Israeli scientists: 'In a few weeks, we will have coronavirus vaccine' - <AUTHOR> https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Israeli-scientists-In-three-weeks-we-will-have-coronavirus-vaccine-619101 <comment><AUTHOR> Interestingly this seems to have been flagged for some reason. Anyone have any idea what for? Is this not factual? I assumed Jerusalem Post is a legit news source...is that not the case?

<comment><USER2> Doesn't seem flagged now?

In any case, lots of companies will "have a vaccine" soon... the question is whether any of them will work on a virus type that has so far been very good at defying vaccine creation (see the history of SARS vaccines).</comment></comment>


Running Mac OS X as a QEMU/KVM Guest - <AUTHOR> http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~somlo/OSXKVM/ <comment><AUTHOR> It's also compatible with GPU passthrough using VFIO: [http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/309087-insanely- fast-...](http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/309087-insanely-fast-virtual- mac-qemu-ovmf-clover-and-native-graphics/page-1)

Of course it's must be GPU compatible with OS X.</comment>


The Star Trek Case for Double-Blind Reviewing - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@EmeryBerger/the-star-trek-case-for-double-blind-reviewing-540d673a5b0#.n5pvr7rpf <comment><USER2> Even in a double-blind review, it is possible to figure out whose paper you are reviewing if you are familiar with their work. The system can also be gamed through collusion or sucking up (approving a paper because they reference a paper of yours or of a colleague).</comment>


New York State Ventilator Allocation Guidelines (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/task_force/reports_publications/docs/ventilator_guidelines <comment><AUTHOR> > However, because of a strong societal preference for saving children, the > Task Force recommended that young age may be considered as a tie-breaking > criterion in limited circumstances.

This document has really fascinated me. It exists as a codification of our societal values when we are forced to triage who will live and who will die.</comment>


Groupon (GRPN) Shares Tumble After 2Q Results  - <AUTHOR> http://www.istockanalyst.com/finance/story/5990177/groupon-grpn-shares-tumble-after-2q-results <comment><USER2> Good news: Groupon made money

Bad news: Investors want it to make more money

Verdict: Should have stayed private</comment>


Here it is: The Snap web framework for Haskell. - <AUTHOR> http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2010-May/078005.html

<comment><USER2> Pretty excellent. I usually use Perl for web apps because of the better HTTP server infrastructure and because of the EV event loop. (libev is some pretty nice software.) The second issue is now solved, and the first issue is closer to being solved.

(An example app I decided to implement in Perl even though I would rather have used Haskell was a web proxy. Perl has a standard HTTP::Request/HTTP::Response library that clients and servers both use. This makes writing a proxy downright trivial. With Haskell, the client has a pretty good API, but the servers have slightly-different-for-no-reason APIs, making the code 99% useless conversions and 1% actual code. I am almost motivated to fix this, especially after looking at Snap.)

<comment><USER3> Do you use EV to run your Perl web apps as free standing applications? Or do you use it for some other purpose?

<comment><USER2> Yes. I use Coro/EV for web apps and non-web apps :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> More discussion here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1369852>

</comment><comment><USER5> Flagged as dup.

<comment><USER6> Then just flag. If you're going to report it as a dup, please add a link.

<comment><USER5> There was one already.</comment></comment></comment>


Chinese web pirates steal design - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8426094.stm

<comment><USER2> I'm more surprised this is being reported by the BBC than anything. What makes this case any more notable than countless other web-design piracy cases? Is it the Chinese angle?

<comment><USER3> Or is it that the MSM is supposed to be doing some negative reporting about China after the Western fiasco in Copenhagen?

<comment><USER4> It is literally the slowest news day of the year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> BREAKING BREAKING News at 10, people steal designs.

Can someone steal my design, I'd like the publicity

</comment><comment><USER6> I can't believe this made BBC. My sites have been pirated several times.

<http://novaurora.com> (original) <http://person-design.com/> (chinese knockoff)

As lead designer at Mint.com the site design/code was copied a half dozen times that I knew about.

</comment><comment><USER7> This article could also be on The Onion. You know when they describe some everyday thing as if it was news, which makes it funny. By trying hard to imagine it was on The Onion, I managed to get a minimum of joy out of reading it.

Also it is funny that BBC reports it. Maybe an article in The Onion about "BBC reports theft of web design" could be even more funny.

</comment><comment><USER8> How much do I have to pay someone to rip off my site so that BBC will write an article about mine? ;-)

</comment><comment><USER9> This sounds familiar. It happened to Plurk apparently.

</comment><comment><USER10> In other news, Tuesday.</comment>


The Mooltipass: Hardware Password Manager - <AUTHOR> https://www.themooltipass.com/ <comment><USER2> Maybe a 1 minute delay between attempts 3 and 4. And double the time for each failure? And permanently lock after 6 attempts? Or make this configurable? I have gotten sloppy with passphrase entry more than three times in a row, so getting permanently locked out seems like a high penalty.

Interesting product though. I like the Fifth Element reference.

<comment><USER3> Moolipass project creator here! It's surprising and wonderful to see our project mentioned here. Adding a time delay between PIN attempts definitely is a good idea. I'm afraid the number of maximum attempts is fixed by the hardware we're using.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Looking for Employee #3 How do I do it? - <AUTHOR> I am 39 years old first time (tech) founder. I'm looking for employee #3, VP of Customer Development - to help crack into a very tight networked group of customers in the construction industry. How do I do this? I am bootstrapping but the business has a 44M ARR potential in 5 years. How do I inspire the right person to join on commission and stake in  the company? <comment><USER2> Poach from a company that already sells to those same customers (if you can)

<comment><AUTHOR> Had the same thought - I'm a tech guy not sales, will these guys work for commission and stake in the company in lieu of salary? (Bootstrapping at the moment - have 3 customers after a month and ready to ramp up)

<comment><USER2> I've known salespeople that will work for straight commission. You may not even need to offer a stake, although that might be a good idea to increase the chances of retention.

I'm a big proponent of bootstrapping, but you may still want to start the process of talking to investors or maybe even a bank. Asking someone to jump from an established ship onto your new ship is a lot easier if you have cash to guarantee them a salary.

Another thing to consider is partnering with a totally different company that sells to the same people. Their salespeople sell your product, and they get gratitude/commission. That doesn't work in all industries of course.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Magic Spell is the fun way for kids to learn to spell - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/magic-spell/id1427981125?mt=8 <comment><AUTHOR> Android version is available here:

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.BrainBox.M...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.BrainBox.MagicSpell&hl=en_US)

And the Magic Spell website:

[https://brainbox.games](https://brainbox.games)</comment>


The Reinvention of Black - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/27/dark-matter/the-reinvention-of-black

<comment><USER2> The Reinvention of Black Paint

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a discussion of clothing dyes and related coloration and dying in history. (The title is ambiguous)</comment>


Eben Moglen - Freedom in The Cloud  - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOEMv0S8AcA one of the most interesting talks i've heard in a while <comment><USER2> Out of all the "free software" propaganda that we get out there from the hardcore GNU side, this puts things in a realistic perspective with rational arguments that you do not normally get.

</comment><comment><USER3> Everybody should listen the idea of the last part, or read it here : [http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Interview-Eben- Moglen-...](http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Interview-Eben-Moglen- Freedom-vs-the-Cloud-Log-955421.html)

Basicaly Elben Moglen says that many of our freedom/privacy problems (Facebook etc) could be solved by using the web in a decentralised way, as it was intended. The problem is mostly technical: we need small pluggable personnal servers. We already have the hardware (ARMs) but we badly need a software stack for them, and one really easy to use.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> one of the most interesting talks I've heard in a while (and it happened to be on Friday night)</comment>


Show HN: GoHere – Show someone where to go - <AUTHOR> http://gohere.io <comment><USER2> What's different from a gps coordinate on, say, google maps?

I expected it to have multiple markers like "go here - then here - then there" etc. Personalised markers with direction that google couldn't provide would be quite nice.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's similar to a standard map pin alright, but nicer to use in a "go here" situation. Sending via sms is nice for one-to-one, plus the sender gets to see if the pin was viewed or how far away the receiver is (if they allow it).

You can also reserve location URLs: e.g. gohere.io/party-here which are handy for events, HQs etc.

Personalised markers are a great idea. We've drawn up a few specialised ones already (beer, coffee, beach, surf, football etc) [http://pinlogic.co/images/general/GoHere- Stout.png](http://pinlogic.co/images/general/GoHere-Stout.png)

Appreciate the comments!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I couldnt find search option to give pin of some specific location.

<comment><AUTHOR> There is none yet, consider that feature bumped!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> what are the use cases of this? Looks interesting though!

<comment><AUTHOR> So far: Event venues (registration, parking etc.), Rental car (return location) Kite surf lessons (meet me at this beach), Wedding (obscure church location) Meeting point for tours Holiday home rental (better than verbal directions)

But we're very keen to hear of more use cases.</comment></comment>


Do one thing.  - <AUTHOR> http://ourdelhistruggle.com/2008/08/11/do-one-thing/

<comment><USER2> This form of "Do one thing" implies minimal action to solve a complex problem. It's picking off the low-hanging fruit. There are times when it's appropriate and times when it isn't.

