Apple will no longer license aftermarket power adapters for iPhone 5 - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/05/apple_adapters_for_new_9_pin_dock_to_cost_10_cables_will_be_19___report.html <comment><USER2> The current title, _Apple will no longer license aftermarket power adapters for iPhone 5_ , is not supported by the article. The word "power" doesn't even appear in the article.

The article does say: _Apple is said to have stopped approving third-party proposals for connector-equipped accessories in recent months._ That is the existing 30 pin connector. An unnamed person claims they are stopping developers from designing new gear for the legacy connector.

The new 9 pin connector is a secret. That means Apple won't share the specifications until after launch.

They are plugging the gap in the interim with a $10 adapter for your boom-box- with-a-dock or whatever, and extra USB cables which let you use anyone on the planet's charger, computer, or automobile are $19, which is about as cheap as Apple can be bothered to sell a cable. Like your existing cables better? Great, stick an adapter on the end. (I'll need the three pack to cover my existing cables but retain iPad charging capability. $30. Sucks until I replace the iPad2.)

The physical fit between dock, adapter, and iPhone will be highly variable, but it was going to be a bit different anyway from the phone's form factor change.

In short: Set down the pitchforks someplace handy and get back to work. See what the third party folk say on September 19th then tweet back to the mob.

</comment><comment><USER3> According to iLounge, Apple expects to sell $US 100 million by the end of this year. That is no small amount but it's certainly not a large one for them. This makes me think that this move is about embracing the new dock connector, fast. They are gonna force the accessory makers to build the new 9 pin connector into their products instead of building the old 30 pin connector and bundling the adapter. Given that there are more than 500 million iPod compatible devices, I say the accessory makers need a little incentive.

I think if they could stop licensing the old adapter for any new product they'll do it without of doubt. It's about establishing a new dock standard not about screwing third parties (which they are doing anyway, but as a side effect.)

<comment><USER4> Good for Apple. What about the users though?

<comment><USER5> What about them? I'm impressed that Apple's actually pricing the 9-pin stuff down around the prices others have charged for 30-pin stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Apple is said to have stopped approving third-party proposals for connector- > equipped accessories in recent months

Isn't it possible they've just stopped approving new ones as part of their big secrecy around the next iPhone? The accessory market seems to be one of the big sources of iPhone rumours (whether correct or not). If they are changing the device specs they probably don't want new accessories appearing for the old iPhone, and they will want even less to give away any information that would lead to the accessories being compatible with the new iPhone.

<comment><USER7> _that would lead to the accessories being compatible with the new iPhone._

Yes, god beware: people could buy accessories at a competetive price and time.

<comment><USER8> Wow, you haven't shopped for iPhone accessories recently, have you? Aside from cheap cases at the dollar store or Monoprice, everyone is charging the same price for accessories and cables. Walk into any Target or WalMart and marvel at the "competitive" $29 items compared to Apple's $35.

<comment><USER9> It depends. Will accessory prices come down with the iPhone5? If so, it's an unfair comparison to compare current prices. Also, I can typically buy an iPhone data cable off eBay delivered for about $1 to $2 ... i've never had an issue with a cheap accessory from eBay (and i've bought quite a few). Apple will not want to compete with that sort of price - because it doesn't make sense for any OEM to sell cables at that price. This "lock in" by Apple will almost certainly drive prices up, with little improvement to quality.

<comment><USER10> > _It depends. Will accessory prices come down with the iPhone5? If so, it's > an unfair comparison to compare current prices._

What kind of logic is this? They didn't go down with the previous 4 models, why even assume they will go down with the 5?

> _Also, I can typically buy an iPhone data cable off eBay delivered for about > $1 to $2_

And you'll continue to be able to buy those. Those are cheap knock-offs, and don't have anything to do with any Apple licensing...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "generating revenues of $100 million for every 10 million Dock Connector Adapters it sells for $10"

What is this, I don't even... do they pay by the word at AppleInsider?

<comment><USER12> I'm surprised that the author didn't realize that Apple could generate revenues of $1 billion for every 100 million Dock Connector Adapters it sells for $10 ...

<comment><USER11> The ironic thing is the math is probably off. I'd guess at least half of the adapters will sell at wal-mart, target, amazon, etc. and I'd guess the wholesale cost is around six fifty. Exercise left to the reader.

<comment><USER5> If it's Apple-branded, the wholesale cost isn't _that_ low. I'd expect more like $8.50. I tried the Apple reseller thing a number of years ago and you could buy systems cheaper as a student than as a reseller. You'll notice that the Walmart price on Apple items is barely under what you pay Apple directly. Apple likes to keep retailer margins very tight.

<comment><USER11> I could totally be wrong but my understanding was that the markup on most Apple products was ~15% (as you say) but the markup on Apple's accessories (headphones, itunes cards) was nearly double that.

Even in that case though, you're right that six fifty would be low-ish.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder why companies like apple keep so much goodwill at stake with "get every penny from customer" moves. I can understand why BestBuy would do it (They are already dying with high cost low margin items), but apple?

<comment><USER14> Other companies are just as bad or worse, so consumers have no choice. Apple gets good will because at least the product is good, even though you spend twice as much. Nothing is worse than buying something and being disappointed.

People would rather pay twice the price than suffer buyer's remorse. Love it or hate it, the apple products are still the best.

<comment><USER9> Apple charger - about $26 for an original... About $3 for a knock-off (I just checked eBay). I have never had an unreliable bootleg charger yet.

This is a little more than "double" (it's acutally 8x the price) and I can assure you, there's no noticeable quality difference, other than the shininess of the plastic.

Please do not justify Apple's behaviour because others do it. Would you justify Pinochet because of Stalin? Unless there's a tangible benefit to society, you may want to reconsider your views.

<comment><USER14> "Justify"? WTF?

On what moral basis are you condemning Apple? Is this Aristotelian ethics? Medieval European ethics? Kantian deontology?

I'm a modern consequentialist. I don't give a shit about "justification". Apple gets away with it because the power dynamics work out in such a way that they get away with it.

If you want my moral argument, I argue that we should guillotine the super- rich, redistribute their wealth, tap the knowledge and expertise of the social sciences to rehabilitate the Earth, and create a technocratic Star Trek utopia. In that world, Apple will not even care to overcharge for their adapters because capitalism will be at the service of humanity's quality of life rather than vice versa.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Given how dreadful Apple's own cables were (or at least they were in my experience back when I had an iPod Touch 2G), this is likely to be expensive for many iOS device owners.

Weren't they meant to be allowing microUSB chargers in the EU though? Even if they do it with an adapter that plugs into their own connector, that provides a way to avoid their costly cables.

<comment><USER16> Yup, it's a requirement that mobile phones sold in the EU be chargeable through Micro USB. Apple released a dock-to-microUSB adapter there.

[http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/11/hands-on-with-the- iphon...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/11/hands-on-with-the-iphone-micro- usb-plug-and-third-party-chargers/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Now I love my iDevices, but this is just wrong. How is this legal? It's okay, there's always China!

I don't know why, but when I hear stores like such I wonder how in the hell is it fair for Microsoft to get sued for about $1bn by the "EU" for including Windows Media player and IE in XP (in Europe), but Apple not to be for including iTunes and Safari. And now, pretty much monopolizing the iDevice sync business.

Anybody have an information/insight?

<comment><USER18> You can't be sued for abusing monopoly power without first having a monopoly in the relevant market, keeping in mind that 'monopoly' and 'relevant market' have specific legal definitions.

At the time of those sanctions, Microsoft was deemed to have a monopoly in the "Intel-compatible PC operating system market". AFAIK, there is no market in which Apple is considered to have monopoly power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> It is still a rumor. Yet some people are riled up.

Take your pitchforks and torches when it's confirmed, but not now.

</comment><comment><USER20> I wonder when apple will start offering their own Internet and not allow Apple users to connect to the Internet that we all know and love. They are creating non-standards to squeeze more dimes out of its very loyal users.

<comment><USER21> And remember the myriad of cables that came with each new model of each brand of phone? A different cable, 10 years later. Yet when companies blindly continue with compatibility at the expense of all else, you get a different bandwagon of people complaining about THAT!

"How dare apple charge for a new cable". Meh, whatever - it's $10.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is utter BS.

Only because Apple will wind up extorting money from users on these damn things.

As it stands I have MANY power adapters for my apple products. I also have many adapters for my laptops: I keep multiple chargers in my backpack, a charger in basically every room of the house and I buy the 3rd party iphone cords from deal extreme that are 7 feet long because the length of an ipad cord is retarded.

The fact that apple things that the crappy headset should cost 29 bucks, and the charging cords should be 20 is INFURIATING!

Seriously, these things, we all know, cost .50c to make.

If there is one thing I absolutely despise about apple, it is moves like this.

<comment><USER23> In most cases the price is determined by what the market is willing to pay. Think of a consumer that goes out of their way to buy $29 Apple headphones. Clearly they have decided this specific model/part is valuable to them for whatever reason. I'd say in general it's not any different than other companies that have a trusted brand and good retail distribution. For example I had to order a replacement charger for an HP laptop a couple years ago and it was about $90. I bought it just because I've had bad luck with generics in the past and I was willing to pay more for the original.

<comment><USER24> I wonder what proportion of HN readers and population in general supports "labor theory of value".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Because licensing them means they miss out on their $39.95 per cable.

