The Space Shuttle's Controversial Launch Abort Plan - <AUTHOR> http://www.tested.com/science/space/460233-space-shuttles-controversial-launch-abort-plan/ <comment><USER2> Still not as crazy as the planned Lunar Escape Systems.

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

"There was no mass or power available in the LESS for an Inertial Measurement Unit to measure acceleration and tell the astronauts where they were, where they were going or how fast they would be getting there, or even for a radar altimeter to show altitude above the lunar surface."

<comment><USER3> In the same vein, there was the proposed MOOSE reentry system: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOOSE](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOOSE)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If I had a spare billion bucks laying around when the shuttle program ended, I thought it would been fun to actually try out an RTLS. Tie up the necessary loose ends on the autopilot, stack up an empty shuttle, invite a lot of people, and let it go. No real use to it, but it would have been a great "Hey y'all, watch this" moment.

<comment><USER5> I get images of Topgears Renault Robin space shuttle clone in my head. While obviously not hitting the heights the shuttle can it was an impressive endeavor that might satisfy your curiosity; [http://youtu.be/pJdrlWR- yFM](http://youtu.be/pJdrlWR-yFM)

<comment><USER6> A classic TG moment. I still meet people that think that was real.

<comment><USER7> Top Gear (along with Fox News), hold the dubious honour of having had to defend themselves in court for their right to lie in segments presented as factual reporting. This is probably part of the reason why they moved away from car reviews and onto doing stunts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Almost as good as sliding 200ft from the base of an exploding Saturn V to a rubber room, a quick crawl to the blast room, slam the door shut, cover yourself in a fire blanket and if you survive long enough light oxygen candles until the rescuers arrive. [http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1211/19rubberroom/](http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1211/19rubberroom/)

<comment><USER9> This photo from that series [http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1211/19rubberroom/full15...](http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1211/19rubberroom/full15.jpg) looks like something straight out of Half-Life. After reading the article on STS-1, that doesn't seem too far off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Insane is a better word for it. Although to be fair there are a lot of aspects of the shuttle's design and operation that will be remembered that way.

He even glosses over the SRB issue. Thanks to the SRB's, there were no abort modes for the shuttle during the first 123 seconds. Until they had expended themselves any abort would have required separating the SRB's while they were still firing at full thrust. They would have accelerated forward of the stack, their hot exhaust impinging directly on the external tank while it was still full of fuel.

The RTLS was insane, but I don't think it comes close to the madness of STS-1: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-1)

That flight will go down in history as the only time anyone was dumb enough to put people on top of a rocket _on its very first flight_.

</comment><comment><USER11> Also related - "Shuttle Down" by Harry Stine:

"In the book, the Space Shuttle Atlantis launches on a polar orbit flight from Vandenberg Air Force Base in Southern California. During the launch, the main engines cut off prematurely and the shuttle is forced to make an emergency landing on Rapa Nui, better known to most of the world as Easter Island."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Down](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Down)

<comment><USER11> "In addition, astronauts now carry passports and other documents, including traveller's cheques, in case of emergency landings."

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Maciej Ceglowski put it best:

 _" You know you're in trouble when the Russians are adding safety features to your design."_ [1]

[1] [http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm#5](http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm#5)

</comment><comment><USER13> Surely more controversial would be the range safety "Flight Termiantion" (i.e. self destruct) option?

[http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/4262479](http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/4262479)

<comment><USER14> Not really. The controversy here is over whether or not it would work if they needed it. Range safety is something everyone agreed with the necessity of, and there wasn't a lot of concern that it wouldn't work. (It was basically a small explosive charge sitting on the SRB and a radio control - very well understood).

The RTLS abort mode, everyone agreed was necessary (in the "no other options" sense, but as the article explains, no one can be sure it would actually work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I grew up in the English countryside a few miles away from a US airbase which was designated as one of the possible landing sites in the event of an aborted launch, due to it's long runway.

There was an American couple living in our village and the guy's job was to be on call during a shuttle launch. Suffice it to say he and his buddies spent most of their days playing poker.

<comment><USER16> Which airbase, out of interest?

<comment><USER15> Fairford.

<comment><USER17> Shannon on the west coast of Ireland was also a designated emergency field.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Somewhat related and another great read - the detailed plan for a never- launched Columbia rescue mission (including a space shuttle rendezvous):

[http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/the-audacious- rescue-...](http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/the-audacious-rescue-plan- that-might-have-saved-space-shuttle-columbia/)

</comment><comment><USER19> I wrote a paper while I was doing my phys/astro degree on why the shuttle was bad for the US space program. This was a major reason for it because every accident was guaranteed death for the astronauts, which then guaranteed a shutdown of all manned launches for months. NASA has been cash-strapped since the 70s but they can still absorb and recover from lost rockets (with astronauts ejected vertically), whereas lost life leaves a scar on the organization.

</comment><comment><USER20> I wonder if this maneuver could be performed in that Kerbal Space Program game?

<comment><USER21> Definitely. KSP doesn't really model aerodynamics, nor re-entry heat, and has a fairly simplistic model for stresses between components.

You can almost certainly RTLS successfully in a KSP version of the shuttle because the game conveniently doesn't simulate the hard parts ;)

Now, KSP with the Deadly Reentry mod and the FAR aerodynamics mod would make the exercise much harder.

<comment><USER22> You're right that KSP physics would make it a bit easier than in real life. Even with FAR aerodynamics and Deadly re-entry it would probably be somewhat possible.

But Kerbal Space Program has very crude instruments and controls (especially when using the keyboard). It is very difficult to fly any kind of aircraft let alone gliders.

Perhaps using the built-in flight assists in FAR to maintain a steady pitch trim you could try to make it. But you'd still need to understand the best glide airspeed and other aerodynamic characteristics of the craft to make a deadstick landing.

It might be possible but extremely difficult to pull off an RTLS abort maneuver in KSP.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I found it very difficult to picture what exactly was supposed to go on in each maneuver based on the text. It would help to have more diagrams and to move the diagram near the bottom up to the top. The simulation video also didn't help, because it was in a first-person view for all of the interesting parts.

</comment><comment><USER24> From the article:

 _" Of the 135 Space Shuttle launches, only one (STS-51F on 7/29/85) experienced an abort-inducing failure during ascent. In the case of 51F, they safely made a lower-than-planned orbit and carried out the mission. All of the other flights cleanly avoided the dubious honor of settling the RTLS bet."_

All but one. Did the writer just forget about the Challenger mission, or did that one somehow count as "cleanly avoiding" an "abort-inducing failure"?

(Someone in the comments to the article has brought this up as well.)

<comment><USER25> Challenger never got to RTLS, so yeah, it cleanly avoided settling the bet.

<comment><USER24> I think this is a very...nuanced...interpretation of "cleanly avoid".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > Mind = blown.

What an unfortunate "sentence" in otherwise very informative and captivating article.

<comment><USER27> I hope you're able to recover and move on from this.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How accurate is this SS7 cell phone hack and is it as easy as described? - <AUTHOR> How accurate is this Signalling System No. 7 cell phone hack and is it that easy to do as described in this article? Also if close, what we can really do to protect from tracking, etc...
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/hackers-cellphone-security-1.4406338
Thanks a lot! <comment><USER2> Very easy to do, even for your average person if you know the right sites.

Easiest way to protect yourself, get a virtual mobile number from someone like Twilio, as the location will always appear as them, and call forward to a number you don't advertise or even an App.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you have links with more information? Thanks!</comment></comment>


How do I leave a company? - <AUTHOR> I've accepted an offer for a new job. I've been at my current company since I graduated 5 years ago. I've learned a lot and made some friends but for me it's time to go. Any words of advice on how to exit on good terms, or on things to consider before announcing it to my manager and coworkers? <comment><USER2> 1) Tell your manager first in private. Talk only positively. Despite being there for such a long time this is something managers deal with on a frequent basis and expect. (Do not tell your coworkers anything until everything is official)

2) Be open to negotiation. You may have no idea how much they may be willing to put on the table or you may be able to up your offer at the new place through a series of counter offers. (If you have already accepted the new offer, only talk to your current employer)

3) Allow for 2 weeks notice starting at the beginning of next week. Be proactive in putting together a plan to transition your work over to other members of your team. (Also while relatively uncommon do not be surprised if they happen to ask you to leave immediately - its typically nothing personal but can be policy)

4) Get the personal contacts of your close colleagues. Spam everyone there with LinkedIn invites to connect. Possibly ask any close colleagues or supervisors for recommendations.

5) Collect and return any company equipment. Arrange for your last paycheck including any unused vacation.

6) On the last day, you will most likely take part in an exit interview. Say nothing negative - even constructive feedback should not be given. They will ask you to sign some paperwork. Tell them you will take it home with you to read in full. Do not send in the paperwork - it only is meant to clear your employer of any liability and void your legal rights.

7) Take a week off before your new job and relax.

<comment><USER3> On point 2, I'd like to offer a different view, matching my own experiences and those of people I know in other companies who give the same counsel. Once you've made it clear that you were about to leave and you stayed because they offered more money or some other such better deal, they will always, always, be wondering when you're going to actually leave, and that will affect how they plan your participation. It will change things. It's not that you won't be trusted, so much as you will have a track record of leaving. Unless the counter-offer really is spectacular, once you've decided to go, go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was in the same position about a year ago. I spent about three years at a company, it was my first real job and the members of my team were not just colleagues, but also friends.

But then a really good opportunity came up and I decided to leave. I just walked up to my boss and told him about the offer that I got. He asked if there was anything they could do to keep me, but the fact was they'd never be able to top the offer I got.

