. Most of them are getting their electricity from hydro dams though, rather than solar and wind.

Hydro dams have their own environmental concerns.

<comment><USER22> Too much Hydro (by percentage of generation) also leaves the power generation at risk if a drought occurs too[1][2][3].

There is just too much uncertainty in long term seasonal rain fall levels, especially with the effects of climate change as well as El Niño and La Niña cycles. Resulting in low production years.

[1][http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy- green/sd...](http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/sd-fi- hydro-rain-20170227-story.html) [2] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/08/malawi- blackou...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/08/malawi-blackouts- drought-hydro-power) [3] [https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/mar/30/weatherwatch- ha...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/mar/30/weatherwatch-hambling- venezuela-hydroelectric-dam-guri-dry-reservoirs-colombia)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've been there. Most of them already do. People rarely rely on the main grid anymore.</comment>


How to (not) have sex in the 600s - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/erik_kaars/status/1196756091289423875 <comment><USER2> While there are some extras by this bishop, the common taboos around marriage and sex (no extramarital sex, no homosexuality, no incest, no bestiality, no public nudity, no polygamy, etc.) appear to be created -- consciously or otherwise -- to promote reproduction in nuclear families.

No bastards, divorces, single parents, abandoned children, parentless adults, etc.

Those taboos are the "right" ones, assuming those goals are in fact the preeminent objectives of human society.

<comment><USER3> Or, more likely: Archbishop Theodore was asexual (before we had labels for such things) so it was effortless for him to label the bulk of the heterosexual experience as sinful. He thought it was all super gross; just like how he felt about beastiality and homosexual acts.

How does _not_ cultivating a healthy sexual relationship with your spouse lead to a nuclear family?

<comment><USER2> As I mentioned, Archbishop Theodore himself takes a historically extreme version of sexual taboos. And a celibate clergy may have something to do with that.

My points were around the more standard taboos in the list.

> How does not cultivating a healthy sexual relationship with your spouse lead > to a nuclear family?

Without defining what is or isn't "healthy," Judais/Christianity explicitly does at least broadly support intramarital children/sex.

"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)

"God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'" (Genesis 1:28)

"He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh" (Matthew 19:4)

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h And, of course, the entire book Song of Solomon:)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> While it's certainly interesting to read about an early medieval perspective, it's important to keep in mind that this is only the perspective from a single Archbishop. I'm sure many people at the time disagreed with him.

<comment><USER5> Maybe, but it kind of became (or already was?) the official position of the catholic church for many centuries. And many of his rules (mariage, bestiality, etc.) were supported by the bible.

A theologist once wrote that the concepts of deadly sins and heaven/hell are one of the most ingenious things anybody has ever invented [+], at least if you are a ruler. With these concepts the church was able to control people even until their last moment (their death). No matter how terrible life as a simple farmer was in the middle ages, who would dare to risk their sweet and pain-free eternal life in heaven by opposing the king and the pope?

I am wondering whether the interest of the church in controlling the bedrooms of their sheep was motivated by the same idea: Not allowing any kind of escape, even temporarily, from hell on earth.

[+] Yes, I know the concepts are older than the catholic church and even christianity but you have to admit that the catholic church had really an unhealthy obsession for the afterlife.

<comment><USER6> > Not allowing any kind of escape, even temporarily, from hell on earth.

It may read like harmful advice now, but I can imagine that "don't fuck too much" might have been meant well back then (as I believe it is usually meant well today). Certainly lust has caused much suffering in the world, on scales large and small, and this looks like a rather ham-fisted attempt to blunt the worst of effects of lust.

What I find fascinating is that the people would even _permit the Church to comment_ on such intimate matters and in such agonizing detail. Of all the myriad human issues dealt with in the Bible, sexual misconduct isn't particularly important (the one counter example is Jesus mentioning divorce in his sermon on the mount).

This intersection between religion and sexuality is interesting and someone should look into it.

<comment><USER4> Restricting sex to strict monogamy would definitely limit the spread of STDs and prevent some socially disruptive things like a divorce with children, parents rejecting illegitimate children, etc. Of course in real life none of that ever actually worked, and things like condoms and economic equality might work better. Or not. We haven't exactly solved these issues yet.

But yeah, if people actually cared about what Jesus said about anything, poverty would have been solved a long time ago.

<comment><USER7> I think what you said about condoms highlights a key historical difference. Throughout most of humanity's moral development, there was no such thing as protection, against STDs or pregnancy, other than the rhythm method or induced abortion. Definitely, there was wisdom in limiting the number of partners and orifices in much of that time.

Edit: which is to say, technology can affect morality and there's a good reason for these attitudes to change now.

Also, what you said about Jesus and poverty is spot-on. I really wish more Christians would embrace the truly good and radical parts of Christianity instead of fixating on arcane moral rules.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd be very curious to see a timeline of the social acceptability of various sexual practices: homosexuality, out-of-wedlock sex, bestiality, multiple partners at once...

About homosexuality for example, my naive vision is that it was "not OK" until very recently. Which is very certainly completely wrong.

It also depends a lot on the part of the world obviously

<comment><USER9> > About homosexuality for example, my naive vision is that it was "not OK" > until very recently

Well... it was not "OK" until recently for some time. But was "OK" for some time before that. Atleast in some places... well.. atleast ancient greeks and romans didn't seem to care about that.