Another form of "Do one thing" is to focus on one core competency and offload everything else. This is a common way to drive economic value through specialization.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm sure Indians (like myself) who understand the quirks that we put into our brand of English will probably appreciate this a <i>little</i> more. Still, a decent read.

</comment><comment><USER3> You have to be an Indian to really appreciate this post. Its actually very very funny .... Thanks for posting!</comment>


A Dying Young Woman's Hope in Cryonics and a Future - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/us/cancer-immortality-cryogenics.html?_r=0 <comment><USER4> Cryonics is one of those things that's hard to evaluate.

On the face of it, it seems insane. You're essentially making a bet that someone will find something useful to do with a frozen brain -- and that your estate will be able to afford the procedure -- before the company you've entrusted your brain to either makes a mistake or collapses. Given the near- total lack of progress on the former front (there's been considerable progress in the freezing part, but almost none in finding a useful thing to do with a frozen brain), the odds seem phenomenally bad.

On the other hand, it does offer something to those who are still alive: the hope that your exstence could continue indefinitely, and that you might get to be with lost loved ones again. This is a valuable hope, so much so that it's built into most religions in some form or other. It's possible that the benefit of this hope makes the costs worth bearing.

For now, I've left cryonics in my "not for me, but I won't try to discourage anyone else" bucket.

<comment><USER5> Isn't it still the Star Trek Transporter problem? The future may be able to revive a copy of you, that thinks it is you, but you'd still be dead.

<comment> loup-vaillant Oh, that one's easy. At the state of current science, we're pretty much sure that the Star Trek transporter doesn't kill the traveller. The "copy" is the original, in fact. Basically, this is because we're kinda made of particles, and the origin of the quarks you're made up of doesn't matter. As in, current physics don't even have a notion of the identity of a particle.

The part where it gets weird is, if you don't destroy the "original", you end up with two originals.

More ( _much_ more) details here: [http://lesswrong.com/lw/r9/quantum_mechanics_and_personal_id...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/r9/quantum_mechanics_and_personal_identity/)

<comment><USER5> > pretty much sure

Are you willing to risk your life on "pretty much sure" ? Especially when there's no experiment you can devise to test it?

<comment> loup-vaillant I'm not talking about interpretation of quantum mechanics here. Just standard physics, of the kind we can test for — _did_ test for.

If the Star Trek transporter is shown to work (it has transported healthy monkeys so far, and did nothing weird with flies), I would totally step on it. I would feel uneasy of course, but no more so than if I stepped into a rocket.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I view current cryonics as a bit like playing the lottery. If you don't play, you will not win. If you do play, you have a minuscule but nonzero chance of winning.

Over 30 years ago, I joined others to sit with a friend while he died way too young. He had arranged for cryonic preservation. AFAIK, he's still chilling. And he has a minuscule but nonzero chance of someday resuming his prematurely interrupted life.

While that seems to me extremely unlikely to happen, I wonder if it felt just as unlikely to somebody in the 3rd century that people would someday fly through the air...or talk to a friend who was beyond shouting distance...or live to 90 years of age...etc. We've sequenced DNA from dinosaurs, and 30 years ago I would have bet strongly against that.

I've learned to avoid underrating the power of exponential increments in knowledge and capability.

<comment><USER7> I think lottery is a good analogy here.

1) Extremely low chances to win (if at all).

2) The change that the winner is going to regret being revived is quite high (dysfunctional body, totally new environment, being a subject of historians' research).

<comment><USER8> > being a subject of historians' research

I might be narcissistic but that seems like a good thing to me. Imagine being able to tell future people what the present was _really_ like.

<comment><USER7> It is more likely to look like extracting bits of information from rat's brain in a laboratory setting than as an interview.

Would you still like to try?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> More power to her. I hope she awakens to a body and future that brings her happiness.

</comment><comment><USER10> It's fascinating that this is so close to reality, at least in terms of preserving the information that encodes our memories and identities.

Of course there is the issue of reviving the person, either biologically or digitally. As computing power grows, I don't see any barrier to simulating an entire human brain. Sure it will take time: according to this[0] and applying Moore's law, it will take about 60 years before we can simulate a brain in real time with a single machine.

This whole field makes me very uncomfortable. I'm not saying it's wrong, but the potential for harm (particularly to those being simulated) is very great. There's a Greg Egan story where reanimated humans live as "AI" characters a game simulation, waiting for when society will wake up and grant them rights.

[0] [http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/163051-simulating-1-secon...](http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/163051-simulating-1-second- of-human-brain-activity-takes-82944-processors)

<comment><USER11> Which Greg Egan story is that?

<comment><USER10> I can't remember (possibly not Greg Egan). In case someone else knows, the main plot is that the characters have to act as inhabitants of a primitive village, in a computer game/simulation.

<comment><USER12> Probably neither of these (depending on your definition of primitive), but they're interesting anyway:

The Cookie Monster[1] by Vernor Vinge

Glasshouse[2] by Charles Stross

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cookie_Monster_%28novella%...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cookie_Monster_%28novella%29) (WP link, contains spoilers)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasshouse_%28novel%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasshouse_%28novel%29)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So, 10,000 years in the future they can revive you.

Apparently, we've decided that it has a hard problem to guarantee that we can communicate with the future, even about really bad stuff:

[http://www.wipp.energy.gov/picsprog/articles/wipp%20exhibit%...](http://www.wipp.energy.gov/picsprog/articles/wipp%20exhibit%20message%20to%2012,000%20a_d.htm)

This is about warning the future about nuclear waste, but could be adopted to "vault of frozen heads" (Assuming they haven't failed by then and there was sufficient coolant.)

Sort of flip the opening sentences around: "This is a place of honor!"

</comment><comment><USER14> The implications of your identity being copied into a new, improved body and what that means when the original you is dead, or what happens when you get copied more than once, etc are explored in depth in Jasper Scott's excellent Dark Space series: [http://www.jaspertscott.com/p/dark-space-v- avilon.html](http://www.jaspertscott.com/p/dark-space-v-avilon.html)

<comment><USER15> Also see Greg Egan's short story, "The Extra" ([http://eidolon.net/?story=The%20Extra](http://eidolon.net/?story=The%20Extra)) and others, e.g. "Closer" ([http://eidolon.net/?story=Closer](http://eidolon.net/?story=Closer))

<comment><USER16> Also see every f-in thing Greg Egan wrote. Then for fun try to google his image.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Consider the idea that this is a vector into the idea of machines being possibly equally important, or considered even more important than living humans, based on their capacity to accurately represent the continued presence of deceased humans.

That a machine is permitted to occupy and consume resources, that might otherwise be used by actual living people who are also trying to live meaningful lives. Which one wins?

<comment><USER18> no worries. The human emulator uses just 1% of a 2050 EC2 mini compute instance.

<comment><USER19> The occasional stuttering is actually due to GC pauses.

<comment><USER20> That takes me back to Max Headroom!

<comment><USER21> This thread takes me back to Reddit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you want to preserve your genes, then much more reliable way to do that is to have kids.

If you want to preserve your ideas, then writing books, articles and public comments on Internet is the way to go.

The chance of successful recovery of frozen dead brain after 100 years is very close to zero (assuming that the recovery process was never tested). Kim Suozzi's "1 or 2 percent chance" is extremely optimistic forecast.

<comment><USER22> > The chance of successful recovery of frozen dead brain after 100 years is > very close to zero (assuming that the recovery process was never tested). > Kim Suozzi's "1 or 2 percent chance" is extremely optimistic forecast.

While it's impossible to predict whether you'll be able to be revived it doesn't sit right with me that you, and many others, are making predictions about how future medical technology will work. Honestly, if we can keep progressing as quickly as we have been, it wouldn't surprise me that we couldn't do it after X years but could do it after X + Y years. Meaning if at some point we have the technology to start reviving people but can't do it reliably then wait another Y amounts of years and there is a significantly better chance.

Honestly, unless the brain is just completely ruined or something bad happens to the handling of the brains, it wouldn't surprise me if they're all eventually revivable. At this point we may be talking 200+ years away but they're frozen, who cares?

<comment><USER7> Making predictions is the main way to test out theories.

> but they're frozen, who cares?

That is another problem with cryonics: why would future civilization care about dead brains frozen 200 years ago?

Imagine that we already have technology that can unfreeze and revive people. And we just found 100,000 frozen medieval people to unfreeze.

So for the same price we can either unfreeze and revive 100,000 people or we can extend lives of 100,000 modern people who are facing terminal illness today.

How many medieval people do you think we would unfreeze&revive given such choice?

<comment><USER22> > Making predictions is the main way to test out theories. Only if you can > then test those predictions otherwise they're kinda useless beyond > philosophical reasons.