<comment><USER26> An alternative explanation (as they could raise their licensing fees instead, and the costs of managing licensing fees is much lower than constructing and distributing cables; when you look at their profit report these cables are just not a major part of their business) is that they found that third party cables often had minor aberrations that damaged the contacts on the device, leading to increased warranty repair and replacement costs under programs like AppleCare (which is much more likely to be a major cost, given how almost all of their money at this point comes from selling mobile hardware: if even 1% of users end up getting a new iPhone for free because of some shoddy cable, the result would be tremendous and should easily swamp any money they might make selling cables).

<comment><USER27> I'm not sure I buy this argument. USB cables are everywhere (and ports are everywhere)... like the macbook. Then again, it'd be more costly to remove USB ports from a macbook since nobody would buy such a laptop in the current market. But if that were the real reason for this, wouldn't it be better to switch to a small USB form factor like most phone manufacturers?

Also 1% seems really high. If it were destroying phones, my random guess is .1% or .01%.

Could you explain more your thought process here? Maybe I'd get the argument more. (Also, keep up the good work. Lots of respect.)

<comment><USER26> My "thought process" is mostly as stated, with the possibly exception of something I found obvious: that the complex Apple-specific connector is often built by third parties in ways that are kind of sketchy and you can feel it scraping along and not quite fitting into the port correctly with some of the cables you might purchase (the car adapter I used to use had this property, as does the multi-way charger I was using for a while).

Using a small USB form factor, btw, is totally unacceptable from their perspective, because they use the dock connector for more than syncing: they have a ton of extra pins and extra stuff they wire over the dock: it isn't just a USB->USB adapter for purposes of syncing and charging it, it is an accessory port with included UART. HTC probably had the most workable compromise: a mini-USB with a broken-out corner and some extra contacts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The Auto Industry lost a lot of money trying to stop aftermarket products from being sold in the USA. Good luck Apple, it's going to cost you millions to stop the aftermarket business from producing equal and less expensive alternatives. Kevin, Cellphoneguruman

</comment><comment><USER29> In some cases the 3d party stuff might be better than what Apple sells. Apple is a lost cause.

</comment><comment><USER30> I am worried about how well the adapter will work in cars, where the dock connector provides mechanical support as well as connectivity (I have the 2point5 specdock in my audi). I'm not sure if extra height from the adapter is going to work well.

</comment><comment><USER31> Why do you need a license from Apple to make a cable?

<comment><USER32> I imagine you don't, but you need a license to use any Apple trademarks, logos, or trade dress in your marketing and packaging.

<comment><USER5> Actually, they own patents on the pin-out for the 30-pin connector. They probably own patents on the 9-pin as well. Doesn't really matter if the patents are enforceable, the threat of a lawsuit versus the cost of the license keeps manufacturers from being too ballsy - do you risk your entire margin (or more) fighting Apple over pin-out licenses?

Also, if your accessory is not "approved," then it stands a chance at voiding your customers' warranties. That'd be bad for your business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The most likely explanation is that Apple doesn't want crappy third-party accessories to tarnish the reputation of its new dock adapter.</comment>


Ask HN: My cofounder disappeared.  What should I do? - <AUTHOR>

About six months ago I was contacted by a HN member who had a decent startup idea, good design skills, but no programming skills. We decided to work together to create a dating website that focused around the concept of posting a date idea, then seeing who might want to join you for that date. In this way the site matches people based on what they want to do, not who they are.
To make a long story shorter, the idea grew and morphed, as we went through design revisions and code refactoring. The original idea of the dating site was broadened into a more general event broadcasting site, like Twitter but specifically for parties, concerts, and other events. I also came up with a few other ideas (they key ones that make the web app stand out) that I won't give away.
But now my cofounder appears to have disappeared. We communicated by email and chat, and all I know of his physical location was that he lived in the Middle East. I haven't heard from him in long enough that it seems likely that he had an accident or some other unfortunate circumstance.
So I'm left wondering what I should do. Should I try to replace him? Might there be legal issues if I do so? We never wrote up a serious contract, just an informal email in which we decided in favor of a 49%/51% division, with me holding 51%.
In the absence of my cofounder I have completely changed the design, and have reworked the site's entire focus. At this point there is literally no relation to the original idea of the dating site.
Without giving away all the details that make my startup idea special, the web app is now focused on bands and their fans, allowing bands to broadcast news and gig schedules, and allowing fans to follow bands and broadcast which gigs/concerts they will attend.
There is really nothing left of the disappearing cofounder's original idea, and all that is left of his original design is the logo.
So to summarize the situation I am in: I have a great startup idea (All ingredients of which are mine, but could possibly be considered derivative of the idea of a disappeared cofounder).
What I need is a cofounder who can help with some design issues, put together a new logo, and who also has good marketing skills. Programming skills would be an added bonus. Primarily what I need is a designer and marketer.
This is an ask HN post so here are my questions:
Is there anything I should do about the original disappearing cofounder? Could there be legal issues with replacing the cofounder even though I have changed the startup's basic principles completely and never had a serious contract with the cofounder? If you have applicable skills, would you like to be my new cofounder, or do you know someone who might? <comment><USER2> So you were starting a business with someone, and you don't even have an address or phone number for them?

Sounds like you should just move on, and set aside some money for lawyers in case your company does well.

<comment><AUTHOR> _So you were starting a business with someone, and you don't even have an address or phone number for them?_

That's right. In retrospect it definitely seems like a bad idea, but at the time I didn't think of it. I'm most interested in the coding side of things, and didn't think so much of the business aspects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> A pity, the date-based dating idea sounded really awesome.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is very hard to get started with a dating site, since you need a large user base if you want members to be able to find people that they will be compatible with.

Dating is much easier to build onto a site which already has a user base.</comment></comment>


10 Ideas for the Next 10 Years: The Dropout Economy - <AUTHOR> http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1971133_1971110_1971126,00.html <comment><USER2> Didn't we just make fun of this article yesterday? <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1193936></comment>


Branch Prediction and the Performance of Interpreters – Don't Trust Folklore - <AUTHOR> https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01100647/document <comment><USER2> This research misses a few important points.

First, the fastest interpreter is never switch or "jump threading" (i.e. computed goto) based. It is either based on passing the next pointer from one opcode to the next (e.g. perl5) or using an opcode array (lua). Those two cache much better and don't need the dispatch overhead with a jump table at all. Not talking about asm tuned interpreter dispatch yet, which count as best of the best.

Second, the famous cited Ertl paper mostly suggested to use smaller opcodes to influence the icache. Lua and luajit do this with one-word ops and blow all other interpreters away.

Using the computed goto extension only helps in bypassing the out of bounds check at the start of the switch dispatch, and gains the famous 2-3%, and less on more modern CPU's. When talking about the differences, the differences should be explained.

Summary: This research result is not useful for state of the art interpreters, only for conventional slow interpreters. And for those the result should be ignored at all, as much better interpreter speedup techniques exist, not noted in this paper.

<comment> loup-vaillant > _passing the next pointer from one opcode to the next (e.g. perl5)_

> _using an opcode array (lua)_

Would you perchance have a couple links explaining what those are? A quick search on my end didn't turn up anything useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> tl;dr for those who don't want to read the paper in detail:

* Interpreters are conceptually a big switch(bytecode) statement in an infinite loop. They use various tricks to make it easier for the processor to predict the target of the next indirect branch

* This previously had a dramatic impact on performance, because branch mispredictions are very expensive and it was difficult for the processor to predict them accurately.

* Recent Intel architectures have improved branch prediction, so the aforementioned tricks no longer have a very big impact (on Haswell x86 processors specifically)

<comment><USER4> > various tricks

They actually present (approximately) a very simple construct that is used to speed the interpreters up:

       void labels[] = { &&ADD, &&SUB . . . };
       ...
       goto labels[ vpc++ ];
       ADD:
          ...
          goto labels[ vpc++ ];

instead of

        ...
        switch ( *vpc++ )
        {
        case ADD:
             ....
             break;
        case SUB:

It's not really hard. The only problem is that the former is not a standard C and not present in MSVC. See

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6421433/address-of- labels...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6421433/address-of-labels-msvc)

"Erlang does (that) for building on Windows. They use MSVC for most of the build, and then GCC for one file to make use of the labels-as-values extension. The resulting object code is then hacked to be made compatible with the MSVC linker."

It obviously mattered enough for Erlang developers to use GCC even for just that critical piece of C code. It doesn't mean that it has to be regularly used in every code (not every switch is executed the way the main interpreter loop is).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Would an editor kindly put a note in the OP link that this is a pdf?

</comment><comment><USER4> If my coworker would come to me and show me his results where he measured that the "Labels as Values" implementation is not need while "on his Haswell CPU the speedup is only 3%" I'd just ask "can it be guaranteed that the code you propose to revert to the plain switch will run _only_ on that CPU?"

If not and the switch is in the performance sensitive place I'd keep the "Labels as Values" implementation.

There are many more CPUs in the world than "the latest Intel x86 CPU." Kudos for the developers of Haswell, but don't blindly trust the Inria researchers that tell you "Don't Trust Folklore."