<comment><USER10> After a little more than a 1000 years we've almost reverted to the sexual freedom of the Roman Empire. Sex work and decorating your living room with well endowed gods of fertility is still frowned upon in most of the world.

In fact, in some countries gore is more acceptable than female breasts.

<comment><USER11> The sexual freedom of the Romans of the Roman Empire did not exist in the Romans that BUILT that Roman empire. They were, although the same blood, different peoples. Just as the founders of our nations and we today are different peoples. The same pretty much with every Empire that has come and gone including the Greeks.

<comment><USER12> > The sexual freedom of the Romans of the Roman Empire did not exist in the > Romans that BUILT that Roman empire. They were, although the same blood, > different peoples.

Not exactly the same blood; the Empire included a lot of territory outside Italy. Imperial Rome itself received a lot of population from foreign territories (it was an important place!), especially the East where most of the population was.

The rural Italians near Rome were more or less the same during the Empire as they were during the building process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Most of these are pretty understandable if you consider it sinful to do things solely for the purpose of pleasure. They're an extreme interpretation of a pretty common idea.

</comment><comment><USER14> After some personal experience, I ended up feeling quite a bit like most of the morality demonstrated in this thread. I'm extremely curious if anyone knows about explanations of Christian views on sexuality (by that I mean paragraphs retracings roots of their doctrine, rather than conclusion and judgement).</comment>


High-resolution images of a molecule as it breaks and reforms chemical bonds - <AUTHOR> http://phys.org/news/2013-05-first-ever-high-resolution-images-molecule-reforms.html <comment><USER2> Fantastic. [http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/2013/2-firsteve...](http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/2013/2-firsteverhig.jpg)

Not sure how they "feel" the interactions without disturbing them but that's why they are the physicists.

<comment><USER3> > how they "feel" the interactions without disturbing them

They can't. I don't know if there are quantum complications at that scale that change this picture, but my basic idea from classical physics is that Newton's Third Law says the probe can't have a force exerted on it by the sample (action) without also simultaneously itself exerting a force on the sample (reaction).

> The single-atom moving finger of the nc-AFM

The mass of the detector particle being deflected by the fields is small compared to the mass of the molecule being measured. So a force large enough to move the probe by a lot might still be small enough to only move the sample by a little.

The bottom line is, you can't measure a sample without disturbing it, but as the ratio of probe mass to sample mass shrinks, the level of that disturbance also shrinks. In this case they're using a single atom probe to measure a large organic molecule, apparently the ratio is small enough.

> Resulting movements of the stylus are detected by a laser beam

I guess in order to engineer a system this small, you need a probe to measure the probe. Again I'm guessing the momentum of the photons from the laser that are used to measure the probe atom is small enough not to appreciably deflect the probe.

<comment><USER4> Well, there are a lot of quantum complications in this scale, the structure of the bounds is totally a quantum effect. And there are some problems with the Newton's Third Law when you consider the electromagnetic field. Anyway the general idea of force-reaction still holds, so it's a good approximation for this experiment. If the tip "see" the molecule, then the molecule "see" the tip.

The problem with your explanation is that the probe is much much bigger than 1 atom. It's a whole macroscopic tip, with a mass of a few grams. The tip of the tip use a single CO molecule, so the prove ends in a single atom, but the atom is attached to a big structure. If the tip were thicker, they would measure an average of the surface under the tip, with a very sharp tip they measure a small area.

The molecules are attached to a silver surface, so they are relatively fixed. The O atom in the CO molecule in the tip is approached to measure the force at each point of the surface. I couldn't find the exact distance but Wikipedia says that in similar experiments the distance is between 10A and 100A. For comparison, a bound between two Carbons in a molecule is approximately 1.5A. So the CO molecule is far away and the force is very small (in the absolute and the relative sense), and the system must use an incredible amount of amplification.

But the force in the sample molecule is also relatively small, so it isn't disturbed too much, and the data that you get are very similar to the data of the unperturbed molecule.

I suppose that it's possible to tweak the setting to decrease the distance so the interaction between the molecule in the tip and the sample molecule is smaller. I suppose that it's possible to use this to make some reactions happen, but I don't remember an experiment with this phenomenon. Anyway a usual problem is to crash the tip against the surface. It's bad for the tip, you need to pick another CO molecule and if it hit the sample molecule it could be interesting. With a similar microscope that use the tunnel effect it's possible to move atoms from one place to another, so it's possible to do things on the surface using the correct settings. You can even do a movie! <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5637150>

<comment><USER3> > the probe is much much bigger than 1 atom

I guess I didn't clearly state an additional assumption of my explanation. I assumed the oxygen atom has an electric charge, the rest of the probe structure is electrically neutral, and the electrostatic attraction/repulsion of charges is the mechanism by which the oxygen atom on the probe reacts to the sample [1].

So while the rest of the probe structure does exist, it's effectively [2] electrically neutral.

[1] I think we can agree that the gravitational attraction of the probe and sample to each other is way too small to matter.

[2] I think the large probe structure is close enough to neutral and/or far enough away from the sample to have an effect which is smaller than the effect of the oxygen atom. The structure may contribute some nontrivial amount of noise due to being neither exactly neutral nor infinitely far away, but not enough to totally drown out the signal from the oxygen atom.