> How many medieval people do you think we would unfreeze&revive given such > choice?

That is a false choice; why are the resources constrained so that the choice is between reviving 100,000 people or extending the lives of 100,000 people? Arguably we should have more resources in the future than today, more professionals, etc so why can't they do two things? Have we stopped scientific research to the point where no one is concentrating on historic man or reviving past humans?

People are curious, obviously we would do it. At the very least it would be interesting science. Can we bring back people frozen 200 years ago? Who knows until we try!

<comment><USER7> > why are the resources constrained

Because resources are always constrained. The only difference is the level of constraint. Consider slightly modified choice: between "extending lives of 1M modern people + revival of 0.1M medieval people" vs "extending lives of 1.1M modern people".

Or another choice: "Revival of 1M medieval people" vs "producing 1M clones of modern people".

Curiosity about history would make sure that some medieval people would be revived. May be a thousand total. After that resources would be redirected toward cloning best performing modern version of people.

<comment><USER22> > Because resources are always constrained.

Today sure. Tomorrow? Probably. But if you subscribe to the Kardashev scale then we'll likely become a type 2 or 3 civilization at which point I would consider it very likely that we are resource constrained to the point where this can't be done. I just don't think that would make sense.

When we become a type 1 we still might not have any real resource issues but that's harder to predict. So why wouldn't we revive everyone at some point? Seems silly to just let everyone thaw if we have the technology and resources at some point.

<comment><USER7> Why revive old person if you can clone new person instead?

It does not really matter how much resources you have: if you have a lot, then you clone a lot of modern people, but still ignore obsolete stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Some reading material for those interesting in the current state of cryonics development and research, starting with an overview and moving on. Modern cryopreservation aims for vitrification, not freezing.

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

[http://alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm](http://alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm)

[http://www.brainpreservation.org/competitors/](http://www.brainpreservation.org/competitors/)

The evidence assembled to date provides a reasonable expectation that the fine structure of the brain responsible for storing the data of the mind is preserved by vitrification, based on scanning electron microscopy and current best understanding of where that data is encoded.

There are a few organizations that span the intersection between organ preservation and cryonics, such as 21st Century Medicine. The focus there is on reversible vitrification, such as the paper linked below in which a rabbit kidney is vitrified, restored, and implanted.

[http://www.21cm.com/](http://www.21cm.com/)

[http://www.21cm.com/pdfs/12FahyORG5-3%5b1%5d.pdf](http://www.21cm.com/pdfs/12FahyORG5-3%5b1%5d.pdf)

There is a sizable fraction of the futurist community who approach cryonics with the pattern identity view of being satisfied with a copy of their mind running in emulation at some point in the future, the original vitrified substrate then discarded. Not very satisfying from the continuity identity perspective; a copy of you is not you. I'd be stipulating a restoration of the original tissues; probably a harder problem, but one that can be understood and foreseen. Advanced molecular nanotechnology and complete control over cellular biology would be requirements, for example, but that looks like being feasible later this century, just like the process of scanning and emulation.

The madness of it all is that cryonics is very plausible and could be far more cost-effective at volume. Yet no-one cares. Just like the problems encountered in trying to persuade anyone that working on rejuvenation biotechnology for indefinite healthy life spans is a good plan, in the matter of cryonics the population world is content to slow-walk off the cliff of aging and death without doing anything about it. There is no status quo so terrible that it won't be embraced and defended. Billions are lost to oblivion in an age in which the technological capabilities exist to prevent the overwhelming majority of those deaths. And no-one cares. The future will look on us as suicidal, ignorant barbarians, and rightly so.

<comment><USER24> _Not very satisfying from the continuity identity perspective; a copy of you is not you._

Neither are you, you you from yesterday or the day before - <USER3> continuity is illusory. How do you know that your body isn't replaced with a new copy each night (thought experiment)?

 _restoration of the original tissues...Advanced molecular nanotechnology and complete control over cellular biology_

You run into a Ship of Theseus problem with this approach, which gets back to your original qualia problem.

The biological body is not made to last - you'll need to be converted to something more durable if you want an unbroken conscious experience longer than ~100 years.

<comment><USER25> _Neither are you, you you from yesterday or the day before - <USER3> continuity is illusory. How do you know that your body isn 't replaced with a new copy each night (thought experiment)?_

Because the workmanship keeps getting worse and worse. ;-)

<comment><USER26> The copy process isn't perfect. There is a bit of corruption each time, that limits most people to less than 100 years of copies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Black Mirror (on Netflix) has a powerful interpretation on the implications of digital reanimation in Season 2 Episode 1, "Be Right Back", although the digital representation of the deceased human is created by an AI that reads all of the person's digital information (social media, emails, videos, etc) and emulates them.

<comment><USER28> There's a real world company that offers this service:

[https://www.eter9.com/](https://www.eter9.com/)

<comment><USER29> Is that a real company? The copy sounds like it could be a viral marketing campaign for a movie.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> anti-shill In order to be a good Christian and receive the eternal life promised in the Bible, you must be a cryonicist.

At least that is the case according to this blog:

[http://churchofthebetterresurrection.blogspot.com/](http://churchofthebetterresurrection.blogspot.com/)

</comment><comment><USER30> With all the suffering, injustice, unequal opportunity and privilege in the world, this to me is the epitome of narcissism and selfishness.

Would you donate to this rather than to social services for, for example, thousands of homeless children in New York City alone?

<comment><USER31> Why are you spending your time posting on Hacker News when you could be rescuing babies?

<comment><USER30> I've devoted my life to working for a better world for all. I quit my 6-figure job years ago to work on solutions or ways to convince others to work on solutions. I spend time on Hacker News because I'm trying to use my tech skills for these aims, to be a voice in a tech culture that is too prone to callousness (such as yours) and simplisitic notions that the free-market solves all.

Why do you have to be mean? My comment wasn't mean, it was a criticism of the direction of our culture. Social progress doesn't happen without critique.

I find it ironic that I'm being downvoted for speaking a valid but un-PC thought in a community that normally complains about the ills of political correctness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Why are we so scared of death, to be nothing. Why do we have to cling on to someone's memories,is it because it gives some sense of security?

It is just bizarre to reduce the beauty of life to some some little affair of holding on to someone's memories.

Death is as beautiful as birth. We should break past the ridiculous taboos surrounding death and discuss it openly as to what it means to die.

Edit: Jiddu K on death, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_OzCrmqxRE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_OzCrmqxRE)

<comment><USER33> What about medicine if you say death is good why postpone it by eating well, taking medicine and being safe?

I don't see why we humans should die I think if all science put their efforts together (as done in world wars) we could extend human life quite a bit.

The only concern I have is the difference in culture for example imagine a 20 year old versus a person 200 years old. Even today the generation gap between 20 and 40 is big and causes problems when interacting even just music alone as one example.

<comment><USER34> If music is the biggest generational gap when I'm 200, I'll be pretty content with things.

<comment><USER33> Just an example ;)

(But really I bet wars could be fought over it, Bieber vs The Eagles)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Disagree with Me - <AUTHOR> https://www.disagreewithme.app <comment><USER2> See also [https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview).

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, aware that this subreddit exists. This is a slightly different take and also one that aims to do more than just have a forum but that's the start.

<comment><USER3> I would imagine those are two audiences because the titles are two different call to actions. ppl who would like to have their view changed or challenged would go to /r/changemyview. And not many people are open to change or even thinking their view needs change.

Btw it would be nice to have social login for disagreewithme so I dont have to create yet another account and worry about data leak.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea, planning on adding it. I actually originally thought it would turn people away from signing up. Seems to be a mixed bag at times but agree it's needed.

<comment><USER4> _Requiring_ a social media login will definitely turn people away. I'd be surprised if someone got turned away just because it was an option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The fact that searches add to your back stack is frustrating. Maybe add a heuristic so that a search term is only added if you click on an entry, the search box is unfocused, or nothing has changed for ~2 seconds.

<comment><AUTHOR> Gotcha, fair point. Wanted to add it to history so that navigating back from a conversation showed the prior results but maybe only needed when search completed.</comment></comment>


ROMA French subtitles or how to ruin a masterpiece, by Netflix - <AUTHOR> https://beta.ataa.fr/blog/article/roma-french-subtitles <comment><USER2> The ATAA seems mad.

"The subtitles for Mixtec dialogue appear between brackets, while those for Spanish are in standard font. Apart from the fact that this confers a different value on each language, it hinders readability and is a convention never used in French subtitles. It would have been conceivable to use two different colors, but that too would constitute a distraction from the story itself. The most logical option would have been to trust the audience to hear the difference and get used to it through the narration."

They did this for the English version too, and I'm glad they did it. At least on first viewing, I doubt I would have picked up on the two dialects, and it's important to the plot to know there is a difference.

The rest of the article doesn't give enough context to the mistranslations for me to be outraged.