So, I guess, my advice would be:

1\. Be honest.

2\. Notify your boss well ahead of time. Finish up your work.

3\. If possible, write some docs and train other employees. I happened to be the only guy maintaining a certain system, so before leaving I made sure the knowledge was shared with the team members, wrote checklists of what to do in emergency situations, etc.

4\. I don't know if it's appropriate in your office, but if it is, throw a good-bye party, preferably with some alcohol. When is the next time you'll get to drink with your work buddies? :)

Note that it may seem like a lot of work to finish up projects, write docs and train others. It is. Fortunately, I had plenty of time between the offer and actually leaving my previous job, but that was because the new employer had to do some visa work. Your situation might be different, though, but even if you don't have much time, try to squeeze in as much as possible. It's more a courtesy to your teammates rather than a favor to the company.

</comment><comment><USER5> One tip I'd add is practice data hygiene _before_ you notify anyone. Clean any personal or questionable material off your company-issued computer and/or phone. Be careful only to copy files that belong to you -- do not copy _any_ company materials or things you did on company time, that belong to other companies and were shared confidentially with you in your job, purchased by your employer for company use, etc. for personal use, your "portfolio", or what have you without explicit permission to do so.

If you do copy personal materials, copy them onto a fresh USB stick and be up front about it, or at least keep the disk handy in case anyone asks and wants to review it.

There are certain things you may feel entitled to take that are in the grey area -- e.g., contacts you've made on the job. Depending on what country & state you're in, what kind of job and what kind of proprietary information agreements you have or policies the company has in place, different rules may apply. Consult a lawyer friend if in any doubt.

In any case my advice to you is not to risk putting yourself in a position where the company could ever claim either a) that you took proprietary materials to another company or for any use that did them harm, or b) that they have a claim to any of your personal IP or the value subsequently created from it. (Protecting against the latter, of course, requires that you practice good hygiene during your entire employment, not just before you give notice.)

</comment><comment><USER6> 1\. Discuss with manager first, colleagues later. Discuss how you arrived at your decision. 2\. Give ample time for knowledge transfer / replacement. 3\. Keep in touch with them after you leave.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> There are some very good recommendations here and I agree with most. I just want to emphasize on "Keep in touch with ex colleagues". It is extremely helpful even if it doesnt seem so at this point. I quit my first and only job 2 yrs back to start my own thing. When I left i left with a smile and maintained contact with all colleagues and bosses. I cannot tell you how much business I have found with the reference from my ex colleagues and bosses. Especially bosses.

</comment><comment> eric-hu Pick a departure date and stick with it. Don't give into concerns about training the company on every possible thing you were responsible for. That could possibly take months to hand-hold them through everything.

Do as much as you can to feel like you're leaving them in a good place, but don't sell your own happiness short to do so.

<comment><USER8> It's the responsibility of the company to have established sufficient redundancy. What if you were instead stricken with a serious illness or injury?

If warranted, help ensure a smooth transition. But don't "kill yourself" to do so. And... once you are out, be cautious of requests for further support. (Some might even ensnare you, legally. Ex-coworkers should not be sharing significant/proprietary internal information with you or asking you for help with same.)

Of course, there is the real world and maintaining friendships / not being a jerk. But keep the above in mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Keep in touch with good people. Collect contact info. Keep it up to date and backed up. Your network is as important if not more, than your skills as you go up the ladder. I think of it as my own private Google index, that I can lookup for anything that the real one can't provide.

</comment><comment><USER10> From the employer's point of view:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4932329>

Well, one employer anyway. YMMV, and other employers may feel differently.</comment>


Can a Bit of Electricity Improve Your Brain? - <AUTHOR> https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-future-brain/201910/can-bit-electricity-improve-your-brain <comment><USER2> Recently, a guy I know who is a chiropractor has been telling me how much he loves PEMF devices. He got one to use on his patients and said that a lot of pro athletes are using PEMF devices to speed up recovery from injury or just regular exertion. There are other benefits as well, according to him.

What I found really interesting was not the stated usage about increased bloodflow and other things from these electromagnetic pulses, but when he told me that being the curious individual he was the first thing he did with it was to wrap it around his head to see what would happen. He said he mind was racing and he felt like his brain was running at twice the normal pace. He said there was so much going through his head he couldn't stop talking. The effects wear off but it got me wondering if that's a sort of body hack one could do to maximize their work performance, albeit on a lower pulse strength so you're not pissing everyone off yapping all day.

<comment><USER3> There would be a theoretical risk of triggering a seizure, akin to electroconvulsive therapy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Please be careful.

"Popular electric brain stimulation method used to boost brainpower is detrimental to IQ scores"

> Using a weak electric current in an attempt to boost brainpower or treat > conditions has become popular among scientists and do-it-yourselfers, but a > new study shows that using the most common form of electric brain > stimulation had a statistically significant detrimental effect on IQ scores.

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150505152140.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150505152140.htm)

</comment><comment><USER5> I've long been interested in this area, but your brain is not something you experiment with willy-nilly: if you do damage, it's not like bricking your raspberry-pi while trying some cool things. That's why direct electrical or magnetic stimulation sound scary to me.

However, there are other ways to experiment! I think the most amenable one is the Dream Machine ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamachine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamachine)) or the Mind Machine ([https://makezine.com/2008/11/13/the-brain- machine/](https://makezine.com/2008/11/13/the-brain-machine/) also [https://learn.adafruit.com/brain- machine/overview](https://learn.adafruit.com/brain-machine/overview)).

Also related: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21152542](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21152542)

<comment><USER6> The power at which tDCS is operated at is pretty low, after you account for resistance the voltage seems less scary. For me I get tDCS at ~13-17hz, 60hz, and 160hz at 0.5 to 1.75 milliamp. The different hz frequencies are to target different brain waves, (alpha, beta, delta, gamma, etc)

<comment><USER7> If you think it's still strong enough to affect brain function, I don't really see how the power being "pretty low" really makes things less scary. I mean, I guess you won't get electrocuted but messing up your brain is messing up your brain, regardless of how much power you used to do it.

<comment><USER8> > _If you think it 's still strong enough to affect brain function, I don't > really see how the power being "pretty low" really makes things less scary._

Drinking a cup of coffee is "still strong enough to affect brain function", and yet we do it every day. In fact several times...

Using electricity that's "still strong enough to affect brain function", but small to have any major effect (they've tried this thing tons of times in clinical settings) is not that different...

<comment><USER9> > Drinking a cup of coffee is "still strong enough to affect brain function", > and yet we do it every day. In fact several times...

Yes, the crucial difference being that you are not exactly breaking scientific ground by sipping a cup of coffee. The effects coffee has on our brain and body, both short and long term, are well researched and sufficiently tested.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > _Typically the voltage is less than two milliamps._

Argh — science journalists :-(

</comment><comment><USER11> I read this here on HN: "using tDCS is like using a sledgehammer to tune a piano".

<comment><USER12> No, not really.

The electric fields produced by tDCS aren't strong enough to _force_ neurons to fire, even in brain areas very close to the surface/electrode, though they can adjust the _timing_ of neural activity, so that cells fire slightly sooner/later than they might otherwise. My collaborators and I have collected some nice data from awake, behaving monkeys (which have obvious similarities to humans) demonstrating this.

\- DC + behavior: [http://packlab.mcgill.ca/Krause%20et%20al%202017.pdf](http://packlab.mcgill.ca/Krause%20et%20al%202017.pdf) \- AC + deeper structures: [http://packlab.mcgill.ca/Krause%20et%20al%202019.pdf](http://packlab.mcgill.ca/Krause%20et%20al%202019.pdf)

There's also a recent preprint replicating our AC results: [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/07/09/696...](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/07/09/696344.full.pdf)

<comment><USER11> Thanks for the sources!

<comment><USER12> No problem--that's the last few years of my life, so if got any questions, I'd be happy to see if I can answer them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It really blows my mind how people are willing to potentially cause long term damage to their brain to try to be more performant at work (or sports).

You only live once, you only have one brain. Please be careful with Snake Oil until really proven by science...

<comment><USER14> It blows my mind, too! I nearly blew a fuse. It's shocking to say the least ..

Sorry, couldn't resist.. :-D

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Anybody have any first hand anecdotal accounts about this? What device do you use?

<comment><USER16> Curious about this as well. Been considering TMS or Ketamine recently so would love to hear feedback from hackers.

<comment><USER17> I participated in a 4 week rTMS study clinical earlier this summer, for treatment-resistant depression. Study included:

\- ~30 minute sessions, 5x a week

\- rTMS device stimulates the prefrontal cortex (located through an MRI, and located each session with a pre-measured cap that you wear during the session)

\- rTMS is non-intrusive, and seems to have virtually no side effects (unless you have a history of epilepsy, which would have precluded you from the study)

I would describe the sessions as pain-free, with a sense of mild annoyance (the magnetic pulse feels like someone flicking you on the head with a finger). Some other people experienced headaches the first two weeks during treatment, but I didn't experience that.

In terms of effectiveness, I would say that it helped greatly reduce the symptoms of depression for me. I've struggled with depression for ~10 years, and antidepressants would sometimes help, but the side-effects were just not maintainable. With rTMS, I feel like it reduced my symptoms by about 60% (not completely gone, but man can I ever function in life again!).

It's been about 3 months since I participated in the trial, and I am now participating in their maintenance program (2 sessions a month, ~10 minutes per session). At this point, I'm recommending rTMS for those who haven't been able to find anything that works for them yet.