<comment><USER4> I've found a previous article with more information and the full article available: "The chemical structure of a molecule resolved by atomic force microscopy" <http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5944/1110>

In this article, they explain that to get a good image, the distance between the tip and the molecule should be only ~1A. It's similar to the distance between atoms in the molecule, so the force is (relatively) big. Another important point is that using simulations to fit the data, they found that the main contribution to the force is not electrostatic, it's the Pauli repulsion (that is a quantum effect). Nevertheless if the tip "see" the molecule, then the molecule "see" the tip.

An important detail is that the Oxygen atom is small and it's not possible to measure how it is moved by the forces. The molecule applies a small force to the Oxygen atom that is attached to the Carbon atom that is attached to the big tip. The tip resonates like a tuning fork, and the small force on the Oxygen atom changes slightly the resonating frequency of the whole system. They measure this frequency shift and use it to calculate the force on the Oxygen atom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Amazing stuff, feels really good to see that it is exactly the same as we read in textbooks.

<comment><USER6> When I looked at chemical symbols before seeing this I had always assumed them to be a sort of vague outline of what was really happening. It's amazing to think that the way chemicals bond is the same in reality as drawn in textbooks.

<comment><USER7> They choosed a molecule that was similar to its diagram, but that's not always the case.

the main difference is that the diagram is 2D, and molecules are usualy 3D.

<comment><USER8> I think you can see some slight 3D effects in the picture: [http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/2013/2-firsteve...](http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/2013/2-firsteverhig.jpg)

In the two variants on the right, their edges seem to be curling upward making a bowl shape. Their edges are also brighter, which perhaps means they are closer to the probe than parts that are farther away. Additionally, the hexagons are also not all the same shape. I assume that's due to the curling.

I would be interested to know if my interpretation of the image is correct, or if the molecule is really flat and what I'm seeing is an artifact.

<comment><USER9> I am curious as to the mathematical properties (definitions?) of the hexagonal shape that make it common in natural structures ([http://www.space.com/3611-bizarre-hexagon-spotted- saturn.htm...](http://www.space.com/3611-bizarre-hexagon-spotted- saturn.html)).

I probably learned it in some chem course, and later forgot as all my math and science got applied to business :(

<comment><USER10> You don't really need much math to see why this is happening. First, the bonds in a benzene ring aren't discrete like we draw them, alternating between single bonds and double bonds. It's also important to realize that although we typically represent benzene in 2D all molecules really have a 3D geometry.

Electron orbitals can overlap in different ways depending on the geometry of the atom and its electronics. See this for a picture: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Benzene_Representations.sv...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Benzene_Representations.svg) So, the electrons in a benzene ring really form more of a cloud around the entire ring. You'd expect this to pull the atoms into a perfect circle with the carbon atoms all being equidistance from each other, all else being equal.

However, each carbon atom also has a hydrogen atom attached to it. So now you have a sort of a circle with 6 "strings" attached at points equidistant around the circle all pulling outward, perpendicular to the circle.

Imagine a perfectly circular piece of string with 6 strings attached equidistantly around the circle. You apply an equal force perpendicular to the surface of the circle.

Hopefully you can see how this would result in the original circular string being "deformed" into a hexagon.

It's a far leap from there to say why hexagons are "so common in nature." Are they? Relative to what? I don't know that any of this has anything to do with the shape of that storm you linked to.

<comment><USER9> > It's a far leap from there to say why hexagons are "so common in nature."

I was thinking of things (compared to other geometric shapes) like the storm, honey bee cells (honeycombs), basalt columns [1], turtle shells (although irregular), and a common snowflake shape.

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

<comment><USER10> There are three regular polygons you can use to tile a plane: triangles, squares, and hexagons. The regular hexagonal packing is the densest sphere packing in the plane, so any time you have objects constrained to a plane which for the sake of maximizing or minimizing some force want to be equidistant from each other you'll get something close to a hexagon.

<comment><USER10> I'll add that sometimes a shape like that might result from a more evolutionary process. In a 2D plane a circle is the structure which most equally distributes force, so it's the shape most able to hold up under pressure.

But a tile of circles isn't so fortunate. Of all the possible tilings, the hexagonal tiling holds up the best precisely because it's the densest sphere packing in the plane.

Other arrangements might appear, but over the course of time you're more likely to see hexagonal tilings since those are the ones that best survive external forces.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Original paper here

[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2013/05/29/science.1...](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2013/05/29/science.1238187)

</comment><comment><USER12> Incredible stuff, seems essentially (to a layman) like a stylus on vinyl records.</comment>


All the energy used in the US - <AUTHOR> http://energyliteracy.com/ <comment><USER2> Site displays only a blank screen for me</comment>


Tech execs named to Saudi board amid reportedly murdered journalist controversy - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-execs-named-saudi-board-controversy-jamal-khashoggi-disappearance-2018-10?op=1 <comment><AUTHOR> Original title: "Top tech industry execs named to a Saudi advisory board amid controversy over reportedly murdered journalist" (28 characters too long).</comment>


Ted Nelson: Why I Don't Buy In - <AUTHOR> http://ted.hyperland.com/buyin.txt

<comment><USER2> I assume this was written a long time ago... ?</comment>


The Best Things and Stuff of 2016 - <AUTHOR> http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/2016-computer-review <comment><AUTHOR> To HN moderator, a new submission of this just posted. Please, merge this post with new one.