<comment><USER3> > _The rest of the article doesn 't give enough context to the mistranslations > for me to be outraged._

Not sure about what context you might like, but from a French viewer and reader, it is really weird at times. Language register unpredictably switches between 19th-century formal language and modern urban youth slang, and it's just shock full of grammatical and spelling errors. Many other lines simply have a different meaning from the original, sometimes making no sense at all.

It happens often enough with Netflix. I think they just hire the cheapest translators they can find, and those aren't actually fluent in either of the two languages they have to work with.</comment></comment>


The End of Venture Capital as We Know It - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/penny-herscher/the-death-of-venture-capi_b_211163.html

<comment><USER2> High on conclusions, low on data. She bandies about this thought a lot that pre-tech bubble startups were heads above the today's in VC success. Certainly a number of really high profile companies came out of that, but there were a lot of fairly significant failures too. It may even be true that todays VC companies aren't as booming as the pre-burst companies but I'd really like to see some kind of data to that effect. Not everything is quantifiable, but there are some things about VCs that should be.

<comment><USER3> go to [http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=ar...](http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=102) look for example at in the last quarter in green tech area, 80% to 90% down. There is a change coming no doubt.</comment></comment>


Haskell powered companies  - <AUTHOR> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Haskell_in_industry

<comment><USER2> It never occurs to me that a company could be "powered" by Haskell.

In my old job, I used haskell for everything from satellital image analysis to the web frontend, but I didn't tell anyone. Specially I didn't tell my bosses.

When they discovered my functional tendencies, they were upset and worried. They feel betrayed, but it was too late. The company was an "haskell powered company".

I give them an edge over the other companies in the field, but when I leave, they were orphaned and unable to hire a new Haskell programmer (I live in Chile, a very imperative nation).

Too bad for them, but for me, it was "pure" functional fun.

<comment><USER3> Too bad for them? Incredible. That's not a very professional attitude to have. You shouldn't choose technologies you like because as a developer it's your job to choose technologies that are right for the business.

<comment><USER2> Certainly, I couldn't have done what I did without Haskell, or with more traditional languages, like C++.

The most challenging task I've done with Haskell, was to find the right combination of parameters in orden to sum an array of satellital images, preserving a set of constrains. I couldn't have dreamed of doing that without Haskell. It was the right choice for the job.

When they discovered the tools I've used, they recognized the problem, but they treated me bad, so I search for another job.

<comment><USER4> The right tool for the job is one that will be supported by other developers after you leave.

<comment><USER2> The right tool for the job is anything that gives you the power to get shit done.

Maintainability is secondary if you can't do the job in the first place. Think about it.

I think that using Haskell in the industry is somewhat irresponsible if you live in a third world nation like Chile. You can't find haskell hackers here! You create maintainability problems!

It is clearly not my fault to be intelligent, know some haskell and live in Chile. Can you blame me?

<comment><USER4> That doesn't sound like a very good way to build a sustainable business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> At nvidia, we have a handful of in-house tools that are written in Haskell. My manager is a huge Haskell fan and he satisfies his coding itch by writing some tools with it.

The tools we have are quite simple, like running a set of automated tests on a Tegra device and then upload results (pass/fail, code coverage, memory leak stats, etc) to a web interface.

We've had a few Haskell coding nights where I and my boss have been teaching our teammates some Haskell skills. We have about half a dozen coders (out of ~50 at our office) who can do enough Haskell to get shit done.

<comment><USER6> That's cool; but what is the point of haskell there? It sounds like you'd just as well could use, say, ruby; what does the specific feature set of haskell help here? (Apart from it being somewhat hard to actually write fortran code in haskell. :-)

<comment><USER7> Type safety would be the main plus point for me, even for tools and scripts.

Plus I guess some people just prefer functional programming when they can and Haskell offers that in abundance. I guess the downside is the less portable nature of the code (this is where Clojure et al. would probably win...although writing command line tools and scripts in a JVM language still has a long way to go IMO)

<comment><USER5> Actually, Haskell libraries were perhaps more important than any individual language feature. The language allows such good abstractions that libraries like Parsec or Haskell XML toolkit are very nice to use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _Hustler Turf Equipment Hesston, Kansas ... Designs, builds, and sells lawn mowers._

Wow... I mean talk about the LAST company you would think would be using a language like Haskell. I would have more likely pictured some horrible VB6-Access mess. Just goes to show you what the risks are in assuming...

<comment><USER9> Is that where John Goerzen (of <http://book.realworldhaskell.org/>) works? I watched Bryan O'Sullivan's CUFP keynote the other night, <http://cufp.org/videos/keynote-real-world-haskell>, and he mentioned that John was working at a tractor company in Kansas or something along those lines!

<comment><USER10> Yes, it is where John Goerzen works.

<comment><USER9> Cool, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I thought the link would be of companies that use Haskell as their primary language of development, but it is more of companies which use/had used Haskell in one of their projects. The former would be interesting to know, if indeed such companies exist.

<comment><USER12> Haskell has much more of a group inside of a company will use it as their primary environment then adopting it wholesale. Haskell is used extensively in trading with almost every major bank and hedge fund using it, although no one talks about it. It is also extensively used in energy companies.

There are a few companies out there that use it as their primary language such as Tsuru Capital and my company, Alpha Heavy Industries. By definition companies using it as their primary language will be smaller companies. Standard Chartered has a very large Haskell group.

<comment><USER13> Which energy companies and for what?

The major problem with the 'smaller languages' is that sometimes, even if you want to, and can use it effectively, it's difficult to interface with other systems.

For example, services using SOAP. Drivers to DBs and other systems.

Sometimes it's easier to have your core login in Haskell for example, then make it interface with something else in Java/C#/etc which will have plugins for everything.

<comment><USER14> _Drivers to DBs_

I found this with OCaml too, so I decided to do something about it: <http://gaiustech.github.com/ociml/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> That list is much longer than it used to be.

<comment><USER16> That's good. I look forward to a time when Haskell will be a relevant point on my resume.

<comment><USER17> why isn't it a relevant point on your resume? :)

<comment><USER17> Point in fact, of the (several) really great folks who reached out to me from this months hiring thread, the only fellow I'm starting to collaborate with right now (rather than a few months out) has a few cute haskell Libs on hackage. And By collaborate mean a semi/Demi/ maybe even full cofounder piece :-)

Here's the kicker about Haskell code (and many other functional langs): it's very easy to evaluate the work for quality engineering and whether or not there's some real ingenuity in it, beyond just the algorithmic pieces and the overall architecture diagram. Or at least I shall make that claim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The first one I clicked on was dead... the procedural city generation one (<http://gamr7.com/>) :(

</comment><comment><USER19> You know I bet <http://girlloveshaskell.com/> knows all about these places.

<comment><USER20> I asked her out once. She blew me off saying I was "too eager" and "not her type".

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Which of these are in the bay area? Bump/Facebook/Google - what else?

<comment><USER22> Lucent is off of highway 237.

Ericsson has a few buildings on 237 (near Marvell / Brocade) but somehow I doubt that the Haskell group is located here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> "Clojure powered startup" post was an hour before this.

Jealous?

 _run away_

</comment><comment><USER24> What are the arguments for using Haskell over Ruby? For which purposes fit Haskell better?

<comment><USER7> <http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Why_Haskell_matters>

<comment><USER24> thanks, should have looked up this source..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Isn't this an old post?

<comment><USER26> Just because something wasn't posted in the last day does not mean it doesn't have relevant information.</comment></comment>


The Fireplace Delusion (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion <comment><USER2> He has a good, larger point but this article is plagued with those little, annoying inaccuracies and misprepresentations which, for me at least, completely ruin it.

> Here is what we know from a scientific point of view: There is no amount of > wood smoke that is good to breathe.

There is no way to make a value judgement "from a scientific point of view." This is just the first from a collection of his moral convictions (we should live as long as possible, affecting our neighbours as little as possible). Nothing particularly wrong with having those but why dress them up in science?

> many other things are just as natural—such as dying at the ripe old age of > thirty.

People may have _on average_ had life expectancies in the 30 years range but that was because of child and infant mortality. Adults weren't dropping dead at 30.

And then some silly js sticks this to every paste:

> \- See more at: [http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace- > delusion#st...](http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace- > delusion#sthash.r9agKEEk.dpuf)

So sloppy.

<comment><USER3> > There is no way to make a value judgement "from a scientific point of view."

I'm not sure if your familiar with Sam Harris' other writing, but one of his shticks is applying a scientific approach to morality.[1] Not that I necessarily agree with him, but wanted to point out that there's a bit more substance there than some off-the-cuff remark.

[1] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)#The_Moral_L...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_\(author\)#The_Moral_Landscape)

<comment><USER4> I haven't read a lot of his stuff (although what I _have_ read/heard I mostly respect), but I'm not super comfortable with how he just waltzes over the is/ought divide.

But this brings up a larger issue: where do we draw the line between this kind of health-centric utilitarianism and the ability for humans to indulge in pleasurable but potentially self-destructive behaviors?