I also don't like that this research was "partially supported" by the European grant thus explained: "ERC Advanced Grants allow exceptional established research leaders of any nationality and any age to pursue ground-breaking, high-risk projects that open new directions in their respective research fields or other domains." (1)

1) [http://erc.europa.eu/advanced-grants](http://erc.europa.eu/advanced- grants)

Is ground-breaking, high-risk research discovering that the algorithm in the latest Intel processor matches the one other researchers (which I respect much more) discovered in 2006, and variant of which won more "branch prediction championships"? I'd say no.

At least they honestly write about the fact that the given algorithm is already known as highly efficient.

<comment><USER6> While I somewhat agree with you, the real answer is _assume nothing and profile_. Always. But there's a catch. Things are getting a bit out of hand, there are just too many architectures and configurations.

I think modern consumer-oriented code should run at least well on Intel Nehalem - Skylake, AMD K10 - K12, ARM Cortex A7/A8/A9/A15/A53/A57/A72, Qualcomm Krait/Kryo.

Focus on 64-bit, but some attention should still be paid to 32-bit performance.

Number of actual targets is even worse, because cache and memory architecture vary so much. At least all those have 64-byte cache lines.

In high performance code, there's often the choice between memory and compute load balancing. What memory access patterns and layouts you're going to use - where do you want your bottlenecks? You can often reduce bandwidth requirements by computing more and vice versa.

Take Sandy Bridge for example:

While L1 and L2 cache sizes are fixed on Sandy Bridge, L3 cache varies between 1 - 20 MB.

Clock speeds vary between 1.0 to 3.6 GHz.

There are 1-4 memory channels, I believe they're usually arranged 64 byte granularity round robin. Say your access pattern is access every second 64-byte cache line vs. access every line. On 1 and 3 channel systems, both perform about same. When skipping 64 byte cache line on 2 channel system, effective memory bandwidth is equal to just 1 channel system. 4 channel system will behave like 2 channel one. The code might be bandwidth bottlenecked on 1-2 channel system and compute bound on 3-4 channel system.

Then you're going to hit DRAM page miss every... 1-8 kB? System dependant, of course.

To make the best choice for Sandy Bridge based systems, among other things, you need to know number of memory channels + their arrangement, amount of L3 cache and clock speed. On some Sandy Bridge CPUs you have a lot of time to do complicated data packing and unpacking, trying to just keep memory bandwidth usage down.

That was just one architecture. Now add all the other platforms in the mix. There are pretty many different instruction set extensions. If you don't use them properly, you can lose an order of magnitude of performance.

I think we'll need runtime code generation in the future. On system JIT/AOT also for traditionally compiled languages, such as C and C++.

<comment><USER7> The fact that the performance of an implementation varies significantly depending on the actual CPU could already be deduced from some of the Ertl papers.

Moreover, given that one uses specifically a bytecode interpreter and not a JIT is generally the sign that the interpreter is to be used on multiple platforms. "Optimizing" in this context simply means (almost) nothing.

The obvious conclusion is to not care too much about raw performance and focus instead on ease of interfacing with libraries, and to make it easy to add primitives/instructions to your VM. With the idea that if your interpreter is too slow, you just rewrite the critical parts in native code.

<comment><USER6> > you just rewrite the critical parts in native code.

Rewrite critical parts of interpreter in native code? My point was there's no optimal native code anymore.

Pure interpreters are falling out of fashion anyways. For JITted systems, there's a significant cost for calling native code. At least until JITs actually inline natively called code, possibly even through dynamic library (.so, .dylib, .dll, etc.) call.

We need a lightweight, thin profile guided JIT/AOT engine. No standard library, memory management agnostic. Something that can target different architectures, memory & cache configurations and instruction set extensions that may have been unknown at design phase. A compilation target for some C/C++/Rust/etc. and a runtime that takes care of the architecture details.

<comment><USER7> > Rewrite critical parts of interpreter in native code? My point was there's > no optimal native code anymore.

No, I mean rewrite the critical parts of the "interpreted" program as interpreter primitives/instructions: the best way to eliminate interpreter overhead is to merge N primitives into one.

But I realise we have a different perspective. You seem to consider interpreter VMs as off the shelf components, when I consider VMs as custom components because I'm working mainly with embedded systems. In the embedded world, JIT is often simply not an option either because they are not available for your particular target, or because the resource constrains don't allow it. But still you sometimes want to trade resources for ease of development and/or flexibility.

<comment><USER6> Right, I also do work in embedded (without OS), so I'm familiar with the limitations. However, there are situations where it's tempting to write a very primitive JIT or at least glue pieces of code together in a buffer and execute it, to get good inner loop performance by making it as few instructions as possible.

So far C has been enough. Achieving low (=preferably none) defect rate using C is challenging enough.

Usually FPGAs can take care of performance critical part. They do increase total cost, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is there a reason that machine languages don't allow the programmer/compiler/runtime to explicitly control the CPU's cache & instruction pipeline?

Presumably they have access to much better information about the code's intent and future behaviour than the cpu does.

<comment><USER9> In addition to what others have said (mainly, it would be specific to a particular version of the CPU, which is probably the biggest thing -- imagine if no x86 binary older than ~1 year could run on your chip), one more point:

The programmer doesn't _necessarily_ have better knowledge than the CPU, because the programmer can't see or respond to runtime behavior. There are a lot of cases where behavior is input-data-dependent, or simply too complicated to reason about analytically a-priori. The big wins in computer architecture over the past two decades have all been in mechanisms that adapt dynamically in some way: dynamic instruction scheduling (out-of-order), branch prediction based on history/context, all sorts of fancy cache eviction/replacement heuristics, etc.

Itanium tried "VLIW + compiler smarts" and the takeaway, I think, was that it was just too hard to build good enough static analysis to beat a conventional out-of-order CPU.

<comment><USER10> The problem with the OoO is that it's a way too expensive (in terms of power and area) in many cases. You won't ever see OoO in GPUs and DSPs, unlikely in the microcontrollers. So, VLIW and the other "stupid core, smart compiler" approaches are still legitimate and will always remain valuable.

<comment><USER9> Yup, in some domains it definitely still makes sense. GPUs work well for highly-data-parallel applications (they're essentially vector machines, modulo branch divergence) and VLIW-style DSPs work because the code is numerical and easy to schedule at compile time.

I've worked mostly in the "need performance as high as possible for general- purpose code" domain, so I may be biased!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is it really true that "Jump threading, though, can- not be implemented in standard C."? Surely, each computed goto:

      goto *labels[*vpc++];

can be replaced with a full copy of the switch:

      switch (*vpc++) { case OP_ADD: goto ADD; case OP_SUB: goto SUB; }

..and hopefully the compiler will replace the entries for the cases in the switch's jump table with the goto targets.

</comment><comment><USER12> I wonder if indirect calls have also improved in latest generations? Anything vtable based would benefit.

<comment> loup-vaillant Considering that Vtables are basically the same thing as a jump table in a switch… They have most probably improved in the same way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article is missing one important difference between a primitive Python use of jump threading and the OCaml bytecode interpreter which _pre-compiles_ the bytecode into a threaded code. A difference in performance between these two is huge.

<comment> loup-vaillant > _the OCaml bytecode interpreter […] pre-compiles the bytecode into a > threaded code_

Wait a minute, how is that even possible? Or rather, what do you mean?

Here's my layman's view of things: the bytecode is basically a string of opcodes. The interpreter has to look up the opcode before executing it somehow. And it can be threaded, or use an ordinary switch, or perform some other bizarre optimization I don't understand.

But what does it mean for the bytecode _itself_ to be compiled into a threaded form?

<comment><USER10> > Wait a minute, how is that even possible? Or rather, what do you mean?

It means that the stream of bytecodes (32-bit numbers in OCaml) is replaced with the corresponding label addresses (for 64-bit hosts - addresses minus a fixed offset) once. Then the execution is trivial. This is called "indirect threaded code" [1] and used a lot in Forth implementations, for example.

See the definition of the "Next" macro in interp.c [2] for details.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threaded_code#Indirect_threadi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threaded_code#Indirect_threading)

[2] [https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/trunk/byterun/interp.c](https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/trunk/byterun/interp.c)

EDIT: if you wonder where the actual threading is done, see [https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/trunk/byterun/fix_code.c](https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/trunk/byterun/fix_code.c)

<comment> loup-vaillant OK, I'm rephrasing to make sure I understand.

In the ordinary, C compliant switch code, you would do this:

      int instructions[] = { /* bytecode */ };

      // main loop
      int* ip = instructions;
      while(1) {
        switch (*ip) {
        case 1: /* instruction 1 */ break;
        case 2: /* instruction 2 */ break;
        case 3: /* instruction 3 */ break;
        /* etc */
        }
        ip++; /* goto next instruction. beware jumps */
      }

With a jump threaded implementation, you would do this instead:

      int instructions[] = { /* bytecode */ };

      void jump_table[] = {
        &&lbl1,
        &&lbl2,
        &&lbl3,
        /* etc */
      };

      // main loop
      int* ip = instructions;
      goto *jump_table[*ip];
      lbl1: /* instruction1 */ ip++; goto *jump_table[*ip];
      lbl2: /* instruction2 */ ip++; goto *jump_table[*ip];
      lbl3: /* instruction3 */ ip++; goto *jump_table[*ip];
      /* etc */

Which means, instead of having the compiler constructing a jump table under the hood, I do this myself, and get the benefit of jumping from several locations instead of just one. But I still look up that table. Now the indirect threading you speak of:

      int instructions[] = { /* bytecode */ };

      void jump_table[] = {
        &&lbl1,
        &&lbl2,
        &&lbl3,
        /* etc */
      };

      // translating bytecode into adresses
      void* labels[] = malloc(sizeof(void*) * nb_instructions);
      for (uint i = 0; i < nb_instructions; i++)
        labels[i] = jump_table[instructions[i]];

      // main loop
      void** lp = labels;
      goto **lp;
      lbl1: /* instruction1 */ lp++; goto **lp;
      lbl2: /* instruction2 */ lp++; goto **lp;
      lbl3: /* instruction3 */ lp++; goto **lp;
      /* etc */

If I got that correctly, instead of accessing the jump table at some random place, I only access the label table in a much more linear fashion, saving one indirection and some memory access in the process —this should relieve some pressure off the L1 cache.