Thank you.</comment>


Use AdBlocking in Your Dev Environment - <AUTHOR> https://andreicioara.com/use-adblocking-in-your-dev-environment-48db500d9b86 <comment><AUTHOR> I am the author of the article. Happy to have a discussion here.</comment>


Location Aware: Smart Rollout for Yahoo! Fire Eagle - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/location_aware_smart_rollout_f.php <comment><AUTHOR> Yahoo has probably learned from the privacy issues that Facebook's Beacon has gone through.

Plus, in the context of the probable Microsoft takeover, it reminds us how different the cultures between Microsoft and Yahoo are: Yahoo being naturally more committed to open standards.

</comment><comment><USER2> checked out the API, seemed pretty solid. Not that I know much about APIs, but in that I could get a hello world (aka, find my location) within 20 minutes.</comment>


Why getting traction is so hard these days - <AUTHOR> http://andrewchen.co/growth-is-getting-hard/ <comment><USER2> This article is a mess.

Traction (esp. on mobile) has been hard for a long, long time; it's absolutely not a new problem in 2017. Why? The competition to get and keep user attention is BRUTAL.

On one side, we've got large, entrenched players (FB, Google, etc.). And when something catches their eye, they pull it into their platform (FB vs Foursquare, FB vs Snap, Apple vs Instapaper, etc.). This puts a soft upper- bound on certain kinds of mobile ideas.

On the other side, we've got an amazingly efficient ecosystem for anyone with a $200 laptop, a free Wifi connection, and talent to build the next great app. To the first order: hosting, tools, etc are all free -- there are effectively no barriers to entry.

On the article's content, some of the charts are 5-10+yrs old, which is forever in Internet terms. It also says, "Paying for acquisition is one of the key channels still available" \-- for very large national or global brands...maybe..? But if you are a startup or midsized mobile app company and your plan is to pay for customers, you need a new plan.

<comment><USER3> > _Traction (esp. on mobile) has been hard for a long, long time; it 's > absolutely not a new problem in 2017. Why? The competition to get and keep > user attention is BRUTAL._

That doesn't make the article "a mess", just because it doesn't delve into a particular pain point of one aspect of what it discusses -- that's classic "first HN comment" hyperbole.

The article offers a much broader view, and goes into discussing trends, similar patterns in history, for several aspects way beyond "mobile traction".

Which is also why "some of the charts are 5 years old". Because the cycle the article refers to is not some short-term trend, but an overall assessment of where things were and are going.

<comment><USER2> ..but a chart that is five years old and a fast-moving space like the Internet: difficult to argue patterns, since the patterns may have changed dramatically since the chart was made!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Full page 'give me your email' popover on firstload is a great way of losing traction from me.

<comment><USER5> Yes, anytime I see that happen the website immediately loses all respect. I guess the A/B split tests might tell you do it but it is still a pretty dick thing to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is why I believe ad tech is a zero-sum game.

New channels (banner ads, social ads, online video ads, etc) appear ad old ones dry (TV, radio, etc) up. But the spend doesn't -- an ad buyer has a campaign budget of $X, and is looking to maximize the amount of lift they can get for that budget.

<comment><USER7> "50% of your advertising budget is wasted, the problem is no one can tell you which 50%."

I don't think that's changed?

<comment><USER6> It's changed a little bit -- 50% of your advertising budget is wasted, and you can generally tell which 50% -- but past performance is now a poor indicator of future returns. So you can tell what 50% was wasted, but it's harder to tell what's going to work next time.

<comment><USER8> The question of which 50% gets even murkier the more data we have. For example, cross-channel/cross-device attribution used to be a known thing, but it was always pretty hazy because pretty much all analytics and conversion tracking was last click (or first touch if you're a direct mail company).

Then we started getting attribution tools and getting different pieces of the puzzle. Now the issue has become that there's all these ways of looking at the data that can point you in the right general direction, but short of dynamic/data-driven attribution models with MASSIVE amounts of data feeding into them, it can still be difficult to say "actually this is what this channel did for us."

For orgs comfortable with data that is a bit fuzzier, that's fine, but for orgs where people are held to strict numbers based on the last click, it can hobble them when it comes to higher-funnel or view-through heavy channels like social, display, PR, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> #6 Competing with boredom is easier than competing with Facebook + Google

^ this one stood out as a particularly strong point -- there's a finite amount of time people have to burn on apps for non-utilitarian purposes, and social networks have been pretty effective at eating that all up.

To me it suggests that consumer applications no longer can afford to merely be fun or entertaining (unless they're good enough at that to compete with Facebook, Snapchat, etc for more than a week of usage). The focus really has to be on utility and solving pain-points that go beyond disrupting boredom and/or "connecting people" in what have become conventional formats.

</comment><comment><USER10> At the end of the article it says: PS. Get new updates/analysis on tech and startups

Why on earth would I sign up to a regular update from a person who simply lists all the ways in which it is hard to get traction? It's absolutely the case that you need to be clever to market a business and can't just throw shit at a wall. I welcome that, because it increases the barrier to entry.

This means that those who get it right can generate some serious revenue/profits and ultimately a sustainable business.

</comment><comment><USER11> Relevant previous HN discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12044872](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12044872)

</comment><comment><USER12> I agree that web and mobile both seem to have gotten kind of stagnant. Is there a next big platform on the horizon? (I worry that there isn't)

<comment><USER13> AR / VR ?

<comment><USER14> Yes. There's a heck of a lot you could do with AR nobody's done yet.