When I was younger, I basically cheered whenever laws were passed to further restrict the sale / usage of cigarettes, because I knew they were harmful and that was all that mattered. But as I grew older, and I realized that the depth of the human experience goes beyond mere self-preservation, I became less sure of this monolithic approach to public policy.

I guess my point is that I find that Mr. Harris's essay, while aimed at allowing us to see why religious beliefs are so hard to dislodge, kind of illuminates an opposite idea: that perhaps in our crusade to rid the world of "irrational" behavior, we risk compromising something fundamental to the human experience. The problem is agreeing on where we draw the line.

<comment><USER3> > utilitarianism

I personally draw the line that cuts out as much utilitarianism as possible.

> I became less sure of this monolithic approach to public policy.

I've been a voluntaryist for several years now, so I'm quite on the same page as you. :-) I really was just trying to be fair to Sam Harris. (I both strongly agree and disagree with many of the things he claims.)

> I guess my point is that I find that Mr. Harris's essay, while aimed at > allowing us to see why religious beliefs are so hard to dislodge, kind of > illuminates an opposite idea: that perhaps in our crusade to rid the world > of "irrational" behavior, we risk compromising something fundamental to the > human experience. The problem is agreeing on where we draw the line.

Absolutely. Although, I do view recreational wood burning as a different kind of "irrational" than claiming things based on revealed knowledge. The former _can_ be a reasoned judgment about one's preferences, while the latter is necessarily logically flawed.

I believe both types of "irrational" are impossible to eradicate. I share your hesitation with the notion that we might even _want_ to eliminate "irrationality" in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Drinking a warm cup of coffee or hot chocolate next to a wood fire during a cold night is possibly one of the most enjoyable and stress reducing activities I can think of. Life isn't about evaluating every risk.

Here's a small list of that has a high probability of harming my body:

* Snowboard when I'm not at my prime

* Use MSG in my cooking once in awhile

* Smoke seldomly

* Eat fatty meats such as lamb / duck

* No sleep consistently

* Have too much stress

No one is going to refute these scientifically, but at the same time, just because we ignore the warnings, do not mean that we do not accept the warning as truthful. There is simply a more complex heuristic function we use to evaluate our decisions than a purely risk adverse one.

<comment><USER6> It's not about the harm you're doing to your own body, it's about the harm you're doing to other people and their property without their consent. Snowboarding or missing sleep doesn't harm anyone else. Burning wood does, and that's why it's different.

<comment><USER7> However, missing sleep and then driving (a rather common occurrence) is incredibly dangerous to the person doing it and others. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep- deprived_driving](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep-deprived_driving)) In fact, I think it's fair to argue that sleep deprivation plus daily activities (work or otherwise) likely puts more people at risk than burning wood, many of them without their consent (as they are not the sleep deprived ones).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't know if is that I am a very skeptical person, that I am a Sam Harris fan, or that I grew up without a fireplace (I suspect it is this one), but I didn't find myself at all opposed to the information about fireplaces. Consider me an anti-fireplace convert!

<comment><USER9> It continues to amaze me how Sam Harris has managed to change my mind about nearly everything he talks about, be it gun control, scientific morality, or how we should talk about "faith".

<comment><USER10> Did he actually manage to change your mind about scientific morality though? That seems to be the one area where he's met with a lot of resistance from the secular types.

Specifically that science can quatify the morality of various actions and doings. This is what his last book is all about, "The Moral Landscape". He talks about it here on a TED talk: [http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html)

A lot of people are unconvinced, but he's definitely the guy to be making these arguments, considering he got his PhD in neuroscience.

<comment><USER9> Just finished reading "The Moral Landscape" \-- to me it's clear that morality is just as much a science as medecine or economics is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It seems that Mr. Harris is not aware of the various improved techniques to burn wood like rocket mass heater or heat-accumulating fireplaces (e.g. Tulikivi). By the way, I'm in Europe, burning woods to heat my house and not for a "recreational" objective using a heat-accumulating fireplace.

<comment><USER12> None of these are new or improved and they all have the same consequences because we are talking about chemistry (what happens to wood when it is burned).

This pseudo argument is akin to those who, after some initial evidence came to light about the harmful effects of smoking 50-60 years ago, argued that with a filter, smoking was safe (because the filter would 'catch' the bad stuff).

No matter what kind of technique or equipment you use, nothing will 100% prevent the escape of the carcinogenic compounds produced by the chemical reaction of burning wood.

So the question becomes, do you want a little bit of carcinogens in your air? a lot of them? or none (produced by you in your enclosed space/home)?

<comment><USER13> The "chemistry" of wood burning only implies that CO2 and water will be produced. These are not particularly harmful compared to smoke.

<comment><USER14> Plants are well known to contain elements other than carbon and hydrogen. So sure, if you stick to cartoon chemistry you just have those, if you try to actually characterize the reaction, not so much.

<comment><USER13> The hazardous chemical byproducts of incomplete wood combustion are primarily CHO compounds. With sufficient combustion wood burning can produce very little to none of those compounds. Not that such conditions are typical of wood burning, but the idea that burning wood must produce carcinogenic and hazardous products due to the fundamental chemistry involved is simply erroneous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> See also previous HN discussion, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5355248](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5355248)

<comment><USER16> I just hope no one brings up the dangers of owning guns vs. pools in this thread, please.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> We have a fireplace. It's our primary source of heat. It's efficient, however - an EPA approved catalytic model. The smoke from the chimney is very light, and once it's burning dissipates very quickly. Plenty of stoves/fireplaces produce a blue pall of smoke that hangs over the entire area for days, and it's not one of those.

I'd be curious to know if studies included modern and correctly-installed stoves as well.

<comment><USER18> This is the 21th century, but I'm afraid the message hasn't quite arrived yet: no, your generation of (heat|power|motion) through _combustion_ or _burning_ of things is not ever going to be healthy, efficient or sane.

<comment><USER17> I think I disagree. For energy density, gasoline is hard to beat. And I'm not convinced that catalytic wood stoves are that bad, without doing more research.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This argument seems to have 'recreational' as its cornerstone - as soon as it's not recreational, it falls apart, since death from potential cancer in the future is not as bad as poor health or death now from being cold or having poor-quality food.

But even when it's not recreational, the author calls it a scourge in the developing world - apparently 'warmth' is just a nice-to-have, and food cooked for both taste (better subjective experience of life) and to ease digestion (better physical health) are significant issues that the author ignores.

I would say that the 'intelligent' people that the author presents this argument to are not intelligent enough to see the gaping flaws in the argument as presented. There are problems with burning wood, and these can be quite significant in some areas. But balancing this against the argument "all a wood fire gives us is a sense of comfort" should be easily countered by any intelligent audience. What is described in the article is not 'scientific reality', but a very selective subset of it.

It's a reasonable analogy for the some of the issues of discussing religion as an atheist, but I don't think it's anywhere near as clever as the author does, because it relies on intentionally withholding or glossing over a host of very pertinent information. A well-read atheist should be able to counter any point without withholding information.

As an aside, the best thing I've seen on the problems of atheism versus (christian) religion was one guy who became an atheist over the course of years. He mentioned that the way many atheists go about arguing their case undermines themselves - screaming facts at people, then being abusive to some degree when they "can't understand reason". He points out that it doesn't matter what it is you think, if someone is demanding you think differently, and abusing you for not changing instantly, you're instinctively going to create barriers to what they're saying. Whether it's religion, sporting teams, personal politics, diet, anything that's not a trivial investment for the individual. Of course, the fly in the ointment is that politics at the national level can't really be run this way...

<comment><USER20> You might have missed the point that wood is not the only way to get 'warmth' e.g., you could use gas that is less harmful. It discards most of your comment. Though your last paragraph suggests that you might have some difficulty accepting that if you are not considering it a trivial investment.

(I've tried to make the comment to sound less snarky without sacrificing accuracy).

Personal data point: Maybe I'm too gullible but I love to find out something new that changes my mind (not too often), especially non-trivial stuff e.g., about weight/fitness as it relates to health. Not all people resist change all of the time.

<comment><USER19> I didn't miss the 'use gas instead' argument - and it doesn't discard most of my comment at all. Read the comment again - I'm talking about the times when wood is _not_ used 'recreationally'. This is usually in rural areas in developed countries, where wood is very cheap, if not free, or in some developing countries where it's often the only fuel source available en masse.

The article is framing 'a wood fire' as something that is merely to provide some sort of cosy sense of solace, which is really a very selective way to look at it. Not to mention that saying "just use gas instead" isn't so trivial - if you're not hooked up to a gas pipe, then managing the gas supply has its own transport issues, extra costs and so forth. For a lot of subsistence farmers with access to both, free wood is likely to be favourable over gas bottles. Gas has wonderful convenience, but if you don't have the money? Frequently the answer is gas for cooking and wood for heating.