Did I get that right?

<comment><USER10> Exactly, you got it right. One indirection less, and no jump table in the cache. And CPUs are very well optimised for this kind of indirect jumps, because of vtables.

There is also one step further - emit the actual jump instructions, making a direct threaded code. It is a bit more complicated and not very portable, but if you want to squeeze all the cycles you can it's still an easy and fast option before resorting to a full-scale compiler.

<comment><USER13> I think direct threading is usually implemented just by reducing the indirection another level,

e.g.

      goto *lp

rather than

      goto **lp

You could implement an interpreter with generated JMP instructions, which might be called direct-threading, but at least in the forth world, where most jumps are to nested user-defined subroutines, subroutine-threading using JSR instructions is typically used.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Startups, Robots Drive YC Founder - <AUTHOR> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1324456

<comment><USER2> Yay TLB! I had the great pleasure of working with him for a while and I'm always glad when he gets a bit of sunshine. Fun anecdote, when he was teaching one of his robots to balance he taught himself to balance on a walking globe (circus ball) and filmed himself doing so to get a better idea of the learning process and the dynamics involved.

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks like some changes are afoot/happened at YC. They are very sophisticated and deliberate in their PR pushes, so looks like Trevor has been leading the charge since PG is clearly stepping back.</comment>


This (very basic) website is hosted on an alarm clock - <AUTHOR> http://kwf.dyndns.org:5821/

<comment><USER2> Now, it would be very nice if the website displayed the actual time on the alarm clock.

Or even better: what about streaming the video from a webcam pointing at the alarm clock?

Talk about meta...

</comment><comment><USER3> A few years back (before the iPhone & Android were out) I hosted a website on my Nokia N82 phone. Nokia enabled this by routing requests to the server on your phone via a URL hosted at '<yourname>.mymobilesite.net' (now discontinued).

</comment><comment><USER4> I wonder how badly the "Chumby" name hurts their organic search.

Of the 18 comments currently on HN, discounting one explicit correction, we have 3 erroneous "Chumpy"s and 1 correct "Chumby".

It's a shame all the useful names are trademarked and we have to resort to synthetic alphabetic tags for the rest of eternity.

<comment><USER5> > It's a shame all the useful names are trademarked and we have to resort to > synthetic alphabetic tags for the rest of eternity

There is always the number line :P

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> To be fair, this is not your grandpa's alarm clock, but a Chumpy. Though I'm sure _that_ could be done too without too much trouble.

<comment><USER7> _"... To be fair, this is not your grandpa's alarm clock, but a Chumpy. ..."_

Chumby ~ <http://www.chumby.com/pages/compare>

the authors build page ~ [http://kennethfinnegan.blogspot.com/2010/11/chumby- webserver...](http://kennethfinnegan.blogspot.com/2010/11/chumby-webserver- without-flash-drive.html) and there is an foss version CHB available ~ <http://wiki.ladyada.net/chumbyhackerboard> from Ada Industries

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This alarm clock runs on a web server!

<comment><USER9> It's more like a web server that runs an alarm clock. The Chumby has the computing power of web servers 10 years ago.

<comment><USER8> Isn't that what I just said?

<comment><USER10> No

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The Chumpy is a full featured computer with Linux running on a 454 MHz ARM processor used as an alarm clock !

<comment><USER12> My phone has a 1GHz ARM processor and is used as an alarm clock! Can't a big thing be a small thing too?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13>
      Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at kwf.dyndns.org:5821.

well, I guess that was expected for a website that is hosted on an alarm clock :)

<comment><USER14> It's working fine for me. Perhaps it just needed to be turned off and on again? :)

<comment><USER15> Or press Snooze.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Chumpy looks interesting (feel like I should have known about it before now)..but I find the choice between battery+cheaper vs stereo unfortunate. I'd consider a Chumpy One + Stereo (at a higher price)..but as-is, I feel the available options lacking.

<comment><USER17> It does have a stereo 1/8th inch jack on it, and neither set of speakers is really any good for music, so if you really care about audio quality, I would use external speakers. Stereo doesn't do that much when the speakers are 4" apart.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Seems the alarm clock is turned off, because the website is down right now.

</comment><comment><USER19> what happens to the site when the alarm goes off?

</comment><comment><USER20> thats like installing a webserver on an eeepc and saying its hosted on a picture frame...</comment>


What to do if developer has stopped all contact? - <AUTHOR>

Hi,<p>I decided to hire a developer from one of the freelancers thread here a while back, and we we made nice progress, but didn't fully complete the required task. I have since tried emailing him for weeks now, and have not gotten no response. I have no idea what to do. Is this falling of the face of the Earth a common thing? What do you think I should do? <comment><USER2> This happens fairly often. Maybe the developer is in the hospital or dead, but more likely they lost interest in the project, or felt like they were not making enough money on it.

Developers chronically underestimate and overcommit, and then when they realize they've done that they either ask for more time and money, or move on. For their part clients frequently under-specify and then expect the programmer to accommodate feature/scope creep, because every little change is no big deal by itself.

At least half of my clients came to me after their developer stopped responding, or demanded more money. See [http://typicalprogrammer.com/the- joys-of-maintenance-program...](http://typicalprogrammer.com/the-joys-of- maintenance-programming/)

If you have a written contract that specifies deliverables and schedule you can sue for breach of contract. In my experience these suits rarely go anywhere unless there's a lot of money involved. If the amount is small enough for small claims court it may not be worth it, and if it's too much for small claims court you will probably have to retain an attorney, pay filing costs, etc. You will need documentation; if you don't have enough the mediator or judge will give equal weight to both sides.

I always advise clients to make sure they have access to their source code and data at all times. I recommend setting up hosting and source code control on accounts you control and give the developer access, but not administrative access. Likewise always register domain names and buy software licenses yourself so you own them. I also advise clients that they need to protect themselves and talk to their developer at the first sign of communications problems -- don't wait for the developer to stop answering emails and phone calls.

If you can find another developer who will work with you and finish the code, great, but good luck finding one. Skilled developers are hard to find, period, and many developers don't want to take on a partly-working pile of code someone else walked away from. You may get a few developers who will tell you what you have paid for is crap and you have to start over. That may be true, but it's also a common knee-jerk reaction when one programmer looks at another programmer's code.

<comment><USER3> Good post, by the way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you have a copy of the source code hire someone else to finish the project. If you do not have it you might have lost time and money. The freelancer will come back if still alive and if there is some good payment left on the contract. Lesson: never hire a dev unless he/she comes well recommended. I am a freelancer with 15yrs of experience, never have I advertized my services b/c this is a business of reputation through word-of-mouth.

<comment><USER5> Won't that be a chicken and egg problem? I think with what you suggest, it would be insanely tough for freelancer trying to look for their first clients (like me).

<comment><USER4> Also known as a catch 22 problem. In theory you are right, in practice there is a path: friends and family. Start your portfolio with low risk small projects (a website, a simple app) and keep climbing; the big tickets will come.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What does the contract you signed with the developer say happens in this case?

</comment><comment><USER7> Communication is always a key factor in whom you hire for freelancing work. Communication is 80% of the job.

If he/she hasn't responded in weeks, then he/she most likely isn't doing his/her job or he/she ended up sick and in a hospital or something.

Some freelancers don't understand the specs or instructions, as many are ESL speakers, you may have to communicate in their native language if English is a bit of a roadblock to them understanding what you want them to do.

You really need to go over the contract this freelancer signed with you, and see what it says about not fulfilling his/her end of the agreement. Stuff like no communication in two weeks should invoke a clause that the freelancer has quit the job and forfeits the pay that the/she would have been paid for those two weeks, and breaks the contract.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't want to terminate the contract, though. I'd rather just finish what we started. It just seems like he lost interest, which isn't really fair to me, right?

<comment><USER8> Well, there is much possible.

He could be in hospital, he could be dead.

He could just not like to work with you anymore, because he don't like you or he got a better job or he stole your idea.

If you have to finish your software, I hope you have a copy of everything you did till now and get a new, reliable, dev for that matter.

If you can wait longer and want to risk, that he hadn't had a good reason to not respond anymore, just do it.</comment></comment></comment>


$750k raise for YieldKit, a German Affiliate Link Company - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/11/20/yieldkit-scores-750000-series-a-from-tim-schumacher-and-hackfwd-to-push-international-expansion/

<comment><USER2> That's the third Series A of a HackFwd-accellerated company in recent months, following FantasyShopper and Delta Strike (now known as Starforce Delta).