On the other hand, if you get into that business now you're in direct competition with the likes of Google and Apple.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Me clicks on the link.

Me get's greeted with a giant fullscreen email grabbing popup.

Me thinks: Ok, I know why this guy has problems getting traction.

Don't bug people to follow you. Instead, make something people want.

<comment><USER16> And sell it, right? I mean, at some point you need the money. Either 1\. you get it from the ads, and the people get bugged up front, or 2\. you just have a paywall and sell it or, 3\. you are contributing content to the internet and not looking for monetary compensation.

<comment><USER17> We need much more of #3 than what we have. In relative terms, it seems #3 is shrinking on the Internet over the decades.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've had the solution to this for like twenty years. I don't have the time or inclination to do it.

Automate MLM (Multi-Level Marketing), six or more levels deep.

"Affiliate Program" six or more levels (degrees of separation) to make a word- of-mouth network that rewards people for making connections between sellers and customers. Public all the data. Self-reinforcing, self-stabilizing.

I have no idea why no one has done this before. To me it is blindingly obvious.

You could start tomorrow and eat Amazon's lunch within the year. Do it right and nothing could stop you, no one could even begin to compete thanks to Metcalfe's law. (In other words, if someone _could_ do a better job than you the correct thing to do would be to quit and join their network. In other words, there is a strange attractor that results in automatic partition healing.)

Blah blah blah yadda yadda _waves hands_

I'll leave the details as the proverbial "exercise for the reader".

<comment><USER18> could you care to elaborate a bit more on that? if you don't feel like discussing here, my contact info is on my profile.

<comment><USER7> email sent.

You can see for yourself one of the reasons why I don't try to pursue it: skeptics. Thank you for having an open mind dude! ;-)</comment></comment></comment>


Andrew Chen: I'm joining Uber. Here's why - <AUTHOR> http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=96c185f15d9646d8014b765b7&id=cfb85a2dec&e=e7462e9ccc

<comment><USER2> Congrats to Andrew Chen! Heard him on the Product Hunt podcast and have learned a lot from his newsletter and Tweets.</comment>


Mario Maker: Create Your Own Super Mario Levels - <AUTHOR> http://e3.nintendo.com/games/wiiu/mario-maker/

<comment><USER2> I bought a Wii U because I have a then-6 year old son and I wanted him to enjoy playing games with me that didn't involve shooting other people full of holes.

My fondest memories of my childhood aren't playing Contra or Street Fighter, but games like Chip N' Dale and Duck Tales.

The Wii U's game category has been much slower than others, but I feel like every single game Nintendo proper releases is pure gold, and there's plenty of 3rd-party games that have seen hundreds of hours of family gameplay (Rayman Legends).

Anyways, I hope this release brings about a new generation of Really Hard Mario levels!

<comment><USER3> That's what a lot of the commentary I've heard about Splatoon has focused on.

Nintendo took a really popular (and good) genre, the team based shooter, and made it perfectly family friendly. Easy to understand, lots of fun, no exploding heads, no dismemberments, nothing objectionable.

<comment><USER4> It's been tried before, but not with the talent of Nintendo behind it. I remember playing the Nerf-branded UT game with my nephew many years ago, for example.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So much potential in this - a few years ago myself and a bunch of friends were obsessed with ROM hacks for Super Mario World for the SNES; some of them were just really well-designed levels, and some of them were absolute hell, basically requiring the use of an emulator to save states and rewind. It created a completely different feel of game, and the simple and consistent physics of a Mario game was the perfect limitation for weird and strange things to happen.

Here's a video of one of one of the difficult levels: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teAqRZX4hbY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teAqRZX4hbY)

<comment><USER6> I've never see Kaizo Mario World before. That's amazingly clever. It's easy to just, say, spam a screenful of koopas at you to make something hard. These levels, though are hard because they involve a complex interaction of Mario skills, with zero tolerance for getting it wrong. If you've played enough Mario, some of the sections are actually funny in the same way that comics are: I immediately see how difficult the task is, why, and the combination of both almost makes me laugh.

I actually threw up my hands when I saw not only that the player had to throw a baby Yoshi up in the air to eat an enemy, but that the designer of the level expected this! Same when I realized that the the length of an area was tuned so that it was juuuuuust smaller than the amount of time Yoshi held a shell in his mouth before swallowing.

<comment><USER7> Most SMW ROM hacks are built with the assumption that the user will use save states, which dramatically offsets the execution difficulty.

<comment><USER8> Are there any that are different take on SMW that aren't crazy difficult? Like, what are the best SMW ROM hacks that are the most well thought-out.

Ditto for Zelda, those two are my favorite games but I can only play the same game so much.

<comment><USER6> The recent Link Between Worlds for the 3DS is a direct sequel to the SNES Link to the Past, and in many ways, it's like a remix. I was skeptical, as I also adore LttP, but I really enjoyed the new one for the 3DS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This could be enough to push me over the edge and buy a Wii U. It is very cool that Nintendo have embraced user made content, after being so against it for what seems like forever.

edit: a couple of replies made me realize that I was off the mark slightly with my comment. I should have focused on how their attempts to support user made content have seemed to run into their legal department's over the top desire to "defend" their character IP.

<comment><USER10> I'm not disagreeing that they are against user made content per se, but there are plenty of examples where they've embraced user content, ever since [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Paint](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Paint)

and even to the more recent Wario-Ware games where you can make your own mini- games.