Similarly, he begs the question a bit when he says that wood fires are natural. They're not natural the way humans use them, not even remotely. That whole argument over the 'naturalness' of fires is a total sideshow, simply because they're not natural - they are _traditional_. I get that it's supposed to be an illustrative analogy, which is why I say I think it's okay, but not as clever as the author seems to think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The city I live in ran a campaign a number of years ago handing out $1000 vouchers to upgrade inefficient wood stoves. It can be a air quality issue, but the major issue is one of efficiency. Modern wood stoves are very efficient - where a fireplace may run at 15%, some of the new hearthstones exceed 80%. In any case, as someone from New Hampshire, I find it insulting that anyone would frame burning wood as "recreational."

<comment><USER14> I think reacting to it as framing is wrong, it is simply an attempt to sidestep wood burning that is primary intended for heating.

Recreational wood burning really is a thing that people do...

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> _Research shows that nearly 70 percent of chimney smoke reenters nearby buildings_

Well, then the "research" is obviously wrong. What else in the article is wrong?

<comment><USER23> Why so obviously wrong? Seems reasonable to me that chimney smoke – defined as air with heavy particulates created from burning wood – might fall back down to the ground (and thus into surrounding buildings) once it has cooled.

I'm not saying it's right, but it doesn't seem obviously wrong to me. Regardless, I'm sure whatever "research" there is must be based on _something_! A citation would have been appreciated so we could judge for ourselves...

<comment><USER19> If 70% of chimney smoke re-entered nearby buildings, then those times when most buildings were burning, the air inside them would be nearly as smoky as what come out of the chimney. It's also very hard to believe outside of a tenement arrangement. In a village where there's lots of space between houses, and assuming _all_ particulate matter fell back within the bounds of the village (itself a big stretch), it's hard to see how two-thirds of smoke would find its way back into buildings.

<comment><USER24> No, since one persons smoke could enter a dozen peoples houses.

<comment><USER19> "those times when most buildings were burning" would not have one burner per twelve recipients.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is the umpteenth time I've seen this on HN. Is there a flaw in the HN algorithm that allows the exact same article of be recycled several times thru or is that a feature. Is it a way to get lots of Upvotes? Just resubmit an article that did well before?

<comment><USER26> Have you seen this more than two times before? This shows up as the third submission by the HN Search I just did.

[https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Fireplace+delu...](https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Fireplace+delusion)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> While his essay is thought provoking and makes some valid points, he has oversimplified the moral equation in at least two ways. It is not clear that in many areas burning wood (especially using modern catalytic converter efficient wood stoves) would raise air pollutants above background levels due to car/ truck/ airplane exhaust, coal fired power plants, forest fires/ controlled burns, and the burning of sugar cane and other crops (not to mention indoor dust and other non combustion air pollutants). Also heating and cooking with wood using a modern wood stove can significantly lower one's carbon footprint compared to alternatives.

</comment><comment><USER28> Isn't there something else we can burn that also gives off that nice wooden smell? I smell a market opportunity here - bio natural imitation fireplace wood - 100% carcinogen free smoke, asbestos free, cholesterol free, contains no hydrogenated fats.

<comment><USER29> Well, I assume that burning pretty much anything that is solid will produce some sort of micro-particles... which even if they are not cancerogenic are probably not good to inhale...

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> After seeing some cops riding horses on my way home, this corroborated my awareness of silliness in my world.

<comment><USER17> Mounted police are surprisingly effective. They're highly visible (you noticed them on your way home, for example). They're useful for crowd control, as the officer is above the crowds. And being chased by an officer on horseback is a memorable experience, which may have a deterrent effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> "I am sorry to say that if you feel this way about a wood fire, you are not only wrong but dangerously misguided"

This does not follow the preceding paragraph at all, making it painful to read the rest. If my opposition just demonstrates that I'm a romantic that loves my wood fires, then I suppose...</comment>


Intel just confirmed it's building a tiny modular desktop gaming PC - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/6/21051276/intel-ghost-canyon-nuc-9-extreme-confirmed-ces-2020-modular-gaming-desktop <comment><USER2> Replaceable CPU? I thought the NUCs use BGA laptop chips.

It's not going to be a cheap box.

<comment><AUTHOR> The BGA and support chips could be on a board that can be plugged in.</comment></comment>


MIT Students Take Pictures from 93,000 ft on $150 Budget. - <AUTHOR> http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-328198

<comment><USER2> Over at Slashdot, there are some interesting comments pointing out that this has been done for over 30 years.

[http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1367009&cid=...](http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1367009&cid=29406493)

[http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1367009&cid...](http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1367009&cid=29407491)

One amusing quote, whether you agree or disagree:

 _The reason why no one has heard of this before is because no one thinks it's interesting enough to tell the press about; except MIT students, who apparently think that everything they do is hot shit._

</comment><comment><USER3> This is pretty cool. Something similar was done about a year or so ago by some secondary school students in Spain.

Also, there is a cool video floating around somewhere (can't find the link right now) of how to build your own balloon based satellite that incorporates off the shelf cameras and a computer. I think it was a make magazine project.

<comment><USER4> Last spring: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5005...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5005022/Teens- capture-images-of-space-with-56-camera-and-balloon.html) ...which made news at the time because of the extreme low cost, off-the-shelf hardware and so on.

 _Yeh stressed the groundbreaking nature of their work. "The fact that we were able to accomplish space photography on such a low budget and with minimal electronic modifications proves that it's really possible for anyone—anyone at all—to do. Imagine how many students might be inspired if their high school science teacher took the time to give his students an out-of-this-world experience."_

...or indeed, vice versa. I can't help noticing that the reports of European high schoolers correlate strongly with the time that Mr Lee stopped posting on his short-lived cancer-reporting blog, correlatingcancer.com, which is the host for 1337arts.com.

Well, at least Mssrs Lee & Yeh have a superior understanding of marketing and self-promotion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Direct link to the pictures:

<http://space.1337arts.com/flight>

<comment><USER6> direct link to the ingredients:

<http://space.1337arts.com/hardware>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> $148 is not bad at all. I could rotate some of those pictures for them for the other $2.

</comment><comment><USER8> They aren't the first to do something like this.

Here's a very similar project made in 2007:

<http://www.natrium42.com/halo/flight2/>

<comment><USER6> i think the cost is the surprising factor about this story. taken from the site you posted:

Q:How much did it cost? A:The system that is presented is a little over- engineered for historical reasons as well as for future expansion and test purposes. It's possible to build a system for $500 with just a cellphone link and a microcontroller, but make sure that coverage is good where you intend to launch and use a good cellphone antenna.

<comment><USER8> True. But consider also that this has been made two years ago, with 2007 technology.

Edit: Take the camera for instance. The MIT students used a Canon PowerShot A470 (they bought it used from ebay) which costs $120 new and is 7 mega pixels. This guy used a similar camera (Canon PowerShot A70) which was only 3.1 mega pixels and costed $350 when it came out.

<comment><USER9> Oregon State University launched a balloon to commemorate 100 million downloads of Firefox. They used a disposable camera with a simple timer wired to it. They didn't include a GPS unit though because it was "too expensive", the camera has yet to be found. The cannon would take better pictures, just pointing out that its not the cheapest route.

<http://lug.oregonstate.edu/events/firefox/sky>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's a bit of a stretch to call 20 miles up "space".

<comment><USER11> Yes: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space#Boundary>

<comment><USER12> Come on. The sky is black, the ground is blue...

And its farther from the ground than I ever was.

Let them brag. If more people build simple affordable stuff that go higher than common aircraft and give them a taste of what space is, I am fine with it. It's a step in the right direction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> With no formal training, Ron Meadows, a pool service guy from San Jose, built a stratospheric balloon package and took photos at 100,000 feet. [http://cbs5.com/watercooler/stratosphere.balloon.launch.2.11...](http://cbs5.com/watercooler/stratosphere.balloon.launch.2.1191754.html)

</comment><comment><USER14> Does anyone know how hard it'd be to send up a proper digital SLR and/or a proper digital hd camcorder on a similar contraption?

Assume you already have the fancy camera or camcorder.

</comment><comment><USER15> I can't find information about the balloon. What kind of balloon did they use and where can I buy one?

<comment><USER16> <http://www.kaymont.com/pages/sounding-balloons.cfm>

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Congrats Justin Lee! I was in your CS class senior year of Bellaire. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER18> These are the kinds of things that make me want to attend MIT. You can easily market these things if you made them user-friendly. Maybe even put a steering mechanism on them?

<comment><USER19> Why do you think these things are peculiar to MIT?

<comment><USER20> Because of this: "Justin Lee and Oliver Yeh". At a state school, it can be quite difficult to find another person willing to help you build your dreams.

<comment><USER21> As someone who went to a state school for undergrad, worked for a few years, and is currently at MIT for a PhD: Yes. MIT is a magical place like none other.

It's hard to put it more concisely.. The whole school just has an aura of "what the hell, let's try it" and a the professors and financial backing to make it happen.

<comment><USER8> It seem that financial backing wasn't needed for this project. Isn't the cheap cost the surprising factor here?