HackFwd is definitely setting its position as a top European accellerator fund. Great to be part of it!

</comment><comment><USER3> So this is just a copy cat of <http://viglink.com/> and <http://prosperent.com/tools/prosperlinks> isn't it?

</comment><comment><USER4> Know the founder personally, very down to earth, humble and nice guy. Well deserved Oliver!

</comment><comment><USER5> Good job YieldKit, keep up the great work your doing in affiliate marketing.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> A super nice team on top of some impressive technology.</comment>


Show HN: Voyager 3.2.0 is out with lots of handy features - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/appscode/voyager/releases/tag/3.2.0 <comment><AUTHOR> We are very excited to share this release of Voyager. Some of the notable features are:

\- Serve both HTTP and HTTPS under same host #262

\- Allow users to specify NodePort in NodePort & LoadBalancer mode. #128

\- Add configure option for Haproxy default timeout. #286

\- Run L7 ingress on non-standard ports #73

\- Supports TLS enabled Backend #408

\- Allows custom options in HAProxy config #403

\- Supports custom user templates #454

\- Implement Basic Auth for HTTP Ingresses #470

\- Apply Session affinity to Backend service #460

\- Frontend rules #467</comment>


Ask HN: Is Public-Private Partnership Code for Crony Capitalism? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> This is like asking "is a relationship code for abuse?"

A relationship done poorly can be abusive. Similarly, public private partnerships done poorly can lead to enrichment of politically connected cronies. But that is not the only way.</comment>


Twitter Confirms That They're Being Blocked In Egypt - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/25/twitter-blocked-in-egypt/ <comment><USER2> Ok so this is interesting to me from a data distribution model. Twitter is accessible natively (from their own web page/applications) and via third party applications over their API. I imagine the connection flow goes like this:

you -> native twitter -> you

Or

you -> 3rd party app -> twitter -> you

From what it sounds like, that is the path because it is the link to twitter that is being severed[1] and ultimately you can neither make the request for data nor receive a response.

Now what if the 3rd party app proxied your requests like so:

you -> 3rd party app -> twitter -> 3rd party app -> you

That way the 3rd party app would need to be blocked. Which is obviously a much more difficult problem as there are more than one of them. The only downside would be more bandwidth consumption for the 3rd party app.

If 3rd party apps routed messages through their ip's wouldn't this instantly become a much more difficult problem for the blockers?

[1]I'm talking about lower level blocking here at the dns or ip level. This is moot if they are doing higher level packet inspection and blocking everything with certain words in it (non encrypted).

</comment><comment><USER3> Apparently there is something a foot there, [http://www.examiner.com/foreign- policy-in-national/breaking-...](http://www.examiner.com/foreign-policy-in- national/breaking-president-s-son-and-family-have-fled-to-the-uk)

</comment><comment><USER4> We actually have a few users who translate tweets about the Egypt Jan 25 Protests on curated.by. It's not what we designed the product for but we thought that is an interesting use case and maybe it even helps someone get a better picture of what is really going on:

<http://www.curated.by/meedan/egypt-jan-25-protests>

</comment><comment><USER5> We arm the Egyptian government. Unlike the Tunisian revolution, we won't let this one go anywhere.

<comment><USER6> I think it's more along the lines of the Egyptian government is blocking twitter because they saw how social networking effected the same type of incident in Tunisia. They are scared.

<comment><USER7> I think the original comentor meant that - beyond Egyptian government's own Twitter / social media blocking - the US government will not allow the Egyptian government to fall as it is a big supporter of regime. I agree with this assessment, but hope that I am wrong.

<comment><USER6> I apologize -- I misunderstood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Egyptian users could access twitter (bypassing the block) by visiting a web proxy in another country and then logging into twitter through there.</comment>


2019 in Review: 10 Open-Sourced AI Datasets - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/syncedreview/2019-in-review-10-open-sourced-ai-datasets-c42b73e21c82 <comment><USER2> Lists don't make for such great discussion, because they end up being about the lowest common denominator of the items on the list, which is always something generic. Generic discussions aren't as interesting because there's rarely anything new to say. It's better to pick the most interesting item on the list and submit that.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20denominator%20list&sort=byDate&type=comment)

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic%20discussion&sort=byDate&type=comment)</comment>


Ask HN: What's the best charity in your country? - <AUTHOR> What charity do you regularly support and why is better than similar charities ? <comment><USER2> Christians Against Poverty (CAP) has a good reputation in the UK.

They give training on financial wisdom and help people get their life back on track.

Interesting one simple advice they give is to prefer using cash over credit/debit cards to keep a better idea of spending. Withdraw X amount a week and be disciplined to stay within your means. They give other counselling and assistance as per their website.

"releasing people from poverty, debt, unemployment and addiction".

[https://capuk.org](https://capuk.org)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm a U.S. citizen, and although there are many charities that are reputable and good works. I feel that in light of a lot of the advancements in technology that civil liberties are of penultimate importance moving forward.

In that, I support the ACLU, NRA and EFF. I can't speak for anyone but myself here. I feel that each of the three charities cover part of the overall need, so all are truly needed.</comment>


Amphetamine boosts rats' recovery from brain injuries - <AUTHOR> http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/web/2016/09/Amphetamine-boosts-ratsrecovery-brain-injuries.html <comment><USER2> I recall reading something about this a long time ago, maybe over 10 years ago, that administering amphetamine as soon as possible(?) after a stroke reduces the number of brain cells that die and improves recovery.

Even back when I first heard of this I assumed that it would translate to at least some other forms of brain injury, and I assumed it had to do with the central nervous system stimulatory effects of amphetamine (increase activity which means increase blood flow).

A quick search on scholar.google.com for the terms _amphetamine stroke_ shows at least a few first page results from the '80s.

Here's one from 1982[1] and 1988[2]

From the second link: _Patients treated with amphetamine obtained greater increments in motor scores than the controls_.

We ought not discount the possible positive uses of amphetamine and other drugs just because of their bad reputation for recreation use and abuse potential. I suppose.

1\. [http://science.sciencemag.org/content/217/4562/855](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/217/4562/855)

2\. [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.410230117/ful...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.410230117/full)

</comment><comment><USER3> I've posted here before about helping my girlfriend with her substance abuse problems...

Methamphetamine makes her extremely psychotic for at least 3-5 days. My observation is that Cocaine is a much safer stimulant, as it only makes her "mildly psychotic" until the effects wear off, then she quickly recovers. She's complained to me that cocaine doesn't work anymore, as it doesn't create the euphoria that it used to. Methamphetamine is easier to find, I guess.

My girlfriend is currently being mistreated by "professionals", who have _assumed_ that she's "persistently disabled" because she'd been court-ordered before. They have been completely hostile to treating the underlying causes of their patient's symptoms: alcohol, prescription drugs (anti-psychotics [1] & benzodiazepines), and other substances (stimulants, mainly).

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance- induced_psychosis#Ot...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance- induced_psychosis#Other) \- "antipsychotics, _in an idiosyncratic reaction "_ (emphasis added)

Preliminary evidence found that Progesterone USP also helps people recover from brain injuries. A poorly designed study was hastily implemented, the ineffective method of progesterone administration was found to not help, and the Progesterone USP theory of neuroprotection is not being studied anymore.

<comment><USER4> as someone who's prescribed _amphetamine_ (i.e. adderall) for [inattentive] ADHD, and have also tried _meth_ -amphetamine, I just want to point out that those are two _very different_ drugs as far as effects and potency go.

Methamphetamine is so strong, I honestly couldn't even tolerate small amounts of the stuff. The few times I've tried it just resulted in dehydration, headaches, and muscle aches, easily outweighing any cognitive effects it had (which weren't even really more noticeable than regular amphetamine's effects for me). Cocaine isn't as bad, but still a bit too much for me as well.

Regular amphetamine on the other hand, the compound this article is about, has given me quite a noticeable improvement in my quality of life. Results do vary even among us adhd people, but for me, I've never experienced anything worse than staying up a bit later than I would like from taking it. Otherwise it just feels like drinking a really strong cup of tea for me, cause even coffee makes me more jittery. So the research in this article doesn't surprise me too much, but it's always nice to have some extra reassurance against all the anti-adhd-medication propaganda that originally made me paranoid about even trying it back when I was first diagnosed.

<comment><USER5> > I just want to point out that those are two very different drugs as far as > effects and potency go.

Eh, you were probably experiencing the effects of improper dosing (as well as - I'm assuming - different means of ingestion).

Methamphetamine is just amphetamine with an additional methyl group, which makes it cross the blood-brain barrier more easily, and means that a lower dosage by weight is necessary for the same outcome.

Methamphetamine is metabolized almost identically to amphetamine, which means that the pharmacokinetic impact is the same.

The main difference is that methamphetamine is generally smoked (or occasionally snorted and injected), whereas amphetamine is prescribed orally. Also, unless you were prescribed Desoxyn, there's the other question of how pure and reliable the methamphetamine is, and what other compounds were present.

<comment><USER4> > _you were probably experiencing the effects of improper dosing (as well as - > I 'm assuming - different means of ingestion)_

For the dosing, you're probably right, since I didn't have a milligram scale at the time, but I tried to eyeball a portion similar to half of an adderall tablet, since the entire reason I tried it in the first place was to make that comparison.

