YC W17 Invites/Rejections - <AUTHOR> Has anyone received an invite/rejection email for the W2017 batch yet? <comment><USER2> Boks Kar didn't get selected either for W17, we found out by looking the status on our application page.

The cool part is we look forward in taking our company to the next level. There is a ton of stories of founders moving forward without YC, and sometimes you don't need an accelerator to make your dream come true. It's the dream itself that's powers you to make it come true. It would have been great to meet the YC team and learn from them. But after with much thought, it makes sense to move forward and become a market leader to tip my hat to YC.

If you're interested to work for company that's going to change how we own cars - drop your email@example.com

Power on and take your dream to the next level. I'm 404.

Thanks, Rudy Ferraz BoksKar.com

</comment><comment><USER3> Rejected…… "Every time I thought I was being rejected from something good, I was actually being re-directed to something better."

</comment><comment><USER4> Wondering anyone who got accepted for an interview want to switch dates?

We signed up late for the interview and are currently scheduled for 11/2 but my co-founder will be out of town then. Anyone have a slot the following week that would want to switch? Mail me at firstname.lastname@example.com thx!

<comment><USER5> I wish

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not yet. Anxiously waiting...the odd part is that their application now says invites will be sent on 10/25 (today):

[http://www.ycombinator.com/apply/](http://www.ycombinator.com/apply/)

<comment><USER7> they mentioned 25 oct in a tweet also [https://twitter.com/ycombinator/status/789852320402026496](https://twitter.com/ycombinator/status/789852320402026496)

<comment><USER6> Wow so it's confirmed! My day just got 100x more exciting! Have you heard anything?

<comment><USER7> not yet ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you're like me and enjoy pretending your life is a music video, listen to this:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C092uisdqh8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C092uisdqh8)

(thank me later)

<comment><USER8> thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Regarding late applications, does anyone know if they notify you that your application is considered late? We submitted at 8:01pm PT so we aren't sure if it counts as late.

<comment><USER5> Just a guess, but I am guessing that would be considered on time. Best of luck :) :)

<comment><USER6> I think so too. The confirmation email we received said "you can continue to edit your application until the application deadline (Oct 04, 8pm PT)"

<comment><USER5> you will be okay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey folks... wow, we just got an invite to come to California :-) Good luck everyone... and regardless of your application outcome - make something fucking amazing anyway.

<comment><USER9> Congratz mate! Get ready for the interview, I hear you only have a few days!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Received rejection email last night...I know all the stories of successful start-ups that were rejected and all but can't help but feel extremely disappointed...

<comment><USER5> It's okay. You're not alone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1qdpiT_of8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1qdpiT_of8)

sending good vibes. xoxo

</comment><comment><USER10> Rejected. Get it though, as my thing is both really (probably too) big and really early. The grind continues though.

<comment><USER5> I was certain you'd get in tbh. Your head game and confidence seemed on point. I was pretty confident that I was getting in I had like 49 embedded views. I'm bummed but oh well. Life moves on. It was my first time applying so I feel like a dick complaining about not getting in. Plus, I'm solo and non- technical. I was hoping that my hubris and ability to communicate would get me an interview.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Still didn't receive an email, anyone else waiting confirmation like us?

<comment><USER12> Still waiting for the email

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Anybody have any idea of video views from them on application video?

<comment><USER5> what do you mean by that? like how many views # did we get?

<comment><USER9> Yeah

<comment><USER13> pretty difficult to know, i have no views from San Francisco yet

<comment><USER9> I checked my embedded views and made sure mine wasn't public. I had 2 views from what I'm pretty sure is yc at only half the length of the video time...yikes

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Just got the email about an hour ago EST, with the invitation.

<comment><USER5> Congratulations !!

Hope you nail it :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is anyone still waiting for the email?

<comment><USER16> We are still waiting for the email.. No news

<comment><USER5> Crossing my fingers for you :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> East coast reporting. No email here

</comment><comment><USER7> have any one received email for video call from YC ?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Good luck everyone!

<comment><USER5> thank you :) :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Any updates?

<comment><USER18> Just got rejection email as well - last time (s16) we were invited for the interview but did not get in at the end. But it only makes everyone stronger, nothing that anyone should be sad about. For anyone interested, our product demo video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdpG1sKd5bI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdpG1sKd5bI)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Rejected

</comment><comment><USER19> inb4 heart attack

</comment><comment><USER7> any news ???

</comment><comment><USER13> nope

</comment><comment><USER20> nope

</comment><comment><USER21> not yet :(</comment>


Details of the charges against Assange - <AUTHOR>

According to the Guardian:

    Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, told the court Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations.

    She said the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of 14 August in Stockholm.

    The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

    The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

    The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on 18 August "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".

    The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.
 [from http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates ] <comment><USER2> This is pretty much textbook conspiracy, where a corrupt government arranges for someone to be locked up.

<comment><USER3> From what I'm hearing, the women delightedly reported on twitter and text messages that they had done it with Assange. This is _hearsay_ mind you, so feel free to confirm or deny.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home"

Does that mean sex with a second woman while "she" as in "the first woman" was asleep, or while "she" as in "the second woman" was asleep and apparently unaware of what was going on?

Also curious to the sort of evidence to prove these accusations; video/audio recording?</comment>


Google Maps Now Suggests Alternate Routes - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/google-maps-now-suggests-alternate-routes/ <comment><USER2> I've just tried this. Weird choices. Main route was about 200 miles, 3 hours 50. Alternates were significantly longer in both distance and time. By hand with one point I got a route that was 180 miles and only 3 minutes longer.