<comment><USER11> even looking at the screnshots, they seem to have borrowed heavily from the Mario Paint interface, stream of icons on the top.

No idea why they used a dog icon in the corner. IIRC that was the undo button in Mario Paint. [http://e3.nintendo.com/_ui/images/games/wiiu/mario- maker/scr...](http://e3.nintendo.com/_ui/images/games/wiiu/mario- maker/screenshot7.jpg) Maybe it's a pun in Japanese?

<comment><USER12> And the fly swatting and clapping hands that are also directly ripped out of Mario Paint.

I'm a bit disappointed that they apparently didn't put in the music editor.

> No idea why they used a dog icon in the corner.

Perhaps him sneezing is related somehow? "Blowing away changes"…

Edit: Or the similarity between Inu (Dog) and Undo?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> For those who are thinking about picking up a Wii U, Nintendo is selling refurbished consoles for $200. For all the reports I have read, they are basically brand new systems (in appearance).

[https://store.nintendo.com/ng3/us/po/browse/productDetailCol...](https://store.nintendo.com/ng3/us/po/browse/productDetailColorSizePicker.jsp?categoryNav=true&navAction=jump&navCount=0&atg.multisite.remap=false&productId=prod150200&categoryId=cat140077)

<comment><USER14> I just got mine from UPS earlier today. I can confirm that it's indistinguishable from a new console. It may even be brand new. They are likely getting returned inventory from retailers since it hasn't been selling as well as hoped.

It also comes with a 3 year warranty and a free copy of Nintendo Land. If you get Mario Kart 8 before the end of July, you can get a free game with it. In total, it's about $250 for a console still early in its cycle and 3 good games. It's a great deal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a hardly a new idea but nice to see it applied to a famous franchise like Mario.

Little Big Planet is 2D platformer released in 2008 whose maps were designed built in house through their own level editor. They provided a (Stephen Fry narrated, dear lord) interactive tutorial and a complete system to share levels and play with your friends.

There _were_ some performance issues with some of the more complicated levels and the PS3's limited RAM maintaining a big ole physics engine.

But since this is just Mario, level complexity shouldn't be a problem. Still, I don't know if Mario provides enough variety to remain interesting for years.

THEN AGAIN - there is a kid born every day who's never played a Mario game before, maybe things should stay simple.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm kind of interested in the last screenshot ([http://e3.nintendo.com/_ui/images/games/wiiu/mario- maker/scr...](http://e3.nintendo.com/_ui/images/games/wiiu/mario- maker/screenshot7.jpg)).

Is that just post production, or do they actually allow the editor to define a set of moves and abstract over time, a la Brett Victor?

<comment><USER16> My guess is that when you pause the action and enter the edit screen, you are able to view a trail of your previous positions. I think that button in the bottom left toggles it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> There has been an unofficial tool for editing Super Mario World levels available for many years now.

[http://www.smwiki.net/wiki/Lunar_Magic](http://www.smwiki.net/wiki/Lunar_Magic)

I wonder how Mario Maker will compare in functionality and ease of use.

</comment><comment><USER18> Darn, it's only available for WiiU. I feel like most hardcore level makers would work from PC. Obviously, that's not really their target but would have been cool to have it on PC.

<comment><USER11> They'd have to support it on the PC as well. I suppose it's more of an attack surface.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you have an iPad, PixelPress Floors is a great option - [http://projectpixelpress.com/floors/](http://projectpixelpress.com/floors/)

</comment><comment><USER16> I'd love for them to toss in a music maker like Gameboy Camera's Trippy H or Mario Paint Composer. To create original compositions using Nintendo's sound palette would really complete the experience.

Lovers of the series and fans of the genre can agree that a side scroller's music makes the whole game's flow fit together. An avant garde remix of Mario's theme would be the perfect accompaniment to some of the experimental levels people will create.

</comment><comment><USER20> I wonder if you can put a spring thing that allows you to jump over the pole. This is kinda amazing, you can even update the graphics. I'm guessing 30 dollars and a download

<comment><USER21> I'm guessing no. I don't remember how,* but I managed to jump higher than the level pole once, but hit an invisible wall and slid down it anyway.

*Game Genie? Emulated ROM?

<comment><USER22> On which one? As a kid I was able to jump over the flag in World 3-3 with just the right timing ([http://ian- albert.com/games/super_mario_bros_maps/mario-3-3....](http://ian- albert.com/games/super_mario_bros_maps/mario-3-3.gif)). The castle wall simply continued on forever, and I ran until time ended, hoping there would be a secret of some kind at the end.

The bounding box for the flag top is pretty tall, so I had to get a lot of air in order to clear it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Hopefully they add additional options (yoshi, invisible blocks, fire flowers, etc.) otherwise I will probably pass. It does seem like an early build though, so that's a good sign that they will.

</comment><comment><USER24> I read about this awhile ago and I didn't think it sounded all that fun. But looking at the pictures, it actually looks like it could be really cool. I'm definitely going to get this.

</comment><comment><USER25> Sonic had debug mode 20 years ago: [http://sonic.wikia.com/wiki/Debug_Mode](http://sonic.wikia.com/wiki/Debug_Mode)

<comment><USER26> That wasn't quite like building your own levels though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Okay but how long will it take before you get bored with this? Somehow I can't imagine this to hold anybody's attention for longer than 5 minutes.