<comment><USER18> Not related to TMS, but regarding depression - did you ever try microdosing psilocybin?

<comment><USER19> +1</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


High Level HTML - Supports Markdown, TypeScript, CoffeeScript, Macros - <AUTHOR> http://www.lastedu.com/

<comment><USER2> I don't think I will ever be convince that someone has a better syntax for HTML. Markdown is not bad for writing a quick document. But authoring a whole webpage nothing beats pure html. I'm still on the fence for CoffeeScript as well.

More power to you for trying.

<comment><AUTHOR> This accepts all html tags and attributes so it can be used equivalently to html. Any command line program can be added as a parser.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I posted this previously but I've done a significant amount of work since then based on the comments in the previous discussion <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4437875></comment>


I don't think you browse like I do - <AUTHOR> http://blog.microco.sm/2012/02/04/i-dont-think-you-browse-like-i-do/ <comment><USER2> This just really doesn't bother me, Google knows some stuff about me due to what I have told them and machine learning, they use it primarily to show me ads they think will convert better. This makes Google more money, the advertiser more money and makes it much more likely that the ads will actually be useful to me, pretty much win win win.

<comment><USER3> I don't think the problem is what do they actually do with all those data, but what could happen with it. You can't be sure that in few years, they will use data for something else that ads, something that you're not agree, but meanwhile data are collected. You can't be sure what could happen with Google's data in 5 or 10 years. Sold ? After all, Google is a company, here to make money. Or even some weird law, allow government accessing those data, to track terrorism profile. Ok, maybe it's unlikely, but you can't be sure. What I'm sure of is that loads of data worths loads of money.

<comment><USER4> > I don't think the problem is what do they actually do with all those data, > but what could happen with it.

This is FUD, plain and simple. While I don't advocate sticking one's head in the sand and refusing to predict or even speculate, it's easy to do too much predicting and speculating (and very prone to bias), it's easy to spread paranoia, and it's no basis for living a life and especially it's no way to decide moral or criminal issues. I could go on a murderous rampage tomorrow (perhaps not physically possible as determined by the laws of physics making up my brain but "possible" in the looser sense of it being a member of the state-space of world-configurations). Why don't people I know think this is likely? Largely due to trust that I've built up. Someone once asked me what they could do to gain my trust back when they broke it, I said that it's largely a matter of not doing certain things for a long enough period of time.

And so the problem is heavily dependent on what Google, Facebook, et al. end up _actually_ doing with the data. What they could or might do has little relevance, what they're likely to do has significant relevance but still not as much as what they actually do. Thus far, they've been awesome about either not doing evil things with it or at least not letting me know about their evildoings. Their trust is not yet broken with me, unlike with some other companies I can think of (and correspondingly don't deal with at all).

Therefore I continue to use their products and let them collect and infer as they please. I don't exactly make this easy for them either since I too have "unusual" browsing habits in the form of NoScript, AdBlock, multiple browsers, shared, dynamic IPs and occasionally Tor. I didn't even join Facebook until a couple months ago on a "Let's see who friends me" curiosity (so I don't friend anyone myself). I'm sure there are plenty of Evercookies on my system I'm unaware of though and my full Firefox UserAgent is pretty unique. So they likely have a decent profile of me that they just don't reveal in a straightforward manner. They could also form a good picture from my comments here and elsewhere. (I don't think they have much ad preference data on me except perhaps that I hate ads.)

Though that brings me again to the issue that it can be worth speculating over what is likely to happen that will cause the trust to be broken and if I should be avoiding certain classes of actions that typically lead to harsh repercussions later. For example, suppose you have data showing it's quite likely that lending large sums of money to friends leads to the destruction of the friendship sometime later. Maybe your friendship will be different, but if that outcome is quite likely, you'd probably be better off not taking the risk and in this case acting on facts apart from what the other person has actually done is useful.

Even if these companies break their trust with me in the future, the most likely ways it will be broken do not seem to have incredibly unfortunate outcomes for me. (I can of course think of other quite nasty outcomes as well as anyone.) Similar to how, for example, a friend stealing something petty from you doesn't often cause great financial loss or inconvenience but the trust is shattered nevertheless. Or there may even be actions taken that I never signed up for or wanted and probably would have said "This will violate my trust if they do this" had 'this' been told to me before they did it, yet those actions actually end up being very useful to me and so it doesn't break my trust. I think this is actually how a lot of technological progress has been for a lot of people. They're taken on the ride from the status quo whether they like it or not, but in the aftermath they often like the new place better.

<comment><USER5> You admit that there is a risk, but what can you gain from taking that risk? Because without gain, what incentive to you have to take the risk? Yes, I agree that the likely outcome isn't that bad if they break my trust but only tracking my search queries would be quite revealing and sensitive and would reveal stuff that I tell very few people. So, the thing that yahoo did (releasing all queries with an "anonymous" user ID) could have had huge implications for me personally.

In terms of friendship etc. the gains are huge, but what about google?

Relevant ads? I have never, ever, in my life clicked on a google ad on purpose (probably a few by mistake (thus I immediately left the page)). And that despite that they are "relevant", so... What can I gain from letting google collect all that information about me?

And honestly I believe you get much better ads by targeting a site rather than a person. The best ads and the only ads I've ever positively responded to are those from a local tech site (the same ads but on a food site would probably not interest me as much).

<comment><USER6> The gain in offering up data to Google is free use of a number of services I find useful. Gmail, Google Docs, Google Chrome, Google Search and YouTube are just a handful of the services I enjoy using free of charge. In exchange, I have little to no problem with Google tracking my behavior to target advertisements at me.

<comment><USER7> Plus you can continue to use those services and opt out of Google tracking that stuff or use incognito mode in your browser. Not that you'd want to. Like me, you probably prefer seeing advertising that you're more likely to be interested in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Check my name. I KNOW companies know more about this person than he thinks. How do I know this? Because, once, a long time ago, I wrote browser fingerprinting software for a security company that then spun it to be used for nefarious purposes (I say nefarious, but really, it is nothing more than what Google and FB do today). That was when I left.

The point being, it is really, REALLY, hard for someone to be invisible while browsing the modern internet. There are very few things you can do, but there are some things.

1\. Install adblock 2\. browse incognito 3\. browse through a proxy (creates noise) and, the most important 4\. use a plugin that randomizes queries to its components.

For #4, I don't know of any out there that do this effectively so I wrote my own.

The big take away from the article is that "nothing is stored locally"...well, most companies haven't been tracking that way for a long, long time.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree. I wrote a security layer for a sports video site to detect shared passwords by creating fingerprints of clients using every signal I could get hold of.

However, the point of the article isn't "do not track", it's "consume without personalisation".

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> You are right. I don't browse like you do. That would take forever.

I wonder: Are you afraid Google is sitting at home drooling over the fact that you bought your shoes from JcPenny?

You're not a name, you're not a face, you're a knode. a cookie. literally, a number in trillions of records.

Secondly, you sit on the web writing openly about privacy issues, while overtly displaying your information on those "Identity tracking" services you use, like Facebook, which If you spent the same amount of time you spend writing about how Google is out to get you, perhaps would understand that while you're browsing incognito, Google is having a frenzy with your gmail content, building a profile on you that you may never see.

At the end of the day, someone is always going to be collecting information on you, and your information will be again, one dot tied to your one number- among trillions of other records. There will always be internet ads.

To wrap this up, my point is that if you really don't wan't to be tracked, then cancel your credit card, pay everything in cash, disable your GPS, avoid connecting via Wi-Fi, forget doing 'good deeds' like filling out surveys, or giving your name and number to a blood drive. Oh and completely disconnect your router.

<comment><AUTHOR> I replied to you on the blog but since you cross-posted:

@Katelyn, I think you misunderstand the purpose.

It's not a paranoia thing to prevent companies recording information, instead it's a preference for how I like to consume the web. The companies are free to record whatever they wish, they do so by my user of their service. But I'm free to choose how my client consumes their service.

I just prefer web sites that aren't updating state based on me just reading things.

I like to see opposing sides of the argument, so don't like the idea of being bubbled by my own preferences.

I feel a little freaked out when one cycling site I go on has adverts for the tyres I looked at 2 weeks ago on an entirely unconnected web site.

Personalisation can get it wrong. In the same way that Amazon recommendations become tainted every December when you do the Christmas shop.

And personalisation can be _extremely_ upsetting, such as a family member who still receives new born baby information months after a miscarriage.

It just comes back to how I use the web.

I enjoy it more when it's made up of many disconnected things giving a consistent experience to the user... me.

<comment><USER9> It wasn't clear to me that you were trying to avoid "the filter bubble." It sounded as though you were truly paranoid/freaked out when you saw advertisers retargeting you, etc.

I din't realize inaccurate personalization could be so upsetting. I typically take everything I read or see with a grain of salt. The Internet, afterall, is made by bozos like you and me ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> On Firefox, I use the RequestPolicy plugin: by default, it only allows requests to the current domain, so nytimes.com can't access connect.facebook.com. You can enable requests to go through, so that reddit.com can access redditstatic.com.

I think it strikes a good balance between blocking _everything_ (a la NoScript) and total openness.

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

<comment><USER11> "blocking _everything_ (a la NoScript)"

This seems to be a really popular misconception (presumably the name), but NoScript works pretty much as you describe, too.

You do not need a plugin to turn "everything" off, the browsers all ship with that capability and have for over 15 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The author can use separate chrome profiles for each logged in service. This way you can stay logged in while isolating your tracking to that tab.