<comment><USER21> Sure. I was making a statement about MIT, not this project.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


AWS OpenVPN Endpoint Script - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ttlequals0/autovpn <comment><USER2> I've been playing with this lately:

[https://github.com/jlund/streisand](https://github.com/jlund/streisand)

It's essentially a set of Ansible scripts that will install a set of VPN daemons on your cloud instance* , such as OpenVPN, Stunnel, OpenConnect, L2TP/IPsec, Shadowsocks, and more. Seems to be running well so far.

* supported providers are Amazon EC2, DigitalOcean, Google Compute Engine, Linode and Rackspace.

</comment><comment><USER3> I also like the Tinfoil Security VPN setup, which does it for you fairly automagically using DO:

[https://www.tinfoilsecurity.com/vpn/new](https://www.tinfoilsecurity.com/vpn/new)

</comment><comment><USER4> Funny this should appear; I just (literally connected for 16m 27s) ended up using this today to create something similar on digital ocean... The Starbucks wifi has a mind of it's own.

[https://github.com/hwdsl2/setup-ipsec-vpn](https://github.com/hwdsl2/setup- ipsec-vpn)

Recommended.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've played around with a couple of ways to get into AWS machines, Zerotier seems the easiest hands down

<comment><USER6> Zerotier looks great, and affordable. Do you use this in production? any drawbacks?

<comment><USER5> Its free and open source as far as i know (you mentioned affordable). The drawbacks i've had so far are on bad routers (double NATs) where it gets a bit sticky with connecting, otherwise all quite good, one of the best pieces of software i've ever used.

If the configuration when connecting behind a NAT on a badly configured router i've never really had a bad experience with ZT. I use it to connect into my AWS VPC then connect to anything I need to as if it were local.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What advantage does this have over the OpenVPN Access Server on the AWS Marketplace? It does everything except attach the EIP at the end.

<comment><AUTHOR> The goal for this was a dynamic approach to create and destroy endpoints on the fly. The OpenVPN Access Sever is typically for a more permanent deployment.</comment></comment>


Free vpn with IPv6 support - <AUTHOR> I am working on setting up a vpn using openvpn and am currently connecting to vpnbook. I noticed however that my IPv6 address is still available publicly. Does anyone know of a free vpn server that provides ipv6 support? Or if I want to prevent leaks will I need to use a paid service? <comment><USER2> I would advise disabling IPv6 for any system where leaking is really important. Honestly, I would suggest Whonix or a similar operating system where all outbound traffic goes over Tor by design and has been configured by experts.</comment>


Code reviews still rule (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://www.philipotoole.com/code-reviews-still-rule/ <comment><USER2> There's nothing really to this article, no offence to the writer. How did it get on to the front page of HN?

<comment><USER3> The gist of the article is: "code review is cool, I did it this way, I got this. from my experience, here is the way it feels, and the cost of not doing it". It's shallow, but it's not empty. Just an enthousiastic experience sharing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> One thing that I find troubling is code review within FLOSS organisations and how Github doesn't let maintainers push to my PR. It's annoying to get your patch rejected because of a typo or lack of squashed commits, for example.

<comment><USER5> GitHub PRs only show you changes (unless you dig deeper) and not the grand scheme of things.

IMHO this is inadequate for code reviews...</comment></comment>


Show HN: Parameter Validation in Javalin (Kotlin) - <AUTHOR> https://javalin.io/news/2019/03/26/javalin-2.8.0-released.html <comment><AUTHOR> It's been a while since I've posted about Javalin here, but I'm really happy with how the new validation setup ended up:

        val myQpInt = ctx.validatedQueryParam("my-qp").asInt().getOrThrow() // past, java + kotlin

        val myQpInt = ctx.queryParam<Int>("my-qp").get() // kotlin now

        var myQpInt = ctx.queryParam("my-qp", Integer.class).get(); // java now</comment>


Startup now 100% on AWS (they're using AMQP, PostgreSQL, pgpool-II and Rails) - <AUTHOR> http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2008/12/running-everything-on-aws-soocialcom.html <comment><USER2> Believe it or not :) there are other uses for servers than web hosting. I can see why amazon publicise these stories, but it's probably not the idea use case.

If you're doing number crunching, where you need 100 machines to get results in an hour, and then you're going to spend 3 days thinking about the result, then EC2 is perfect - the key is that there is not cost difference between using 100 servers for one hour, and 1 server for 100 hours. Slicehost doesn't offer that.

Of course for this to be useful you need a problem that can use 100 machines in parallel, but if that's the problem you have it's perfect for EC2.

</comment><comment><USER3> So, I guess I'm left wondering what makes AWS so much better for this purpose. Slicehost (and others) similarly offer Xen instances going up to 15GB in size. The big problem I have with AWS is the high cost of bandwidth.

With Slicehost, I can get a 2GB server with 80GB of persistent storage and 800GB of bandwidth for $130. With EC2, 800GB of transfer would cost $136 alone, plus $72 for the server, plus around $35 for the disk space and I/O charges. $243 > $130 by a long shot.

I really want to like EC2, but it always seems expensive. Plus, I always feel that elastic IPs are not heartbeat which other Xen providers do work with.

Maybe AWS is better because there's an implicit agreement that there will always be bandwidth or storage as needed when one thinks that's more of a question mark with other providers? Maybe there's an implicit thing that if you need to, on very short notice, fire up 10-15 Extra Large instances, the capacity will be there while others might not have the hardware?

Maybe someone has more experiences with high volume sites on these services?

<comment><USER4> Yeh, but if that $243 was your "base" price, it'd only cost $72 or what ever to add a new server, or of course you could just use it for a few hours when needed. Elasticity REALLY is the strong point of EC2, with the ability to create your application to automatically scale (and de-scale) on its own, and only pay for what you use.

You can cancel a Slicehost server at any time, but you pay for a day if you only use an hour, and the refund is credited to your account as far as I know -- if you need 100 servers for an hour, even 256 slices, its going to cost you $2000, with $1934 credited to your account afterwards, compared to $10 on EC2. If you have money to splash around (your not really spending $2000 for 100 server hours, but you still need it), you'd proberly be better with Slicehost (or some other VPS host), but if you don't, EC2 is a very good option for scaling on the cheap.

<comment><USER5> "EC2 is a very good option for scaling on the cheap."

Until you start using serious bandwidth. Then it's extremely expensive.

As you say, if you have a massive spike for an hour or something due to the nature of your service, maybe AWS makes sense rather than paying for the full day, but I think that's an extremely rare usecase.

Also if you're using a language/setup that isn't too efficient, then AWS may be a second best option to switching language/framework etc.

<comment><USER4> Sure, but that bandwidth is very flexible also; you GET 800GB bandwidth mentioned in the above plan, but what if you just need 400GB...or 1600GB? AWS will scale from your launch day till the day you go IPO, or at least are at the stage when you can buy terabytes of bandwidth in bulk, cause you know you'll use it.

Really don't agree with the last part though...unless your code is really slow, a rewrite is only going to waste your time and focus your attention on the rewrite rather than developing your business. Defiantly improve as you go...most of us are geeks, we'd have a massive grin on our face if we saved a few milliseconds from each request, but you should only do it if it's actually worth it! :)

<comment><USER5> I'm more meaning that changing architecture/language may mean you can run the entire thing on a single server, rather than 10.

Doing that sort of optimization helps a lot with scaling later on.

<comment><USER6> Not if that sort of optimazation means that you can _ONLY_ run it on a single server!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Maybe I'm a bit slow, but why is this special?

<comment><USER8> It allows them to leverage your contacts for marketing purposes?

<comment><USER5> "Allow us to spam all of your contacts so we can 'go viral'?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In other news, I've now invested 100% of my money with this nice guy Bernie Madoff. He beats the market every year!

</comment><comment><USER10> I've never been able to get Rails set up on AWS - had problems with the AMIs etc.

Can anyone point me in the right direction for a LAMP/Rails setup?

<comment><USER11> @goodkarma, you might try Rightscale management platform. It will give you access to a number of public AMIs with that stack.</comment></comment>


Snowden suspected of bypassing electronic logs - <AUTHOR> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NSA_SURVEILLANCE_SNOWDEN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT <comment> UVB-76 > The disclosure undermines the Obama administration's assurances to Congress > and the public that the NSA surveillance programs can't be abused because > its spying systems are so aggressively monitored and audited for oversight > purposes: If Snowden could defeat the NSA's own tripwires and internal > burglar alarms, how many other employees or contractors could do the same?

This is the take-home message.

The steady stream of security breaches and information leaks in recent years has taught us that the only way to guarantee information does not fall into the wrong hands is not to record the information in the first instance.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly! In fact, given the revelations of NSA employees spying on their "love interests" and that most of the breaches are self-reported, it really appears that the assurances of security are misleading.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> This hopefully puts everything into perspective for people who are all-in on NSA spying. Even if you believe it's a good thing that the government can view everyone's communications, surely this makes it clear that if the information exists somewhere, someone besides the government you trust will eventually get their hands on it?