</comment><comment><USER28> That's really cool. I guess we'll see quite a few messed up levels created with this. (I mean messed up in a good way.)

</comment><comment><USER29> I had a code for my game genie that enabled this functionality. It was fun hacking away at Mario 3.

</comment><comment><USER30> Wanted something like this when I was 8.

</comment><comment><USER31> wow - after all these years... however my guess this is not open source?

<comment><USER31> who the fuck downvoted? what the fuck is wrong with you guys!! prick fuckers get a life</comment></comment>


Programmers should learn how to benchmark, or I will kill them all - <AUTHOR> https://www.omniref.com/ruby/2.2.1/symbols/Benchmark/bm?#annotation=4095926&line=182

<comment><USER2> The title should be changed to reflect the purpose of the link, rather than a clickbait-y reference to your site/Zed's article.

Also, Zed's article "Programmers Need To Learn Statistics Or I Will Kill Them All" has been posted seven times already to HN.</comment>


Ask HN: I want to create an anti-corruption webapp. How do I protect myself? - <AUTHOR> I'm from a 3rd world country but was raised in an European country.
I want to create a Django webapp to register corruption by severity, price of bribe, location, and branch of government.
However I intend to travel to my home country and I just found out that I can't buy domains or hosting without revealing my name and address.
Most privacy guides on the Internet assume the adversary is the NSA or FBI and suggest Tor or other tools that are hard for normal people in a 3rd world country. My adversaries are just local corrupt people.
How can I buy domain and hosting without exposing myself? <comment><USER2> There's smaller companies that just require a name and cash (via postal mail), e.g. [http://www.mediaon.com/](http://www.mediaon.com/) I've used them once for fun and it's impossible to get a domain out or transferred later without revealing your name and address. Expect little to no support.

You can also use free domains [https://www.freenom.com/en/freeandpaiddomains.html](https://www.freenom.com/en/freeandpaiddomains.html) I've only encountered them fighting spam but I guess they have their use.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you want to protect yourself, assume that the local corrupt people are not morons and learn how to use Tor and the other privacy tools.

Protecting your end users may be more complicated.</comment>


Random Forests in Python - <AUTHOR> http://blog.yhathq.com/posts/random-forests-in-python.html <comment><USER2> I've been seeing a lot of machine learning resources lately, all with one key thing missing: a simple, real world example of what I can use it for. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt the examples are numerous, but for someone who has never even _dabbled_ in machine learning, it would be nice to get a sense of some practical, cool things I can do with it.

<comment><USER3> Here's an example that immediately sprung to mind: <http://akinator.com/> . It's a game that guesses what person or character you're thinking of by asking simple questions.

<comment><USER2> I really like that site, but I meant more from a developer point of view. For instance: how would I go about building akinator using one of these libraries?

<comment><USER3> Oh, that's what you were getting at. I agree. I would also love a step-by-step example of how to build something cool using machine learning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Really good and intuitive introduction in to random forests. The linear regression comparison was a nice visual representation.

<comment><USER5> I can see you're new here, but if you think something is relevant to the site and a "Good Thing(tm)" then you should upvote it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The title of this link sounds like a bug report.</comment>


#162 Wealthiest American is a cheese distributor - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/profile/james-leprino

<comment><USER2> number 136 when i found it...

<http://www.forbes.com/profile/james-leprino></comment>


The Latest From Bug Labs - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/09/the-latest-from-bug.html <comment><USER2> I've been skeptical since reading this:

[http://blog.jwegener.com/2009/04/23/bug-labs-versus-apple- do...](http://blog.jwegener.com/2009/04/23/bug-labs-versus-apple-dominant- hardware-platform-part1-2/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Latest news being: Bugbase, the core module you build from, now has WiFi baked in.

Bug always interested me in the same way Arduino does.

</comment><comment><USER4> What they're doing seems incredibly awesome. The prices still seems high though.

I can't see how these would be used for a city-wide or enterprise-wide project at $500+ per unit.

Then again I shouldn't be surprised at what governments are willing to spend.</comment>


Ask HN: What Is the General Magic of Today? - <AUTHOR> I just watched the General Magic documentary and I'm wondering if there are any startups around today that resemble General Magic (e.g. have a similar culture and high concentration of talented people working extremely hard on something that has the possibility to be hugely world changing). I know most startups would claim they are like this, but in my experience they don't really have the same culture and ambition portrayed in the movie. <comment><USER2> Magic Leap is the most obvious one that comes to mind.

I can't say if Facebook/Oculus has set as high goals.

Others could have been working on grand tech but not that I'm aware of:

      - Amazon: Diamond Age Dynabook
      - Netflix: eyeTV
      - Microsoft: Hololens already
      - Apple: eyePhone

</comment><comment><USER3> A lot of anti-cancer and anti-bacterial drug labs. Probably gene-therapy too..

<comment><USER4> Biotech in general seems like a good fit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Culture, ambition, a very pedigreed group of employees that have had success in previous projects, and a concept that had been tempered by Apple before starting out.

</comment><comment><USER6> not sure about the culture, but VR, space and robotics are probably the niches to look into for a similar company

</comment><comment><USER7> DynamicLand

</comment><comment><USER8> SpaceX?</comment>


The New York Tech Meetup: Start-ups: don't mention the money - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/10/new_york_tech_meetup <comment><USER2> Is the startup echo chamber so bad that people literally get booed for asking how a startup will make money? A startup is, at least in theory supposed to be a business(vs a side project, which doesn't have to be one). Have we forgotten that?