<comment><USER13> Your comment should be on top. Everything OP said can easily be done with Chrome's multiple profile feature. I love the fact that I can run _multiple_ incognito sessions at the same time without it being bounded by the number of browsers you have. Multiple Gmail sessions? No problem. You can just setup a profile for each email account you own without requiring you to sign-in every time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I browse pretty much like this as well. I log into incognito mode for Facebook and Gmail, and everything else in regular mode.

Incidentally, I also have about 50 separate email accounts that I use to log into various services. This helped me greatly when my Stratfor and my ps3 accounts were compromised, I didn't have to worry that a particularly important email address was at risk, so I just ditched them.

</comment><comment><USER15> Have to mention Ghostery: <http://www.ghostery.com/download>

"Ghostery allows you to detect trackers on the sites you visit, learn more about the companies behind them, and control their visibility into your online behavior."

Works in most browsers.

<comment><USER16> Having already installed that I was mildly amused to find Google Analytics on the blog.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I use Firefox's default cookie policy of "Keep until I close Firefox", which makes it behave like Incognito mode, but also the Cookie Monster plugin[1] which lets me easily whitelist sites or domains with a click to allow their cookies to persist. This is useful for sites like Hacker News so I don't have to login every time, and my bank which requires long-lasting cookies to avoid having to jump through hoops with security questions.

I also use the Ghostery plugin which blocks a bunch of ad networks so they won't place cookies at all, but even if they do, they'll be reset when I close the browser due to the cookie policy.

1\. [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie- monste...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie- monster/?src=search)

</comment><comment><USER18> I use Chrome's Vanilla Cookie Manager extension to continually throw out ALL cookies older than 30 minutes, except for the following which are saved over browsing sessions: (star).google.com, (star).workflowy.com, news.ycombinator.com

It works really well, and I don't have to go through the hassle of using two browsers. Additionally not accepting 3rd party cookies and using <http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/> for ads. Not quite as secure as OP, but mostly does the job.

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gieohaicffldbmiilo...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gieohaicffldbmiilohhggbidhephnjj)

</comment><comment><USER19> Everyone who think's David's post was about privacy and information security didn't read it very closely. He said at multiple times that the purpose is because he wants to keep out of "personalized bubbles", wants to have a broader view of web content and to avoid sites changing "some state because it knew who I was".

It has nothing to do with what will happen to his browsing habit information or with dislike of being tracked.

<comment><USER20> it seems like a lot of effort to go through just for the off chance that an ad will show you something unexpectedly interesting. It seems like Reddit or Pinterest or even your Facebook friends would be better for that kind of stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> There is one IE9 feature that I miss in Chrome or Firefox:

"Preserve Favorites website data" under Delete Browsing History.

With that I can delete all cookies after a session but my logins stay active. And I don't need an extension for it. Every browser should support that. And the OS integration of IE9 on windows 7 is superior to the competition.

</comment><comment><USER22> This reminds me of the old days where people would encrypt all their emails, no matter how mundane, with blowfish. I'm pretty sure there must be some sort of inverse relationship between the effort you put in to hiding your comms activity and the amount of stuff you actually need to hide.

<comment><USER23> That type of encryption was more about preventing governments from reading all your communication. There was talk about ECHELON and similar data-traffic- trawling systems.

The "risk" to the average person from those systems was very low. (Ignoring, for a moment, the jobs lost to industrial espionage.)

But we know that gathering huge data-sets is important to many companies. Sometimes those companies are lawful (Google or Facebook) but sometimes they are unlawful (Russian criminal gangs). And even if they're lawful companies they may be using the data in bad ways, or not keeping the data secure.

It is amazing to see what people give up in return for "free" smileys or animated cursors or a shitty facebook game.

<comment><USER22> I completely agree with you, but it matters what type of data we're talking about here. Facebook scared me off a long time ago with its policies and what it knew about me, but it's a different story with Google's personalized search. I don't worry about a company knowing my browsing habits. I worry about a company losing my credit card info or leaking my SSN or deleting my emails. Compared to those things, preventing Google from guessing my demographic via search analysis is pretty much meaningless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> _Your categories and demographics No interest or demographic categories are associated with your ads preferences so far. You can add or edit interests and demographics at any time._

I don't browse incognito and I'm always logged in to google.

</comment><comment><USER25> Google has no interests or demographics for me and I do not go nearly as far as this article suggests. I use adblock, wallflower, and antisocial extensions, as well as the do not track feature of firefox. But I am constantly signed in to gmail, frequently in amazon, and other places. Use firefox for all my browsing and don't really worry about it. If anyone wants to get information on me I am sure there are many more ways to get it than google anyway. While I like my privacy I have to accept that in this day and age it is relatively easy to find information about someone.

</comment><comment><USER26> Well, I tried opening the link mentioned in the article, but Opera told me it's blocked by the Content Blocker. So I temporarily removed the _/ads/_ filter and tried to open the link again. Got forwarded to a different url and now Opera tells me this one is also blocked. So I disabled Opera's AdBlock extension and tried to open the link again. This time, Google tells me that Ads Preferences requires enabled cookies. So at that point I gave up and re- enabled AdBlock.

</comment><comment><USER27> I've found that there are times that some of those "features" can make browsing slightly more efficient. Cookies, cache, history, etc. have all come in handy at times. I have my chrome setup with the standard privacy settings, and then have my FireFox setup in full blown stealth mode. ...I then choose which browser I use based on whether I'm looking for speed and efficiency or anonymity and security.

</comment><comment><USER28> I don't browse like this at all, I really couldn't give two shits on if Google knows I like "Computers & Electronics - Programming".

</comment><comment><USER29> If you don't browse like this, checkout Skim.Me (<http://skim.me>) to follow your browsing routine from one clean feed. We automatically load your sources and adjust the feed based on various data you allow us to access. All in the name of trying to save you time. If you do browse like this, then we're not for you.

<comment><USER30> Considering the nature of your product, I'm immediately concerned about the lack of an available privacy policy on your landing page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> So, he hates Google knowing what he likes, but he doesn't mind that they have his phone #?

<comment><AUTHOR> Google know exactly what I like, I'm sat in Gmail all day and have G+ open. And I own domains, everyone already has my name, email, number and address.

What I disliked were:

* Websites automatically changing state based on a cookie (forums that reset what it believes you've read)

* To be on site B and have what I viewed on site A appear (adverts over-personalising kept creeping me out thinking there was a relationship between disconnected sites)

* My searches being personalised (in the same way that Amazon recommended gets skewed by Christmas shopping, so my searches get skewed when my girl says "Can you just look this up for me", I also want to see other opinions so don't want opposing views filtered out)

But I didn't dislike those things enough to do anything about them. They're just small papercuts.

This browsing style evolved from using incognito and private browsing to assist web development, I continue to use it because it prevents all of the papercuts above.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> "I use Last Pass to login to sites, it only takes a split second"

Most likely every login is taxing him by 10 seconds or more (not split second) + interrupts his train of thought.

He gains almost nothing in return.

</comment><comment><USER33> Google tells me I don't have a cookie, which is a bit strange because I allow cookies. Anyway, looks like Google knows nothing about me either.

I know a lot of things that could cause this, even tough I tried a few things it's hard to figure out why Google isn't profiling me.

Is it maybe the DNT header, any of the disabled Javascript or the EasyPricacy list of APB? Maybe Spybot blocks something. Is there a way to opt-out for this? Maybe I never opted in? Anyone got an idea?

</comment><comment><USER34> i suspect quite a few people do browse this way.. i do much of the same things (minus last pass, i still use keepass copy/paste).

</comment><comment><USER35> I had nothing listed under the demographics, which baffles me because I use chrome, always logged in search, gmail, g+, picasa, etc Very quite odd that they don't profile me. With that said, I obviously do not care if they know all this information about me. So the article is true in this case as I do not browse that way (too inconvenient)

</comment><comment><USER36> Actually I browse a lot like this. So there.

<comment><USER37> Me too.

.bashrc:

      alias cookies="/usr/bin/chromium --user-data-dir=$HOME/.chromium/cookies"
      alias nocookies="/usr/bin/chromium --user-data-dir=$HOME/.chromium/nocookies --incognito"
      alias chromium='echo "cookies or nocookies?"'

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> You are right. As a developer, I would browse something like this:

1) Chrome incognito windows to test what people see before they sign into a service.

2) If I like the service, I would switch over to a normal Chrome window to see what a "typical" person would see.

3) If I want another identity I open another browser.

</comment><comment><USER39> And what kind of ads does google show to someone who it knows nothing about? Do all those ads I see for "work from home for $5k/month", "get ripped" and [screenshot of a social networking thumbnail of random girl] say more about _me_ or everybody else?

</comment><comment><USER40> I've disabled 3rd party cookies and opted out of web history. So it has nothing to show.

<comment><USER41> Great, now you have perhaps a slightly less pleasing experience at the risk of nothing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> <http://panopticlick.eff.org/>

Besides all proxies, adblocks and incognito modes the world is still scary out there. No matter how hard I try, I always get a "your configuration is unique" message.

</comment><comment><USER43> They have your IP addrress(es). It's trivial for them to put together a profile on you.

</comment><comment><USER44> Instead of installing 10 plugins, it may also be valid to use a browser who just has privacy as a main concern like <http://openports.se/www/xxxterm>

</comment><comment><USER45> Why? Just to avoid relevant targeted ads?

</comment><comment><USER46> So he has no problem to the government having a back door to read all of his email on gmail.