You'd think politicians would realize this the most. In 20 years time when the people running the NSA have changed and a different party or group is at the top of the pyramid, are they not going to use communications you used 10 years ago for their own ends? I'm hoping pure survivalist instinct will win out eventually and some politicians will vote the right way.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Snowden's hacking prowess"

So we're back to this. First the "Snowden had a Hacker Certification" nonsense (ignoring that CEHs are required by DoD for OPS jobs and aren't exactly high- quality to begin with) and now deleting log files equaling "hacking". I guess it is easier to make him seem like some super skilled hacker than admit that oversight and access controls were probably non existent.

Selfishly, I really don't even care about Snowden at this point but I do fear that the trend developing is to paint him as a "Hacker" putting security researchers as the next major "threat".

<comment><USER4> Completely agree. This is extremely basic stuff you should be doing on supposedly secure systems. It _should_ be difficult to disable logging, and logs obviously shouldn't be stored on the same machine with write access to anyone who might be doing something nefarious. This paints the NSA in an extremely bad light from a security perspective and contradicts all of the bogus claims of impenetrable security by politicians.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a calculated smearing, by "[government] officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity". It's blatant PSYOP. Obviously, audit trail systems are worthless if they allow deletions at will (and without, hah, a trail).

<comment><USER6> If it's a 'blatant' smear, what would be it's agenda? The main thing anyone could take from this is that the NSA's systems are broken or that they're incompetent and can't be trusted to know who's stealing their data. Also that Edward Snowden isn't stupid.

I mean, it could be a smear from an agency who are hostile to the NSA for some reason (that stuff happens; like Valerie Plame, or the notion that Watergate was the result of the FBI leaking against the CIA and the White House). It's hardly likely to be from the NSA or the Whitehouse, who are currently in damage limitation mode; contrasting their own incompetence with that of the guy they're up against doesn't seem like a smart move...

<comment><USER5> That might be the message to us, but the way this news article (press release, rather) is written, the majority of the population will think Snowden is a hacker that circumvented the movie-level-sophistication systems of the NSA. Also see the friendly reminder at the end, that Snowden just took all kinds of material without first-hand experience of the systems described therein.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Really? They didn't consider the notion that someone might delete logs (or disable logging)? Maybe they should be using a better logging daemon...

</comment><comment><USER7> It looks like NSA is the real security threat. So much data readily accessible.</comment>


Show HN: A world cup 2018 live dashboard with browser notifications - <AUTHOR> https://victorparmar.github.io/worldcup-live/ <comment><USER2> Sweet! You should post this on Product Hunt.</comment>


Microsoft, Apple, and others form a pact to make patents cool again - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/3/5577796/microsoft-apple-and-others-form-a-pact-to-make-patents-cool-again

<comment><USER2> The rhetoric from patent-light companies resonates with techies/hackers because their interests align with theirs. If Google and Twitter are patent- light then your start-up is even more so.</comment>


The Resurgence of Parallelism : Communications of the ACM - <AUTHOR> http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2010/6/92479-the-resurgence-of-parallelism/fulltext?good

<comment><USER2> Dup of <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1388227> and _highly_ recommended. Typically for our field we've forgotten a lot of what we've learned about this and original takes on problems are frequently worth checking out to avoid the bias of subsequent group think or premature optimization.</comment>


GDPR Resource Library - <AUTHOR> https://www.carpedatumlaw.com/gdpr-resource-library/ <comment><AUTHOR> My firm put out these materials, and having seen a lot of FUD on here, to the point of people closing up shop and other similar "overcorrection" activities, I felt these needed to be shared with the HN community. It kills me to see people closing up shop and throwing their work away out of fear.

Definitely watch the videos. I can tell you having done GDPR legal risk assessments for the past few years that if you're only thinking about this now, you're probably too late. The good news is the regulators are 1) going after low hanging fruit first (Facebook, Google, Apple, etc); 2) many of them are in disagreement about enforcement and priorities; 3) much of this is really about pseudo-taxation (hence the 4% of global gross revenue scare tactic); 4) some regulators are going to fight about who "gets to" go after certain companies; 5) if you're a tiny solo shop that does messaging apps, the likelihood of you even being noticed is so slim that closing up shop is really extreme; 6) compliance is probably easier than you think if you are that small.

<comment><USER2> Your comment doesn't do much to assuage my fear. All I see is uneven and arbitrary enforcement of an ill defined system that's basically an excuse to tax tech companies more. Oh and "if you're only thinking about this now, you're probably too late"

GDPR is anti-tech and anti-small business.

<comment><USER3> > All I see is uneven and arbitrary enforcement

Have we seen any enforcement at all yet?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not yet because it's not even in effect until May 25th. Then enforcement _can_ begin. But yes, in the legal industry we expect it to be very uneven enforcement. The German regulator may be more worked up than the Spanish one, for example. And again, it's going to be low hanging fruit. Why would a regulator bring an enforcement action against some solo practitioner making $100k a year to maybe get $4k in fines when they can go after Facebook?

<comment><USER4> Why would they do 4k in fines when they can charge 20 million euro in fines?

<comment><USER5> Because they can't just charge 20 million, and don't want a court explaining them why?

<comment><USER4> Have you even read the GDPR?

It literally says this.

"4% of annual global turnover or €20 Million (whichever is greater)"

<comment><USER6> It literally doesn't. What it literally says is:

"...subject to administrative fines _up to_ 20 000 000 EUR, or in the case of an undertaking, _up to_ 4 % of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher."

It also says "...the fines imposed shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive."

<comment><USER4> Ok close enough? Forgive me for not remembering the exact wording of the GDPR and taking the first result that comes up on Google.

[https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/](https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/)

"Infringements of the following provisions shall, in accordance with paragraph 2, be subject to administrative fines up to 20 000 000 EUR, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 4 % of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher:"

Proportionate how? That's obviously up to them to decide and they probably mean that large companies like Google will be subject to the 4% instead of 20 million euro. Are you going to bet your life savings that they will fine you 4k euro instead of 1 million euro?

Why would they bother to add the phrase with "whichever is higher" if they were even going to consider a fine lower than 20 million euro? Think about it. They don't care about the fine being proportionate to the downside, they are just worried about it not being strict enough to companies like Facebook and Google.

<comment><USER5> Really? There is a _long_ list of criteria to consider on that exact page you link, and those _will_ be checked by courts if the DPAs appear unreasonable. I didn't say a 20 million fine is impossible, but it'll need a very good basis.

Yes, the maxima are high, but it's crazy to believe the DPAs will be able (both legally and politically) to hand fines even close to that out left and right, even if you assumed they over night suddenly turn into organizations hell-bent to do maximum damage.

It's weird how people see that maximum amount and somehow believe those will be the norm, throwing all experience with both the DPAs and other regulations out of the window. How many undeserving businesses have been fined to death in other areas (financial regulation, environmental protection, ...) and why should this suddenly start with privacy law? No government has an interest in its enforcement arm ruining business, of course they care about downsides. Regulation and its enforcement doesn't exist in a vacuum, as much as the revenge-boner some "privacy advocates" (ideally selling some GDPR advice on the side...) get right now wishes it were otherwise.

(On the other hand, these numbers seem to be the only thing motivating some business owners to care, so even if they're never used they've served a purpose. Really, the amount of conversations you see that go "And they are complaining that suddenly doing X is so much work", "Didn't they have to do X under previous law as well?" "..." is mind-boggling)

<comment><USER4> And tell me, how exactly does this long list show that you won't be fined a ridiculous amount? Where does it say that if you only broke X out of Y rules that you will be fined Z less?

There's __absolutely NO detail __on how exactly the fines will scale DOWN other than to say that the fine could be as low as 10 million euro to 2% of global turnover. And it is filled with vague, totally up to the imagination terms like "nature, gravity and duration".

Do you really want to leave this up to the imagination of poor EU countries like Croatia or Romania and think they are going to care about making some random people bankrupt so they can cash in millions?

If the law does not prevent it, you can bet it will be abused.

How many business have been fined to death in other areas? I don't know but I am sure you won't hear about them. No one wants to be the guinea pig.

This law probably has the widest and easily enforceable scope out of any others in the past. That's what makes it different from before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why do law firms believe GDPR is a legal issue? Privacy and Security have not been an entirely legal issue, though legal representation is often in the mix when dealing with regulations. I'm curious why GDPR continues to be treated as a legal problem when the regulation is more than clear on its intent and requirements?

<comment><USER5> Because a lot of detailed questions are not obviously _more than clear_ , especially if you have an interest in not just taking the strictest possible reading, and thus people want legal opinions on that. And where those legal opinions strongly disagree, there'll be legal proceedings to have the courts clarify those.

<comment><USER7> Fair. I guess it's far more pressing for the Data Controllers versus Processors (my case), so I'll stop with my biased view.</comment></comment></comment>