As for the ingestion method, I tried to keep it the same as I would take any other medication and quickly washed it down with water, however it being a powder makes it harder to guarantee none of it was absorbed sublingually, though I've also tried adderall that way, and the effects were still not that intense.

Anyways, I am aware how similar the two compounds, I just tried to highlight the _effect_ differences, since that's usually what gets people up in arms about drugs.

<comment><USER6> An Adderall tablet is mostly binders. The actual amount of it that is amphetamine is nowhere near the size that you see.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Amphetamine at low (and even increasingly high) doses has also been shown to be neuroprotective. Kind of a wonder drug as far as neurology goes, aside from the addictive and euphoric properties.

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2440058](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2440058)

<comment><USER8> Ditto nicotine? Here in Asia we also have betel nut. Then there's caffeine and its drink-marketing brethren...

<comment><USER9> I'd love to see more research about nicotine and schizophrenia. Something like 80% or schizophrenics smoke, and they do so heavily. This is 3 or 4 times the rate of the general population.

The question is: does smoking cause schizophrenia, is it self-medication, or both?

Scott Alexander has an interesting summary [1].

For what it's worth, my schizophrenic brother says smoking makes his mind feel much clearer.

I think mental hospitals should have a strategy to provide nicotine to patients (in the high dose they need) to minimise the harm of the strong cheap rubbish that schizophrenics inhale all day. Maybe e-cigs should be promoted to smoker patients.

[1] [http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/11/schizophrenia-no- smokin...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/11/schizophrenia-no-smoking-gun/)

<comment><USER10> There is theorized to be some synergistic effects between tobacco smoking and the antipsychotic medications that people such as your brother often require. IIRC it really isn't known why that is, but it seems relatively well accepted among people who routinely work with schizophrenia.

<comment><USER3> > There is theorized to be some synergistic effects between tobacco smoking > and the antipsychotic medications that people such as your brother often > require.

"Antipsychotics" are palliative medications that do not address the cause of the problematic symptoms. They have repeatedly been shown to cause a very poor long-term prognosis for the unfortunate patients who are put on them.

Nicotine is somewhat similar to Vitamin B3 (Niacin), which has been shown to help schizophrenics recover. Niacinamide supplementation helps my girlfriend reduce her tobacco use.

      ... Here, we propose a model that a subset of
      schizophrenia can respond to niacin augmentation therapy
      better than other subsets because these patients have
      contributions in their psychotic manifestations from the
      neural degeneration resulting from niacin deficiency. We
      present a short description of our case report which
      showed rapid improvement in schizophrenic psychotic
      symptoms subsequent to administration of niacin as an
      augmentation therapy. We, thus, propose that niacin
      deficiency is a contributory factor in schizophrenia
      development in some patients and symptom alleviation in
      these patients will benefit from niacin augmentation,
      especially in some particular psychotic features."

\- [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25855923](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25855923)

<comment><USER9> I've read your story submissions and let me first say that I admire your courage and dedication. I hope this comment is useful and not too blunt.

It sounds like you've gained two passions from your experience: (1) finding the _right_ treatment for mental health issues, instead of long-term palliation, and (2) addressing casual abuses of power and ignorance of the law.

My advice to you is to focus on one passion at a time. You can't make progress on both fronts at once.

Regarding (1), there's a word for people who try to go around the medical establishment and run a business selling a cure-all pill. It's "quack", not "hack". Even if you're right you'll have no credibility and make zero difference to psychiatric treatment, mainstream or otherwise.

The credible approach is to write a case report plus literature review and get it published. I suggest the topic of the literature review should be "low- cost, low-risk interventions to assist in diagnosing subtypes of schizophrenia". You can't do this on your own: you'll need a friendly PhD co- author to edit it brutally and guide you through publication.

(By subtype here I mean the different etiologies, which is an emerging area of study, not the traditional grouping by symptoms)

Regarding (2), your focus should be local and specific, and honestly your best bet may be donating or raising money for existing organisations that work in this area.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for your comments - they are quite helpful.

> Regarding (1), there's a word for people who try to go around the medical > establishment and run a business selling a cure-all pill. It's "quack", not > "hack".

I manufactured a supplement once, then I realized it was a legal minefield. I have plans to apply for FDA approval for a claim for a device. This would provide legal protection against the status quo, while destroying their harmful business at the same time.

I gave a bottle of my supplement to a young woman who'd just been not-helped at the hospital. I called her a few days later - she said, "THAT STUFF REALLY WORKS!" I called a few months later, and her sister said she was in the state mental hospital. People need more than a supplement to become truly well.

> The credible approach is to write a case report plus literature review and > get it published. I suggest the topic of the literature review should be > "low-cost, low-risk interventions to assist in diagnosing subtypes of > schizophrenia".

"... for the Emergency Room physician." Yeah, I like that idea. I have some ideas of people to work with.

Robert Whitaker has pointed out to the psychiatrists that their "science" is paid for by the industry whose products they use [1]. He hasn't gotten very far in the last 15 years.

[1] [http://www.madinamerica.com/2016/09/confessions-of-a- trespas...](http://www.madinamerica.com/2016/09/confessions-of-a-trespasser/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think the most important part is:

"Uninjured and resilient animals performed worse after the drug, but chronically impaired animals responded with increased accuracy and less impulsivity on the behavioral test."

<comment><USER12> Yes, important for this study.

But, my experience with the broader classification of brain drugs and medical professionals that prescribe them is that "unless it's broke don't ask to fix it, and even then put whatever we tell you into your body and let's see ehat happens."

There are some excellent studies showing modafinil to benefit all doctors when performing while sleep deprived. Modifinil is pretty much as safe and addictive as caffeine. Now, try going into a doctor's office with this info and asking for a script. My experience is that 9 out of 10 times you'll be seen to be displaying addictive behavior.

There are a bunch of drugs that, if properly taken, will do wonders for your mental life. Intunive, selegiline, methylphenidate, to name only a few. But, while it's legal to smoke, drink, watch tv, or eat yourself to death or into depression, acting on your own to take these drugs could land you in jail.

If the US is so gung-ho on personal responsibility, let us take responsibility for our actions then, and let doctors be partners, not parents. In an age where inhanced mental or physical condition make an enormous difference in ones quality of life, stop hamstringing us from taking action so we might better ourselves.

<comment><USER10> A doctor is generally someone who is trying to maintain your current level of health, or manage any issues with that health which do arise. They're not there to take even minimal risks so that you can improve your working memory, even if that risk is slight. Maybe there should be a new field of doctors who aren't there to keep you healthy, who don't abide by the 'no harm' principle, and who will happily prescribe you anything that hasn't been proven to be dangerous.

It's not reasonable to expect that of doctors in their current position, with their current professional and ethical framework however.

<comment><USER12> Sports medicine? An entire sub-field of the profession dedicated to improving performace _beyond_ average or baseline.

I think you missed half my point, as well. Doctors do take risks with patient's persons all the time. The risks are often taken with the patient's person over the doctor's credentials. My father is on 3 blood pressure meds and hus doctor refuses to try a new regimine that would only require 1. Wtf. The number of complications that are introduced with 3 medications is absurdly risky, but the doctor won't risk a switch. And this is all covered during a 5 min conversation. People soend more time arguing with mechanics about automobile work.

As a society we praise workaholics for being productive, look up to PhDs for casting off years of relationships and life experiences in order to become an expert, and put athletes on pedestals for pushing their bodies to the limit. And even though for the vast majority of people for whom which increased working memory and attention span would mean better education, better professional results, and thus better pay, healthcare, and better general quality of life, and we just shut down the conversation. No, we are told. You can't. Discussion over. Period.

I say, f-ck that. If that's the nor, I challenge it. If that is because doctors don't want to have the responsibility rest on them, I say lay the responsibility with me.

<comment><USER10> So ask for a referral to a sports medicine specialist and see how it goes. I'd point out though, that sports medicine is also the field that "protects" athletes so well... so very well.

That said, whether it's a football player shooting cortisone and lidocaine between kickoffs, popping opiates, or just having their concussions ignored for decades... or someone who wants to work themselves to death, the outcome is the same.

Regret and pain later in life, when you mature a bit and realize that your supposed gains were not really worth it.

<comment><USER12> I pointed to sports medicine specifically as a counter point to your claim that doctors generally prrform only the function of getting one back to normal.

And to say that "when I mature" I might choose differently... One can be mature without being moribund. One can be wise and still be progressive or even radical. Most to your point though, you're still moralizing, suggesting that when I know what you know, I'll finally grant that you were right all the time.

Moralizing,,, enough already.

<comment><USER10> Nothing you mentioned in your previous post spoke to anything like wisdom, just competitiveness. As for moralizing, there isn't a moral dimension to this for you, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The bottom line is just that doctors who are in the business of their patients' business don't act in those patients' best interests from a medical standpoint.

If you want to achieve greatness with drugs at the potential expense of your health, that's fine in my opinion, but it's crazy to think that a doctor should help you.

<comment><USER12> Sigh, exhaustion, your rhetoric is all over the place. I'd need a keyboard. Alas, I've only my smartphone. Butttt, I would suggest you get your learn on, study logic, and reread your comments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Two other drugs, atomoxetine and amantadine, which have been used to treat impulse control disorders in patients, offered no significant benefits." \- Ups

<comment><USER14> Eh, not all impulse control disorders come from brain damage?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've had ADD and slow executive function all of my life, along with a few other problems.