<comment><USER47> Would you care to elaborate on this? What back door?</comment></comment>


Apple Worldwide Dev Conference 2017 announced - <AUTHOR> https://developer.apple.com/wwdc/ <comment><USER2> I think it's great that they're moving to San Jose. Probably just a drop in the bucket, but it'd be great for the Bay Area if San Jose were to increase in desirability relative to San Francisco.

I've spent a few evenings in San Jose after Sharks games, and shows or conferences at the HP Pavilion. It always seemed to be punching below its weight. Off-hand though I don't see why San Jose can't become more attractive, considering Detroit and Pittsburgh seem to be pulling it off.

<comment><USER3> Given the fact that, as others have noted, it's not like San Jose is a depressed area, the downtown--such as it is--is just sort of boring and run down in spots. I was at an open compute platform conference there for the first time in ages a couple of years back. (Many moons ago I used to attend Intel Developers Forums there regularly). On the one hand, the environment (restaurants, etc.) had improved somewhat but I was surprised that the overall downtown hadn't become more vibrant and interesting than it was.

<comment><USER4> Last time I went to downtown SJ it certainly did seem depressed. I just wanted to see what was going on so I took an Uber down there. At St. James Park I saw some drunks fighting, and cops trying to separate them. Nearby was an encampment of several tents. South of there on 2nd I thought I might find a cafe or deli or something, but all I found were vacant lots and empty storefronts, and more derelicts staggering around. Keep in mind this was at noon on a weekday, not the middle of the night.

South of Santa Clara on 2nd I saw more empty buildings, a Chinese mini mart, more drunks, a large surface parking lot (mostly empty) adjoining a rail line.

I thought I could get back to Mountain View on VTA, since I was walking along that streetcar line anyway, but it was going to take 80 minutes so I had to call a car to escape.

San Jose appeared to be a prosperous American city without any prosperity to speak of.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Technology alone is not enough. Technology must intersect with the liberal > arts and the humanities, to create new ideas and experiences that push > society forward.

I hope it's not just a single conference theme.

"Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical; our cleverness, hard and unkind.[0] We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery, we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost."

– Charlie Chaplin, The Great Dictator (1940)

[0]: [http://blog.case.edu/think/2012/10/30/empathy_represses_anal...](http://blog.case.edu/think/2012/10/30/empathy_represses_analytic_thought_and_vice_versa)

<comment><USER6> This is based what Steve Jobs said on stage 6 years ago, and has been repeated and expanded on a bit many times since then.

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AZeOhnTuq2I](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AZeOhnTuq2I)

<comment><USER5> Still makes me wonder if there's some new focused effort to make it more important for developers outside of the company. Because I missed it and I'm developing for Apple devices for the last 6 years. Probably they need to repeat it many times more often.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Technology alone is not enough. Technology must intersect with the liberal arts ..."

This was a quote by Steve Jobs if I remember correctly. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlI1MR- qNt8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlI1MR-qNt8)

<comment><USER8> Yah. Came off as a poorly worded retread of Jobs. Sad.

<comment><USER9> Why "sad," and not homage?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In case people aren't familiar, while San Jose is indeed quiet compared to SF, it is actually the 10th largest city in the country (SF is #12). Of course, it's really sprawling so not as high density as other major cities, but not quite the sleepy "town" it's being described as in many places either.

<comment><USER11> I briefly worked in downtown San Jose a few years back and it was hella sleepy... there were maybe two bars to get drinks at and really limited restaurant options (the burrito place with orange sauce in tubes was pretty good though)...

<comment><USER10> La Vic's (or La Victoria)! Love that place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The design is very similar to a 2010 design of a Spanish designer. [https://twitter.com/vladsavov/status/832238720250179585](https://twitter.com/vladsavov/status/832238720250179585)

<comment><USER13> > The design is a copycat from a 2010 design of a Spanish designer

The same artist did the work: [https://twitter.com/panzer/status/832254299862216704](https://twitter.com/panzer/status/832254299862216704)

<comment><USER12> The 2010 poster was Rocio Ballesteros work [http://www.rocioballesteros.com/home/13-festival-de-cine- de-...](http://www.rocioballesteros.com/home/13-festival-de-cine-de-malaga/)

UPDATE: Apparently she did it inspired by Geoff Mcfetridge's work, SO we have a circular reference lol

<comment><USER14> It's not a circular reference, you just didn't know the original work and started accusing Apple's design of being a rip-off. That's simply 'getting it wrong' not 'circular reference'.

<comment><USER12> Apologies for that. I knew the 2010 piece was done by a Spanish designer and they looked extremely similar. What I did not know was that the 2010 designer was inspired in previous Geoff's work.

The circular reference I was pointing out:

Geoff's Work ->(inspired) Rocio's work -> (looks extremely similar to)-> Geoff's work

Apologies for that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the 'after-hours' portion of the conference. I've been to large conferences that alternate between more accessible city centers (e.g. Vancouver) and more out of the way environs (e.g. Anaheim). I tend to get way more out of the more city-centered venues, due to the increased ease of attending events, parties, etc.

</comment><comment><USER15> San Jose definitely decreases the appeal for me as someone that would have to fly in, pay for a hotel, etc. (would be good to also get a trip to a first- class metropolitan city) but I suppose they're not exactly short on demand... and the SF one didn't really appeal to me either given the cost (could go to Europe for vacation instead...).

<comment><USER16> While I understand why that might be, it seems like a relevant place to remind everyone that this event used to sell out in minutes (seconds?). Now there is a lottery system just to get in. The location of the venue will have no impact on their ability to fill every seat. Even if the venue was 10x larger and in leaky mineshaft… they would fill every seat.

<comment><USER3> Yep. Apple needs a convention center of an appropriate size and they doubtless prefer, for their own convenience and reduced costs, to be in the Bay Area. The walkability, access to quality bars and restaurants, and general interestingness of the downtown is doubtless pretty far down their list of priorities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> San Jose, not San Francisco. That's quite a change.

<comment><USER18> I'm guessing it might be bigger as a result.

<comment><USER19> It will be the thinnest, lightest, most powerful WWDC ever made.

<comment><USER20> There shall also not be a keynote. Courage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The GTA (I) style website looks pretty cool! I had to say it...

</comment><comment><USER22> What would be the benefit for an indie iOS developer to attend this event? Since all the tech talks from the conference are available online anyway, what would I gain from being there in person?

<comment><USER23> Labs. If you are getting deep into a framework you can usually go talk with the engineers that work on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> When I attended in 2011 it was Steve Jobs last WWDC and nice to get a chance to hear him in person, the last chance to check off an almost canonical requirement for people on the tech/startup path.

As there was 100% sell out that year yet again in a matter of minutes I've wondered how closely WWDC speed of seats sold correlates to Apple's mind share. I guess we'll see over time as fortunes change hands.

</comment><comment><USER25> About 40% of the people on this poster are black. Why? That doesn't represent the population of the US, attendants at WWDC, or worldwide developers. What's the motivation?

</comment><comment><USER26> $1599 for a ticket? Has it always been that inaccessible?

<comment><USER14> It's cost that since 2010 and always sells out. The events are streamed live and available archived for free.

<comment><USER26> Ok, good point on the streaming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I like the feel of San Jose for a dev conference. I've been to a conference there, and it was a pleasant environment.

</comment><comment><USER28> For anyone selected to go, or is planning to be there and is looking for hotels: [https://www.stay22.com/events/wwdc17](https://www.stay22.com/events/wwdc17)

It's a small startup I'm working on to curate the best deals around the event to save you time from KAYAK and gMaps

</comment><comment><USER29> This is bummer news for me. My whole team is based out of SF so we have to dral with Caltrain or drive. :( Plus, there is just not much to do in downtown SJ.

There's only one part of Moscone that's being renovated and Apple never used that bldg anyway.

This year will definitely not have the same after conference vibe as years before.

</comment><comment><USER30> "Technology alone is not enough. Technology must intersect with the liberal arts ..."

That leads dry, and not in a good developer dry way. Is this what Think Different looks like today?

I liked last year's rainbow colored hello world [https://web.archive.org/web/20170208203426/https://developer...](https://web.archive.org/web/20170208203426/https://developer.apple.com/wwdc/)

2014 also looked to be a dry spell with an overly marketed message [https://web.archive.org/web/20150302042653/https://developer...](https://web.archive.org/web/20150302042653/https://developer.apple.com/wwdc/)

EDIT: removed bombed joke.

<comment><USER31> > I'd also like to think that "liberal" there is to Bretix and Trump > supporters know this event might not be for them. Bad Joke.

"Liberal arts" is a term, it's not trying to say "art created by liberal people"

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

<comment><USER30> It was a bad joke, though reality is often worse like how French sounding brands like French's Mustard declined in the US during the US Iraq war [https://news.virginia.edu/content/study-tracks-us-boycott- fr...](https://news.virginia.edu/content/study-tracks-us-boycott-french- sounding-products-during-2003-iraq-war)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> "Technology alone is not enough. Technology must intersect with the liberal arts and the humanities, to create new ideas and experiences that push society forward."

 _sigh_ What a load of horse shit. Hopefully this doesn't mean there will be less tickets for developers available. If Apple wants to make event for designers then sure, just do it but don't fuck up Apple Worldwide DEVELOPERS conference.