This article's either greatly exaggerating the prevailing attitude, or the tech community is in big trouble.

<comment><USER3> Not all presentations are made by startups. More importantly, not all innovations have to be profitable, nor they have to be a business.

<comment><USER2> I would argue that,unless you're a nonprofit or heavily government funded if you want to keep innovating yes, you need to be a business.

<comment><USER4> Or you know, it could just be for pleasure...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've been to NYTM many times and in my experience you can ask anything you want, just don't sound link an MBA when you do it.

Understand that NY is the nexus of MBA speak. There are just so many corporate offices and financial firms and lawyers there -- NYTM is the one place that cuts through the regular NY bullshit and talks about technology for its own sake, not just as a conduit to make money. So if you get up and ask about synergies or exit strategies (or the worst offense, using slides instead of a demo) prepare to be booed.

<comment><USER6> I've only attended one NYTM so far, but the one time I witnessed somebody get booed for asking the "how will you make money" question, it certainly wasn't wrapped in MBA speak. The crowd response seriously saddened me - this sort of attitude will only detract from the amazing things going on in NYC right now.

<comment><USER7> The "how will you make money" question got "banned" about a year ago (from my understanding) because it was getting asked of every company (which is fair) and given the amount of time presenters have, the on-stage answers were always really vague (ads!) or the revenue model should have been obvious (sales/commission). I don't think it's fair of The Economist to say that those questions are looked down on, it's just that given how little time is given for each company there are often a number of more interesting questions that could be asked and were getting pushed out. Plus, it had kind of become like a FIRST POST! type reaction that someone just had to ask.

I've always found that if you are really interested in the specifics of the company (especially their business model) it's better to ask them afterwards since you can actually have a real dialog with them. Also, the during the presentation questions always seem better when it's actually about the demo since they can often show it right there on stage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The article is not very accurate. I've attended the NY Tech Meetup dozens of times and I've seen the questions "How will you reach a critical mass of users?" and "Aren't you doomed to fail because X already does the same thing?" asked a few times with no backslash whatsoever. The third one ("how are you going to make money") is the only one that gets the "boooos". BTW, I happen to like that. After all, the meetup is about technology and innovation and not about making money.

</comment><comment><USER8> _But Tech Meetup has its own peculiar etiquette, which is that there are certain questions that you simply do not ask. One, apparently, is "How will you reach a critical mass of users?"_

Really? That's a perfectly legit question. I'm biased though...that is the first question I shoot out because I _expect_ the founder to have some creative ideas about getting traction.

If you are building a site that requires critical mass and you have put in no serious thought to how you'll get users you are pretty doomed.

Kevin Rose depended on shilling his site on his show. Zuck had the freakin email address of everybody at school, I think. MySpace guys pushed myspace across the parent company's sites and at LA clubs.

</comment><comment><USER9> Are all tech meetups like that? At the Boulder New Tech Meetup, _every_ company is asked how they will make money. No one boos - it's acceptable, and completely expected.

I think it's a common misconception that every web company is innovating, when most are just using existing tech to solve a problem (or provide a solution that is better than the existing ones).

If you're developing some new technology that will change the world for the better, then I don't care if/how you'll make money. Otherwise, it matters.

<comment><USER10> I have mixed feelings about the money question. On one hand, it's good to hear if the founders have thought about it and have a realistic answer. On the other, there are so many different ways of monetizing things, many of them are obvious to anybody who's experienced in business, and the exact way in which a particular new business does it is probably not too important. Whatever works, works. And they may even have to try several different things to see which is most effective. But the "how do I monetize this" aspect is generic and reusable across many different types of businesses. It's generally not part of a startup's secret sauce. The product, the service, the "what problem are you solving that people will pay you to solve" element is.

Btw, I also attend Boulder New Tech Meetup regularly. Awesome series of events. However, as I write this I realize I just missed the Colo Green Tech Meetup tonight -- gah!

<comment><USER11> I think that any entrepreneur needs to evaluate their position before they ever enter an industry. Walking blindly into business is rarely a mistake people can afford to make.

You need to either asks yourself (1) can I generate insane conversion or users or (2) how will I monetize the business. If you can generate the user base that Facebook, Twitter or drop box has then monetization is irrelevant because any effective and intelligent management team can devise a business model when the customers have already walked into the store. I can't remember exactly but I think Ron Conway said that you don't need a business model when you have traffic like google's.

But if you can't generate the users, then you need a plan to take to the bank. So, I think that if the ny tech meetup can't be realistic then it's like masturbation. It's great until you realize that you're screwing yourself lol.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've been to NYTM, and the booing for the "money" question seems to be all in good fun. More like an inside joke than a jeer. As andrewjshults said, it seems less about ignoring the the viability of the presenter's business and more about keeping the technology and novel aspects of the product front and center.

</comment><comment><USER13> I had opportunity to present at one. This was when it was in the IAC building. I definitely recall them stressing even addressing audience about the money question; saying you can not ask the following we are here to see new/innovative things in tech. I'm sure many wanted to ask me how do you make $.

</comment><comment><USER14> Strange - I demoed Delicious at the very first NYTM, back when it was in Meetup's offices.

</comment><comment><USER15> Better to fail early and often, right? As far as I'm concerned, I want to hear my harshest critics often. I'd rather take my lumps as early as possible.</comment>