I was in denial or at least unsure about it for years. I'd had docs diagnose me with ADD, one who tested me extensively who though ADD was overdiagnosed that said I didn't have it, and had tried natural remedies, attempted to self- treat with caffeine- probably 5-12 cans of soda a day or several cups of coffee- and had a few really bad experiences and reactions with the meds that I tried.

Then I finally went to a psychiatrist that had been recommended to me by my doc and an friend of a friend and took GeneSight tests for genetic markers that indicate problems with different types of medications. I found one for ADD that was recommended and was prescribed that. It was Vyvanse which is amphetamine-based. It is lisdexamfetamine which is basically like a time- released dextroamphetamine. It becomes dextroamphetamine when the body cleaves off the lysine.

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

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

I took Vyvanse and within an hour, I had a lot more energy and felt like I was "on". I didn't have any trouble focusing and it revved up my executive function so I was not thinking as slowly. I felt like it was going to solve all of my problems. However, even though I felt great and helped with some depression I was having also, I had some negative interactions at work. After getting "called into the office" after one of those, I knew I was going to have to do something else. Away from work, though, it was a great medication to be on, and since it was time-released, so I only had to take one in the morning. I still don't think it's a bad med.

I went back to the psychiatrist. She put me on Evekeo. It contains 50% levoamphetamine salts and 50% dextroamphetamine. On it, I can focus on what I'm doing like what I think a normal person does- or maybe better. I still will hear what others are saying and get distracted, but when I want to, and with help of music, I can really focus on my work. I can even focus more that I think that I could when I was younger and ADD wasn't affecting me as much. I still feel a little slower and am considering taking it and a smaller dose of dextroamphetamine. For me, it's a little like the real-world clear pill from Limitless.

I think eventually what I'd like to be on would be a combination of lisdexamfetamine and levoamphetamine (or a time-released version of it). It's possible that the L-lysine of lisdexamfetamine was also having some positive affects: [https://www.drugs.com/npc/lysine.html](https://www.drugs.com/npc/lysine.html)

<comment><USER16> The way you talk about it exactly mirrors my experience. I have ADD as well, and I take Adderal-XR. Without it I'm scattered, "double back" on my thoughts a lot, can't focus, and generally have no motivation.

With it I'm a different person. I can focus, I can finish a thought process, I'm motivated, things become clear. I can actually "keep up" with others in "normal life", and it makes me a great programmer.

It really does feel like the magic pill from limitless.

Now, I tried alternatives when I was younger, and none really worked that well. Vyvanse put me to sleep, concerta (sp?) Didn't work at all. adderal-xr worked, but the "come down" sucks, it ruins my appetite, and its almost impossible to get around here (every place never has it).

I'm afraid to start trying others as I feel entirely useless without my medicine, and I know that because of the legal issues around these drugs, trying one out but keeping my backup of my old medicine is not going to fly. So I just deal with it.

<comment><USER17>
        > Vyvanse put me to sleep, adderal-xr worked, but the "come down" sucks

Adderall does have a bad come down. Often depressive even on low XR doses.

Vyvanse is still amphetamine, so if it put you to sleep, are you sure you took enough?

20mg Adderall XR is about equivalent to 50mg Vyvanse, which is what I take.

Everyone I know switched from Adderall to Vyvanse and we all report the same thing -- much more gradual curve throughout the day and far less depressive on the come down. I'd consider Adderall XR to be a real tweak compared to Vyvanse and far less therapeutic for a day-to-day drug.

<comment><USER16> I may be mixing them up, I was around 15 when I last "experimented" with the different drugs.

I might talk to my doctor about my options next time I'm in there. The comedown doesnt bother me all that much, but I think it is starting to bother my wife as I can get a bit "cranky".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Or terrible psychosis</comment>


Romanced by the Mathematics of Uncertainty - <AUTHOR> http://computationalimagination.com/interview_jonah_gabry.php <comment><AUTHOR> Interviewer here. In this Profile in Computational Imagination I interview Jonah Gabry a statistician and developer on the Stan team at Columbia. One fun twist is that Jonah was a humanities guy; music, history, languages and literature who was gradually drawn to probability, mathematics and Bayesian statistics through intellectual curiosity. That eventually leads him into programming and building tools to make Bayesian analysis more accessible to classically trained statisticians and domain scientists of all kinds.</comment>


Harvard Scientists Create Hand-Held Device to Detect Cancer at Bedside  - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-23/harvard-scientists-create-hand-held-device-to-detect-cancer-at-bedside.html <comment><USER2> I'm a pathologist.

      "This is superior to even the pathologists," Castro said.

This is a stupid statement and a ridiculous conclusion in the linked article. Let's talk about why this is a shitty conclusion.

1\. This study was looking at protein markers on cells that were aspirated out of stomach masses and comparing the results to the pathology report. This thinking completely discounts the other actor in the scenario, the gastroenterologist who is doing the aspiration by endoscopy. If you give me a sample with cancer, I'm going to report it. However, the GI doc has to sample it and he has to give me a decent sample to work with. If he does not biopsy your cancer, I can't call it. I don't practice faith-based medicine. The thing is though, I spend a not-insignificant portion of my days in procedures just like this immediately assessing the material (looking at it under the microscope) and can tell the GI if he is sampling the material, or if it is enough for us to make the diagnosis. He usually knows if it is cancer before I leave the room (and it is a lot shorter than even 60 minutes).

2\. This small device has detected a single type of cancer in pre-screened patients, that is patients who have a reason to have this done (maybe they're just having a little stomach pain, or maybe they've been vomiting blood and have had a 20 pound weight loss in the past 3 months). Try screening the general population and let me know how your device fares. It is not portable. It required an entire endoscopy suite, expensive endoscopy equipment, and a highly trained (multiple years of clinical fellowship) operator. You ain't gonna pull this off in a rural village in Africa (and let's face, what's the point of that, you don't have anything to treat it with). Plus you were directly sampling the tumor mass with a needle. I do this all damn day! I don't really have much problem calling cancer, or even better, telling docs that masses are benign if someone is able to stick a needle in something. Wake me up when you can diagnose any form of cancer by sampling tumor cells circulating in the peripheral blood (actually we are probably closer to that than you think!).

3\. For lesions of the stomach, aspirating the lesion is a shitty way to make the diagnosis. Forceps biopsy is a much better way and that is the way this type of cancer is going to be diagnosed in the vast majority of patients. So if you are already there with your endoscopy, just get a goddamn biopsy already.

<comment><USER3> _So if you are already there with your endoscopy, just get a goddamn biopsy already._

I love it when medical professionals express themselves clearly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a great finding. I'm doing braincancer research myself and that's where my main concern comes from. By reading the abstract (on a train, no time for the full article yet) I understand they are using fineneedle aspiration to get their samples. That would work for most easy accessible tumors but for braintumor the human skull will be too big of a barrier. I'm still hoping for methods where samples from the peripheral blood will be used.

Secondly I wonder what the costs willbe when antibodies for more than just one specific tumor will be used. Now they scan for one tumor by using 4 proteins. Scanning for more types of cancer will increase costs dramatically thought.

Nevertheless great finding and hopefully available in clinics all over the world soon (but it usually takes an other 10 years).

</comment><comment><USER5> The most fascinating portion of it, to me:

"The technology is also more accurate than current diagnostic tests, the scientists said. The portable diagnostic device achieved 96 percent accuracy, compared with the 84 percent rate associated with more traditional assays."

Not only is it significantly smaller and much faster, it is also more accurate. Let's hope we see this deployed to the locations where it is most needed.

</comment><comment><USER6> The article mentions the cost of the device itself, but I wonder how much it costs to administer the test. Are there any consumables that must be used? How much do they cost?

<comment><USER7> Yes, there would be consumables. You would need something like nano Fe2O3 attached to biomolecules that specifically bind to the cancer cell type you are testing for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I heard a talk about this technology about 4 years ago from MRI/NMR researchers at my university working on it. The big problem is getting the right biomolecules that will bind with the target cancer. This is apparently a common problem in many scenarios, especially targeted therapies. Other than that the technology sounds very interesting, as you can potentially detect a single cancer cell in the sample.

<comment><USER8> So, as a loyal alum of a lab studying tumor vasculature, I'm contractually obligated to tell you that, alas, once you have built a biomolecule that sticks preferentially to cancer cells you must still deliver that molecule to the cells. And that is hard.

It is hard because tumors have lousy blood vessel networks. Normal cells have nicely designed blood vessels an optimum distance away. Tumors do not.

I'm not surprised that this study was for stomach cancer biopsy alternatives. Presumably it's relatively easy to deliver antibodies to cells that are sitting there on the lining of the stomach. And this much is a big win, no question - nobody who has actually had an invasive gastric procedure would fail to applaud the invention of a better alternative. But other cancers may be harder. Plenty of work left to do.

<comment><USER7> I think the hope is that with a few mL of blood you can find at least one cancer cell floating freely and detect that one cell.