<comment><USER33> Apple has been saying this for years and years. If this surprises or scares you, you haven't been paying attention.</comment></comment>


SXSW interactive hacker house? - <AUTHOR>

Well, I'm planning on going to SXSW for the music event and my friends are going to rent this completely unfurnished house for the music event. It's about a mile from the convention center. I had been considering going down for the interactive part, although I don't know if you can do much without a badge and have fun like the music part.
I got the idea that it might be possible to get the house and gather a group of hackers. We could do some sort of web project in a few days or just have a wild time.
Would anybody be interested in this sort of plan? <comment><USER2> I would totally be interested. My twitter: quellhorst</comment>


Windows 10's "Controlled Folder Access" Anti-Ransomware Feature Is Now Live - <AUTHOR> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/windows-10s-controlled-folder-access-anti-ransomware-feature-is-now-live/ <comment><USER2> This is fine and dandy except for the fact the vast majority of people that get hit with such ransomware malware (i.e., low computer knowledge folks) a) won't enable this feature because they don't understand it and b) malware will simply evolve to socially engineer folks to turn it off.

If you can get someone to believe some random, Indian accented fellow calling saying they're from Microsoft and would the person please give them full remote access to the computer then it's child's play to get them to disable any optional, controllable feature in order to allow malware to spread.

And since CFA only protect user files the malware can still infect and block access to Windows and most people would then believe ALL their files were locked down rather than just Windows system files.

I guess for enterprise folks that can deploy via AD this might offer a bit of security although it's not clear if CFA can protect network files which of course would be just a vulnerable to malware when the attacked user have read/write privs in network directories.</comment>


Ask HN: As a biologist, how do I step up my programming skills? - <AUTHOR> I would regard my self-taught programming ability with Python at beginner to intermediate (ie, I know how to structure a google search to find helpful Stackoverflow answers), and have middling abilities with R. I did some ML for my PhD work, but it's nothing fancy. My python-fu probably would make a programmer cry.
I've been looking to upgrade my programming skills, and wondering what's the recommended "proper" way for someone with my background to go about it? Is there a MOOC or book that's the go-to?
I've seen suggestions for "How to Design Programs" & SICP, and I've been looking at Racket with interest. <comment><USER2> Exercism.io [https://exercism.io/about](https://exercism.io/about) Free, not- for-profit, includes code review from a volunteer mentor.</comment>


Ask HN: Cost-effective hardware for text processing? - <AUTHOR> I need to process 15,000 text files each day. This includes un-raring, manipulating data, creating a CSV, etc etc. it's a lot. Each file is from 1mb to over 100mb. I can't change how I get this data.
I currently use a combination of rar, gnu parallel, python, pandas, rename, sed, in a bash script. Debian 9.6.
Having 60gb backlog plus new data each day my laptop doesn't keep up. I need to have a dedicated setup for this.
Ideas on doing this cheaply but still pretty quick? What are hardware ideas?  Would a Pi cluster be effective? A used PC would be fine but there are so many processors and motherboards all slightly different.
Edit: I could switch to C++ using system() calls. Then eventually replace these calls with code to do the work that makes sense. <comment><USER2> Myself, I would probably use a virtual machine in the cloud somewhere — maybe AWS, maybe some other provider. I'd want to make sure the instance storage is SSD, and you always clean up your temporary disk space usage once you're done.

Pick an instance size that has enough RAM and CPU for your requirements, and then configure it to boot at specific times, run and do its thing, then shutdown again.

So long as its not running except when you need it to run, even fairly beefy hardware configurations can still be pretty cheap for you.

If you can't do that, then I'd run a separate machine at my home, and not try to do it on my laptop.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. The cloud could work. I was hoping to use any idle time with building models of the data.

Any thoughts what physical hardware would be beefy yet cost effective on my wallet?

<comment><USER2> Your largest dataset is ~100MB, right?

I would think that any VM that has at least 2-3 times this amount of memory free after the OS is loaded (and your other critical apps are loaded) should be a good place to start. But your data and your own testing will be your best guide — try something you think might work, and if you're not happy with the speed or the system seems to be thrashing too much, then try the next size up. Or maybe try a different model that has a different mix of permanent storage versus CPU performance versus RAM.

But you will need to do some testing here on your own, and see what feels right for you and the amount of money you're willing to spend. In that regard, I would try starting off with some of your biggest data sets and use those as your current worst case for testing. Then keep an eye on how your data sets change over time, to see if you need to go re-do your testing.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are the technical reasons HTML inputs are impervious to CSS? - <AUTHOR>

Select boxes, radio buttons, checkboxes, etc are often impossible to style unless you want to resort to absurd lengths. I've been dealing with this for years and just kind of accepted it. However, I assume there are some good reasons why. Does anyone know the story behind this seemingly straightforward engineering challenge?<p>I know the OS comes into play, but, why can't a browser just work around that? <comment><USER2> It's related to something called the Shadow DOM ([http://glazkov.com/2011/01/14/what-the-heck-is-shadow- dom/](http://glazkov.com/2011/01/14/what-the-heck-is-shadow-dom/)) ([http://code.tutsplus.com/tutorials/intro-to-shadow-dom-- net-...](http://code.tutsplus.com/tutorials/intro-to-shadow-dom--net-34966)) and our friends the render-engine makers just had a big internal 'argument' about the wisdom of exposing it [Encapsulation !] and how. Where it is accessible -- Chrome -- things are pretty sketchy. Personally, I'd think long and hard before enabling it and all but Google [and Opera] seem to agree, but last I heard, 'we' are not going to have much say in the matter since Google announced they will go ahead with it unilaterally.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the info. Do you know of a thread that contains this Google-lead debate? Or, are we talking about poking around the Chromium Github commits and reading between the lines?

It sounds like, with the shadow DOM, a lot of the discussion is about performance. I'd be curious how an element like a checkbox could have that much impact on performance even on mobile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Do you want to style checkboxes and radio buttons? You can do this with CSS3... I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to do?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not a specific "how do I..." question. I have a lot of front-end experience and have always wondered why inputs present so many styling challenges. I'm aware there are some properties you can control, but, they're inconsistent, limited, and apparently arbitrary. For instance, try indenting the text of a select box option. That seems like it should be easy with CSS, but it's not. You have to manually (pre/ap)pend characters or go with a JS replacement approach. There are a lot of those little gotchas, and I'm curious if there are general reasons why that exist in a layer below what I'm used to working with.

<comment><USER3> That's a good question, but it maybe because at the root of it you have an object/class called check box and its attributes and methods are defined by object. These object are not rendered the same as formatting is by the browser.

So in your example that select box has a list method which doesn't have a property that supports indentation.

You'd have to write a new set of methods that extend the current form inputs. Depending on the browser I guess you could load as an extension or add-in.

Hope that helps.</comment></comment></comment>


B-52 Design: Dayton hotel birthplace of jet-powered bomber - <AUTHOR> http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/b52-strat/b52_50th/design.htm

<comment><USER2> Sounds like a cheap glorification. I bet the bulk of the design work was done after the project was approved. Why do people need to make up such stories that simplifies and undermines the long and iterative process it takes to produce large projects?

</comment><comment><USER3> This is just flat-out terrible story telling. How about some detail on the design struggles? It sounds like they just drew a few lines on a napkin and called it good.

</comment><comment><USER4> "The Development of the B-52 and Jet Propulsion, A Case Study in Organizational Innovation"

[http://aupress.au.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0038_mandeles_b_...](http://aupress.au.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0038_mandeles_b_52_jet_propulsion.pdf)

Page 97 of the PDF (page 87 of the report) details the October 21 meeting.</comment>


My view on the current situation of Bitcoin and the Blockchain - <AUTHOR> http://joi.ito.com/weblog/2016/02/22/my-view-on-the-.html <comment><USER2> Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, wrote a blog post [0] today that gives a very different take on things. He criticized Bitcoin Core's development team for their poor communication with the community, for their inhospitality to new contributors, and for their repeated rejection of practical and simple solutions to Bitcoin's immediate scaling problem. He advocated adopting Bitcoin Classic's short-term fix for full transaction blocks and wrote that it is vital in the long term to foster an environment in which multiple development teams can compete to introduce new features and improvements to the protocol.

There are many people in the Bitcoin ecosystem who, like Brian, feel strongly that if Bitcoin is to survive and thrive, then not only must the blocksize- limit be increased, but the exclusive power to decide the future of Bitcoin must be taken out of the hands of the Bitcoin Core team.

0\. [https://medium.com/@barmstrong/what-happened-at-the- satoshi-...](https://medium.com/@barmstrong/what-happened-at-the-satoshi- roundtable-6c11a10d8cdf#.xw7emyjhh)

<comment><USER3> Yes, but there are also people - like Bram Cohen - who view Coinbase, Bitcoin Classic and others as a hostile agents attempting to take over control. Also see: [https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-community-on- brink-o...](https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-community-on-brink-of- insanity/) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11228807](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11228807)

<comment><USER4> Bram Cohen has always hated Bitcoin.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41exno/bram_cohen_hate...](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41exno/bram_cohen_hated_bitoin/)

Which makes it strange how in 2015 he suddenly took an interest in Bitcoin and (1) supports everything Blockstream is doing (2) writes blog posts attacking long-time Bitcoin contributors like Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen.

Perhaps Bram Cohen is "consulting" for Blockstream? They admit they spent over $10m+ in their first 12 months of operations in 2015 which is a high burn rate considering how few full-time employees ("founders") they had during that time.

<comment><USER5> Bram Cohen doesn't hate Bitcoin. He's fascinated by it and someone skeptical of its future; when you attack people for having moderate views that acknowledge real risks and limitations you increase the perception of Bitcoin as a ponzi scheme.

Bram, like almost all other technical experts holds a collection of views that you disagree with. He's never been paid by Blockstream.

Your claim with respect to blockstream's finances are incorrect, and you know they are incorrect since you were previously corrected on them; I can only assume that you're continuing to repeat them in an effort to intentionally defame Blockstream. You should stop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I feel like that's giving the Bitcoin Core developers a bit too much credit.

> When asked "can you scale this?" They said, "we'll do the best we can." That > wasn't good enough for many, especially those who don't understand the > architecture or the nature of what is going on inside of Bitcoin.

The larger issue is that some of the core developers don't want to scale Bitcoin at all. They would rather have a more decentralized, less widely used Bitcoin. There is no right answer here of course, but many companies and VCs bet their future on a widely used, less decentralized version of Bitcoin (i.e. one where it's hard to run a Bitcoin server on a home internet connection, much like SMTP today).

> Many people call them "Bitcoin Core" as if they are some sort of company you > can fire or a random set of developers with skills that you can just train > others to acquire.

They called themselves Bitcoin Core, and even went so far as to create a separate website and have started branding the reference client as Bitcoin Core.

> It feels like while the Bitcoin Core development community is robust, the > ecosystem of stakeholders and the understanding of how decisions are made > and information is shared is still fragile and vulnerable.

The real issue is that Bitcoin has no "official" governance, so it's resulting in design-by-committee and stalemate on key decisions. The project needs a BDFL, but since it has none it will fail to keep pace with innovation in the space. Unlike most internet protocols, the consensus layer prevents anyone from effectively forking the project, without creating a whole separate blockchain (unless they can convince 100% of the community to follow them).

Luckily, we are starting to see more innovation and competition in the blockchain space, with Ethereum being by far the most interesting newcomer IMO (and run by a competent team with a clear governance structure).

<comment><USER7> > the consensus layer prevents anyone from effectively forking the project

This isn't true, as soon as 51% of clients are trying to push "new" blocks not recognized by the old client old clients cannot recognize them and the chain forks. This has happened several times in the past, but we have never seen anything like Classic where it was a version increment out of the Core tree that is set to break old clients.

<comment><USER8> Several times in the past?

AFAIK there's only been one hard fork, [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawi...](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki)

That was accidental, and was reverted as soon as people realized. Someone pushed through a $10,000 double-spend in the meantime.

Other than that, I don't think any hardforks have taken place.

<comment><USER9> There was technically a second hard fork a couple of months after the accidental one in order to carry out the change that caused the first one in a more controlled and planned manner. Sticking with the existing code was not an option for technical reasons: "This would be an issue even if the entire network was running version 0.7.2. It is theoretically possible for one 0.7.2 node to create a block that others are unable to validate, or for 0.7.2 nodes to create block re-orgs that peers cannot validate, because the contents of each node's blkindex.dat database is not identical, and the number of locks required depends on the exact arrangement of the blkindex.dat on disk (locks are acquired per-page)."

Also, there was technically also one way back in 2010 to fix an integer overflow bug that allowed large amounts of BTC to be created from thin air: [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.0](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.0)

<comment><USER8> I've seen bitcoin developers saying that wasn't really a hard fork because the previous behavior wasn't well defined.

The second is a soft fork, not a hard fork.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The impressive thing about Bitcoin is that it works well despite many attempts to break it. That's so rare in computing. The basic concept was well worked out.

Some of the people in the financial community just want a shared ledger between the big players that doesn't require a separate organization to run it. That's simpler than creating a shared trusted organization, like the Depository Trust Company. Those systems are consensus ledgers where known parties each have a vote. There's no proof of work, and it's not a currency system. That's unrelated to Bitcoin, but it's taken seriously because Bitcoin hasn't been broken.

The "current situation of Bitcoin" mostly seems to involve a dispute over block size. At the moment, some denial of service attack is creating large numbers of tiny transactions and causing a transaction backlog. Transactions which specify a higher fee get through OK, apparently.

The "core developers" think they have a voice in how Bitcoin works, but in fact, the three top mining pools in China have well over 50% of the mining power and decide what happens.

Too many Bitcoin exchanges are still run by crooks. Anyone knowing the whereabouts of "Big Vern", Cryptsy's CEO, should contact the Silver Law Firm, which is suing him.

And that's Bitcoin today.

</comment><comment><USER11> Reading this, it seems that the author does not understand Bitcoin, blockchains, BFT consensus, or indeed computer programming. He acts as if the people working on Bitcoin are some kind of mages with arcane knowledge that nobody else has. They are simply well-versed in a very quirky distributed database.

<comment><USER12> > some kind of mages with arcane knowledge that nobody else has. They are > simply well-versed in a very quirky distributed database.

Being well-versed in very quirky distributed databases absolutely makes you a mage with arcane knowledge.

Edit to expand: being an expert in bitcoin requires understanding distributed databases, distributed consensus, cryptography, bytecode interpreters, and having some knowledge of economics probably wouldn't hurt.

Being an expert in any one of these things is more than enough to get you a great career. Being an expert in all of them operating cooperatively is... pretty arcane knowledge.

<comment><USER13> To be fair, most bitcoin developers are likely to be experts in one or two of those things and just reasonably conversant in the others. Satoshi's paper was pretty clear on the consensus and the crypto, but sort of hand-waved the network, for example. It is my understanding that there have been significant improvements to the security of bitcoin's P2P network since then...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "They often view the people working on Bitcoin as a bunch of crazy Libertarians who came up with a cool idea but believe that a bunch of hired guns could put the same thing together given enough money."

This is my favorite point.

There's a _lot_ of people out there who think "sure, yeah, hacker types can prototype creative stuff but anything they do can be done better by Serious People with Serious Degrees."

The history of the original PC revolution is the history of that being proven wrong. In the 70s and 80s all the Serious People with Serious Degress from the Right Schools worked for IBM, HP, and other mainframe vendors and made 2-3 times as much as the hackers who drove them into the ground with radically cheaper and eventually better products.

Due to its low capital costs, IT/CS is an inherently radically meritocratic industry. Someone with no college degree can show up an expert by actually _delivering_ something superior... if they can, that is, and there are enough who can that it happens fairly often.

If anything the pattern that I see in this industry is that the indie hackers are ahead of the curve. They're the ones who prototype the hard stuff and solve the hard problems. The Serious People take up the rear, coming in later and building out and scaling what's already been done. They're the regular army, not the special forces. Serious People run the Internet now but they didn't build it... if it had been left up to them it would be a byzantine OSI network run by telcos and we'd still be using text terminals (with limited graphics maybe) for $1/minute.

</comment><comment><USER3> I read: "It feels like while the Bitcoin Core development community is robust, the ecosystem of stakeholders and the understanding of how decisions are made and information is shared is still fragile and vulnerable. I fear that the communication and now emotional rift between various key groups and individuals is wide right now, but I believe it's imperative that we try to bring the community together and focus on executing on a shared technical plan that represents our best shot at broad consensus from both a technical and a practical perspective."

It reads like a response on the Bitcoin situation describted in the Jan 14 Medium article by Mike Hearn on the "Resolution of the Bitcoin experiment". Problems resulting in the rift between Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited. [https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution- of-the-bitcoin...](https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the- bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7)

He seems to suggest Ethereum and Bitcoin alternatives cannot yet replace Bitcoin Core as it is robust and battle tested as he writes: "If you're serious about security and stability -- and you should be -- Bitcoin is almost the only choice with the largest bounty, and largest community, with the most practical modern experience deploying to a broad and active network in the real world."

But is Bitcoin the only choice and are the bitcoin stability problems outlined by Mike Hearn and others an "idee fixe" or just a dispute over blocksize?

</comment><comment><USER15> Is it correct to call it a $6.5 billion bounty? Once Bitcoin is hacked, the value of all the coins go to 0, no? Who would accept them knowing they could lose them so easily.

<comment><USER16> What do you mean by "once Bitcoin is hacked"?

<comment><USER12> Using context from the article I think the commenter and article author are both referring to attacks (like a 51% attack or an unthought of new attack) where coins can effectively be stolen.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point, attacks on mining were probably what was being referred to here. Specifically because one of the counterarguments to the blocksize increase was that it promoted centralized mining, increasing the odds of a 51% attack.

I'll leave my other comment in this tree as food for thought, because Bitcoin has definitely driven research in cryptography. But it's the least likely attack vector.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Bitcoin is a solution in search for a real problem that it can solve better than other solutions. That's the situation, IMHO.

<comment><USER18> I'm mixing merchant's and end user's perspectives here - no chargebacks, low tx fees, no need to share sensitive data with anyone, easy p2p transactions, no cross border tx fees, few other things.

<comment><USER19> No chargebacks - this is a huge negative for users

Low tx fees - most users currently don't see tx fees with most payment systems. Bitcoin puts them on the user.

Sensitive data - if you consider a credit card number sensitive you are doing it wrong. They are designed to be easy to replace if compromised and even then new technology is making single use numbers common.

Easy - which is why sorryforyourloss is a thing. Bitcoin is confusing for most people and difficult to secure for everyone.

Cross border - unless you need local currency

<comment><USER20> Multisignature transactions with mutually trusted arbitrators.

Payment channels.

No need to worry about replacing any numbers, your software does it for you.

Hardware wallets, etc... Use your brain, common sense prevents the majority of losses.

<comment><USER17> _Multisignature transactions with mutually trusted arbitrators._

Why then mine in the first place, you just reintroduced trusted parties?

 _Hardware wallets, etc... Use your brain, common sense prevents the majority of losses._

If you are careful enough, everything is fine almost by definition. But a good, i.e. user friendly, system is one that lets you make mistakes without hurting you too badly. Therefore asking what to do in order to be fine is kind of the wrong question, one should better ask with what kind of stupidity you can still get away.