Of course by the time any cells migrate to the blood you might be at the metastatic stage for a lot of cancers (not an expert though).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here is the link to the paper <http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/3/71/71ra16.full.pdf>

<comment><USER7> Seems to be behind a paywall and my university only gets Science, not this sub-journal, unfortunately...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> With relay back to a previous thread on 'advances seen in our lifetime' it again amazes me how fast things are moving, especially in the medical field. And for $200 yet... brilliant. Leonard "Bones" McCoy would be proud.

</comment><comment><USER9> just wanted to share with anyone interested in cancer.. I finished reading this amazing book "The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer" Great for anyone but specially those outside the field who want to know abt the history of cancer.

[http://www.amazon.com/Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography- Cancer/...](http://www.amazon.com/Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography- Cancer/dp/1439107955)

</comment><comment><USER11> The one bit of information left out in the article is how do you get the magnetic nanoparticles in your blood stream in the first place. I wouldn't think they are injected directly into a vein, but maybe they are ...

</comment><comment><USER12> It is one of my dreams to be involved with cancer, perhaps a medical device startup. One of my college professors (biology of cancer) urged me to go to med school but cancer specifically has always been very attractive to me. If I wanted to get involved with a biotech/med device startup where would I go about looking?

<comment><USER13> Move to Boston and work on an advanced biology degree.

<comment><USER12> a great suggestion and one that i should seriously consider; however my undergraduate major was psychology and i basically minored in math, and other than core biology and cancer i didn't take any bio courses. so i'm not sure of the best way to pursue an advanced biology degree. any hints?

edit: possibly i could take get involved through bizdev/marketing?</comment></comment></comment>


YouTube Videos Now Served in WebM - <AUTHOR> http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2011/04/mmm-mmm-good-youtube-videos-now-served.html

<comment><USER3> Anyone wanting to try hosting their own HD or SD video portfolio in WebM can try <http://www.vive.ly/> which is like parts of Dropbox, Zencoder, and Hulu in a blender, for original video files you want backed up, encoded, and published publicly or privately -- without the YouTube problems of giving up your copyrights or having competitor videos promoted alongside yours.

Drop your originals in a folder, we encode into SD and HD in H.264, Ogg, and WebM, and build you a mini-Hulu video site that works in Flash, Silverlight, or HTML5 across browsers. You can also download the encoded files for use elsewhere, embed them, or rebrand the video site with your own logo and domain name.

Use our Hacker News invite code hd4yc to sign up free, and let us know what you think of the WebM encodes. We encode all the files in parallel, and the video pages update as the versions become available, so you may have to wait a bit for the WebM encodes to finish.

<comment><USER4> Currently, it looks as if the gallery pages are using flash -- what about using native html for browsers that can play WebM video natively?

<comment><USER3> If the Vively subscriber sets his settings to HTML 5 or "video for everyone" it will use that by default.

If you visit from iPad, you'll see video in HTML 5 regardless of the user's Flash setting.

Btw, if you post a vertical video shot on iPhone, that works too, it will be shown vertical.

We try to use the playback tech most likely to feel familiar and give good performance for the end user (viewer). A Vively subscriber can set to HTML 5, though, then preference is Ogg for Firefox, WebM for Chrome, H.264 for Safari.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> From the article:

 _"Currently, there are countless devices used to record videos and hundreds of different video file formats."_

H.264 is by far the most common. I don't know of any video camera or DSLR that records to WebM or Theora.

 _"certain web browsers that you use to view video online only accept certain 'codecs' - or programs used to encode, transmit and playback video files - <USER2> others require plug-ins (converters) to integrate the video file with the browser."_

"Certain web browsers"? Chrome and Firefox are the only ones that don't support H.264 natively. To view video on those browsers, it needs to be routed through a plug-in like Flash (standard on Chrome) or QuickTime. Browsers like Internet Explorer and Safari support the majority of all web video, right out of the box, no plug-ins needed. On mobile devices, the situation is even more obvious. Android is the only OS with support for WebM, and no mobile devices have hardware acceleration for WebM, draining your device's battery in no- time. However, all modern smartphones and tablets have support for H.264, most of them with hardware acceleration.

I'm all for an open source alternative to H.264. If it's at least as good and free to use, then I hope that it will become the standard; for the web, in desktop operating systems, for mobile devices, for video cameras and DSLRs. I'm just not convinced WebM is that alternative. It's unclear whether WebM is as good as H.264, and it's unclear whether it's free to use.

<comment><USER6> > Chrome and Firefox are the only ones that don't support H.264 natively.

Chrome and Firefox are the browsers that supports html5 video with the biggest market share though.

<comment><USER5> That's a very good point. IE9 has 3% usage share right now, but because it can't run on XP, IE9 won't replace all the IE8 installs out there. In the same vein, IE10 won't even run on Vista. That's why I doubt we'll see another single version of IE being the most dominant. On top of that, Chrome usage is growing rapidly. At the current rate, Chrome will be the most popular browser in 12 to 18 months.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7>
       "nearly 6 years of video is uploaded to YouTube every day"

I knew it was a huge amount every day, but this just blows my mind.

<comment><USER8> In the last 24 hours, we've had 12 years of video uploaded to Justin.tv. 12.17 in particular. So more than double YouTube :-)

Think about it this way: if you have an average of 365 people uploading a video at any given time, you get 1 year of video per day. So YouTube probably has around 2,000 people uploading a video at any given time. (Compare to the number of channels on Justin.tv at any given time...)

<comment><USER9> That maths only adds up if they're uploading a live stream, but, correct me if I'm wrong, the majority of YouTube uploads aren't that. So if they had exactly 365 people uploading videos for exactly 24 hours, it could be much more or much less than one year of video, depending on how fast their connection allowed them to upload.

<comment><USER8> Yes, that's true. So YouTube probably has far fewer than 2k people uploading at any given time, since most people can upload faster than realtime (though some are probably slower than realtime).

Doesn't really change my point though.

<comment><USER9> Yep, wasn't disagreeing with your point, just wanted to fix the maths :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It will be interesting to see if there's a noticeable quality difference. Right now WebM is not comprable to H.264 except the baseline codec.

 _Its openness allows anyone to improve the format and its integrations, resulting in a better experience for you in the long-term_ \- This line doesn't jive at all with my understanding of the VP8 codec. I thought implementations were left to devs, but the format was locked and didn't have room to be improved on? Either way the whole spec seems to be built around avoiding H.264 patent suite and "improving" on it is a minefield.

<comment><USER11> "Right now WebM is not comparable to H.264 except the baseline codec."

It's comparable in the sense that AAC and MP3 are comparable. VP8 can look excellent, it's just that high profile h264 can look better at the same bitrate.

It's also extremely likely that youtube uses h264 baseline profile anyway, since they serve to mobile devices (unless they secretly transcode and store multiple h264 versions for every video).

<comment><USER10> _store multiple h264 versions for every video_

Pretty much every video content provider I know does this. I work primarily on OTT Boxes (Roku, Boxee) and Connected TVs and all of those platforms support bitrate selection of video assets based on a speed tests. I'd assume most platforms doing progressive download of video over HTTP does the same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is great to see. Another step forward for the open web.

</comment><comment><USER13>
      opt-in trial

Wasn't it like that from the beginning? Seeing the headline I assumed this was big news and they changed to WebM as the default.

<comment><USER14> The _HTML5 trial_ has always been opt-in, but also features H.264 files. WebM has been the default _for HTML5_ since they introduced it, only falling back to H.264 if WebM is not available (or back to Flash if the video require adverts).

I think the big change is that they're now converting all uploads to WebM, previously they had to be above 720p OR uploaded in WebM to trigger this. Presumably because they've converted enough of the popular "classic" videos that they can now spare the encode time for all new files. Just another milestone on the journey towards having everything in WebM.

</comment></comment><comment> steve-howard The summary is that new videos are being transcoded to WebM, whereas the rest is going to take a while. The fact that the transcoding is already partially underway and I haven't noticed any difference probably speaks well for how the transition has been going (admittedly, I generally keep my browsers very up- to-date). EDIT: Aaah, just noticed the opt-in part.

</comment><comment><USER15> It's good they're doing this, but since I've switched to a browser with WebM support a few months ago, and opted-in to the trial, I've run across only a couple of videos not in WebM.

</comment><comment><USER16>
        So far we've already transcoded videos that make up 99% of views on the site
         or nearly 30% of all videos into WebM

There really isn't much of a long tail on YouTube, it seems. It's sort of worrisome that google could throw away seventy percent of the videos with the vast majority of users not caring.

<comment><USER17> It just means most people tend to upload stuff that no one cares about.

<comment><USER18> That's the wrong way of looking at it. Most people upload stuff few people care about. Their is a large number of people who cater to a small community, and YouTube makes sharing videos easy for that community. A low number of views doesn't equate to low interaction, either.

Take a hobby of mine: miniature painting for $40k. I published battle report videos, painting update videos, etc. I didn't have a large number of views, but the views I got were from highly specific audience. So, I get 500 to 1000 views. That's clearly something that isn't high priority to the masses of YouTube, but for the community that has built up around sharing videos like that on YouTube, it's important.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> From a content provider point of view, there is no point in creating WebM content. The H264 version works on all plateforms, why would they be interested in paying for transcoding time to access a market they have already... It might sound great, but I do not see the industry following Google on that...

</comment><comment><USER20> This is great news. I hope the player can pick the WebM format automatically based on the device capacity. Save a lot of headache for developers.</comment>