<comment><USER20> Because they only need to be trusted until the transaction is complete. Banks must be trusted in perpetuity. The trust model is much stronger when any breach of trust can lead to instant reaction, moving all funds away in seconds and blacklisting them.

That's why friendlier hardware and software wallets are being developed, and protocols to automate most of the tedious work.

Look at for example the payments protocol with the ability to verify the identity of the seller (via TLS certificates), transmit your delivery address and get a digitally signed receipt in one click. With support for extensions it can even do things like silently negotiate for who to use as a trusted arbitrator and the time period for settlement (after X time without it being contested, the seller can withdraw the money without need for interaction).

Bitcoin can emulate everything banks do, and still have far stronger security guarantees.

Banks simply can not do the same without adopting public cryptographic logs like that of Bitcoin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The reason I sold all my bitcoin is that the blocksize impasse started smelling like corruption to me. The interests of Chinese miners seems to have undue influence. If Bitcoin Core doesn't have the interest of the whole community then there's no trust. And without trust the whole scheme falls apart.

</comment><comment><USER22> As someone who is a curious outsider to the whole bitcoin thing, the more I read all the bickering, the more I think "I'm going to stay away until they've got things figured out". After all, I'd be getting in to use the technology, rather than attempt speculate on its value.

</comment><comment><USER23> It's ironic that a currency designed to solve the problems of currencies controlled by human beings is now suffering the very same problems that caused all the fiat currencies before it to fail.

Human beings are the problem.

<comment><USER24> All fiat currencies before have failed? I am pretty sure ere are lots of fiat currencies that are doing just fine (like the dollar, which has never failed)

<comment><USER23> Right, yes, I always forget about the dollar! The dollar will be the one to prove them all wrong!

<comment><USER24> How long does something have to last before it is considered a success?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The other day I was alarmed to learn that bitcoin may be killing as many as one person every day.

That's based on this gwern estimate of the number of deaths caused by the folding@home project: [http://www.gwern.net/Charity%20is%20not%20about%20helping](http://www.gwern.net/Charity%20is%20not%20about%20helping)

If you assume that bitcoin uses 10x more computing power than folding, and it uses most of it in China which has far worse pollution, than the estimate comes to 340 deaths per year. That's just direct deaths, who knows how much damage is caused by indirect damage and the long term impact of those wasted resources.

<comment><USER26> Imagine how many people per year air conditioning kills?

Surely you don't really buy into such an enormous logical fallacy?

<comment><USER25> How is it a logical fallacy? Do you see any errors with my math? Are you saying that it doesn't kill people?

It is true that air conditioning kills people and contributes greatly to pollution. That's why there have been a lot of attempts to reduce its use. But bitcoin is way worse. Fortunately far fewer people use it than air conditioning. According to this article, a single bitcoin transaction uses as much energy as a 1.5 households use in a day: [https://motherboard.vice.com/read/bitcoin-is- unsustainable](https://motherboard.vice.com/read/bitcoin-is-unsustainable)

<comment><USER26> How many people per year does your computer kill?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I can relate to author's opinion on block chain VC hype, but not so sure about comparing Bitcoin to the Internet, at least yet...</comment>


The rise of an electronic marketplace for online ads is reshaping media business - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21615872-rise-electronic-marketplace-online-ads-reshaping-media-business-buy

<comment><USER2> >>JONA MICI, A 27-year-old media trader, sits in front of her screen at Varick Media Management, a real-time advertising company in New York, and explains how she uses superfast algorithms to buy 20m-30m advertising "impressions" a day. Today one of her clients, an American bank, has asked her to find new customers. At first she guides the algorithm to buy as many impressions as possible near bank branches. Then she narrows her targets, choosing criteria that produce a better hit rate. For example, she finds that tablet users sign up more often than iPhone users, and afternoon seems to be a better time than morning.

It sounds so hand-wavy. I'm guessing she (as well as the entire food chain from her keyboard onwards - the DSPs to the SSPs and the publisher websites) would be sleeping under a bridge if she was paid for actual conversions, rather than for just filling a purchase order of impressions with whatever she can get.

Sometimes I wish I could get clients with loose wallets like this...

...and what on earth does getting impressions "near bank branches" mean?

<comment><USER3> I agree that media trading is quite hand-wavy - similar to trading stocks.

That said, it's quite possible that the article mistook 'hit rate' for 'conversion rate'. That would explain why snooping for imps "near bank branches" would make sense. Those customers may be primed for the ad/can convert sooner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Programmatic ad sales is established and growing rapidly and should be of bigger concern to people than the "native advertising" diversion people are misunderstanding lately.

Programmatic ad sales relies on collecting incredible amounts of behavioral data and letting advertisers target upon numerous criteria. Trying to get someone to sign up for your credit card? Perhaps try advertising to a 20-28 year old male who's hit up both a few debt forums and a few gadget review sites lately? It's all pretty amazing from a scientific POV.

<comment><USER5> What do you think people are misunderstanding about "native advertising"? Seems like a pretty simple concept.</comment></comment>


Can I Stay with You While I Rent My Place on AirBnB? - <AUTHOR> http://canistaywithyouwhileirentmyplaceonairbnb.com

<comment><USER2> please be a joke, with bootstrap it's so hard to tell what's real anymore</comment>


Automating Automation: BPMN ⨉ OpenAPI - <AUTHOR> https://futurice.com/blog/automating-automation-bpmn-openapi <comment><AUTHOR> I am trying to make it easy to assemble business solutions out of services, using open source, self hosted solution. It's definitely early in the development but I think I can express the essence of it now. Early code is available here:

[https://github.com/tomlarkworthy/camunda- tools/blob/master/o...](https://github.com/tomlarkworthy/camunda- tools/blob/master/openapi2bpmn/openapi2modeler.ts)

It will be all open source.</comment>


Classics for the People - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/essays/why-working-class-britons-loved-reading-and-debating-the-classics <comment><USER2> The idea is interesting, but I see little more than anecdotes to sustain it.

> aeon.co/essays/why-working-class-britons-loved-reading-and-debating-the- > classics

How many working class Britons did so and when? By 1800, was it 1%? 10%?

For instance, the article mentions the British Museum in 1782. But there was an entry fee until the 1830s, so I strongly doubt millions of working class people went there, even once in their life.

The anecdote about the slater reading a newspaper on a roof may be true, but it could very well be an urban legend from the 1730s. It's part of the collection of short and amusing notes from Montesquieu, the first one being: "London's people eat much meat; it makes them very strong; but when they reach 40 to 45 years, they kick the bucket." in [https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Notes_sur_l'Angleterre](https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Notes_sur_l'Angleterre)

All of the very remarkable people that self-taught the classics just show that some people born from the working-class managed to read the classics and acquire a culture that was the prerogative of others. But without any estimation on quantity, it shows nothing more.

By the way, today, how much of these classics are left in the popular culture? How many people have _read all_ of the most representative classics, Odyssey and Aeneid? Who reads the authors mentioned in this article, like Plutarch, Herodotes and Xenophon? Even with modern translation easily and freely available, I suppose it amounts to little, even if you can find counter- examples.

<comment><USER3> It has always been this way; the educated have read these works, studied these works. There is a difference between going to school and being educated; although the vast majority of people go to school and even pursue what some call "higher education", still the truly educated are the minority...and that is because it is hard and people are lazy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would recommend the book "The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric", by Sister Miriam Joseph.

It attempts to cover the ground that may have been lost by those who missed out studying 'The Classics' formally, all in a single book.

<comment><USER5> This looks like a beautiful book, a perfect Christmas gift, thanks! Just one question: it seems that there are two such books with almost identical titles, the one by Sister Miriam Joseph and one by John Michell, Rachel Holley and others. Do you have any advice on the differences? The latter one seems to have a nicer graphic design, and it appears that it's part of a series of similar books on different disciplines.

<comment><USER4> I was referring to the Sr. Miriam book, first published 1948. The other seems to be an anthology book, frankly not sure of the quality of the content in it.

<comment><USER6> The modern one is fantastic quality. The quadrivium and trivium. Really incredible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _> Recovering the working-class classicists of the past can also function as a rallying cry to modern Britain to support the case for the universal availability in schools of classical civilisation and ancient history_

This is somewhat begging the question of why those heroic people loved reading and debating the classics. One could argue that working class libraries and the tiny pockets of diverse private education were destroyed by government subsidy and the system of state education. This system now picks the tunes and imposes them universally. To influence a compulsory national curriculum one then has to compete with all the various propagandists anxious themselves to grasp the levers.

<comment><USER8> The classics were a part of the Zeitgeist essentially - related to the legacy of Rome and Latin as a trade, church, and academic language. It was a universal thing and I believe the works themselves were incidental (although influental) compared to the intellectual culture itself in valuing study.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> My father, who was a joiner, gained an abiding interest in Homer from an Oxbridge classics student he was stationed alongside in the RAF in WW2. Explains why my eldest sister is called Helen!

</comment><comment><USER10> In a similar vein, I wouldn't be where I am today without classical music - playing in an orchestra and chamber music as a young person opened my world up beyond what I could otherwise find in my immediate surroundings. Alongside, growing up reading the English classics now seems part of that, along with radio access to "high brow" programs.

</comment><comment><USER11> _Uh_ In my oppinion (I'm no way against classic music) -but.... situation to consume such classic music is not always given ...

An example, by Klaus Hoffman (german) 'So trollen wir uns' (So we troll): //youtube/v=dZYXJkWQsa8

<comment><USER12> 'So trollen wir uns' (So we troll)

I doubt that this is an accurate translation. "Trollen" isn't used in the internet sense here.</comment></comment>