I know about the TSP, complexity theory, and the difficulties in doing this sort of thing, but I admit to being confused as to the choice of alternatives. I'd be interested to know something of the criteria being used.

<comment><USER3> I think techcrunch is misunderstanding the purpose of alternate routes -- the point is to allow people to say "hmm, the radio traffic report says there's an accident on bridge X... what good routes are there which avoid that bridge?"

As such, it's not useful to provide "the best N routes" -- instead, the point is to find N good routes which do not overlap more than necessary. In your case, Google probably decided that the best route was 200 miles and 3h50m, and then ignored the route you found because it was "too similar" to the route it had already found.</comment></comment>


New York's Strand bookshop begs to avoid official landmarking - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/dec/05/new-yorks-strand-bookshop-begs-to-avoid-official-landmarking <comment><USER2> Choice quote from the NYT interview with Strand's owner: "The richest man in America, who's a direct competitor, has just been handed $3 billion in subsidies. I'm not asking for money or a tax rebate. Just leave me alone."

</comment><comment><USER3> What are the costs they imply landmark status will incur for them? Does it place restrictions on how the building can be changed or must look?

<comment><USER2> Affirmative. An example: our office is in a landmark building a few blocks from Strand. Couple years ago there was a leak on the roof. While fixing, they found absestos, which they we're required to remove. But, because we are a landmark building, the facade had to be put back _exactly_ as it appeared before the work. The construction took a year longer and was significantly more expensive than would have been without landmark status.</comment></comment>


The 30 Day Challenge, in 30 Minutes - <AUTHOR> http://www.blue74.com/2010/07/start-up-advice/the-30-day-challenge-in-30-minutes/

<comment><USER2> Note that this year, instead of 30 consecutive days, they are doing 7 times 7 days, with a week off in between each 7 day run.</comment>


Future sports (what is sport?) - <AUTHOR> https://spmx.ca/futureproof <comment><USER2> For my whole life, I've been asking sports people to define "sport" (as opposed to a "game"). Nobody has ever been able to provide a good definition -- this appears to be a "you know it when you see it" thing (and I apparently lack the ability to know it when I see it!)

<comment><AUTHOR> Same. I've asked several workers in the field over the years and have found it to be based on two things: first, on several generally overlapping characteristics, all ranked more on spectra than as binary requirements, and second, on local culture.

An example of the first is that shooting is a little bit physical, so it often checks off the "physically strenuous" box (if barely, but still more so than chess). An example of the second is ex-Soviet Bloc states focusing on strenuousness and competition with others, Scandinavians on health, well- being, and more so competition with oneself, and North Americans on trying to nail down just how physical the activity is, and if an audience is present. These are just off-the-cuff conversations over about 2-3 years of work in sport but still interesting to think about. Some have been recorded on [https://spmx.ca/tag/sport-psych](https://spmx.ca/tag/sport-psych).</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are you still using PHP? - <AUTHOR> I find myself more comfortable with PHP, I think it is the best language to build your MVP. Just want to to know if you are still using PHP, if yes then why? <comment><USER2> Yes. It's never been incapable of doing what I need it to do. Configured properly, it can be very fast. And I know it better then I know my primary spoken / written language. Precautions need to be taken as with any language regarding scrubbing data, memory usage, sql queries, etc... but IMO, it's still a perfectly valid language.

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you share your PHP project?

<comment><USER2> I'll share 1 of them

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

1600 concurrent users online right now. Just 1 load balancer, 2 servers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Yes it's easy to start something without thinking too much. I suppose that someone fluent in nodejs would say the same about nodejs though.</comment>


Snowden Self-Incriminates - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/17/snowden-self-incriminates/

<comment><USER2> Some perhaps relevant excerpts from the author's CV:

Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2009

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department of Homeland Security, 2005-2009

General Counsel, Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, 2004-2005

General Counsel, National Security Agency, 1992-1994

</comment><comment><USER3> Last paragraph tl;dr:

"To sum up, for the last several months, while living in Russia, Snowden has been putting forward a justification for his acts (a) that he knows is not true, since it doesn't explain his actions, (b) that is approved at the highest levels by the Russian government and (c) that gravely harms the US and helps Russia in its confrontations with the US around the world."

Thanks tokenadult, as usual, for the regular updates from an opposing view on Snowden. I'm still undecided whether the man was operating for attention from the start, or got scared and changed his plans after the leak already got under way. In either case, I've come around to accept Snowden as a non- altruistic actor.

</comment><comment><USER4> Snowden broke his oath and the law. There is no argument about this.

However, the fact that people can't see past the law to the bigger picture is more than a little disheartening.

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't support massive surveillance dragnets, but I also find it laughable to suppose that the USA is the only country that has them.

At the same time, the author seems to be insinuating that Snowden was a Russian agent. If that's true why didn't he go to Russia very quickly? Why did he try to go to Hong Kong and South America first?

It also eludes dealing with the question of whether the NSA's programs are good or justifiable. Just because other people do it too doesn't mean it's a good thing.</comment>


How to buy clothes that are built to last - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/sustainable-clothing.html <comment><USER2> Throwing 75lbs of clothes away in a year blows me away at first glance. I hate shopping for clothes & buying them, I guess I naturally buy stuff built to last and I'm really conservative with fashion I guess. (Which is probably more common for guys).

The item that drives me nuts with disposability at the moment is sneakers. I walk & work out a lot and I'm finding a lot of the running/training type shoes wear out in 3-4 months, the sole is shot but the uppers are totally fine. I'm trying to find more durable shoes to wear for casual wear & walking that actually last.

Stuff that I can get 10 years out of makes me happy. I've successfully done that with stuff like boots & winter coats/mountaineering jackets. Gore Tex has a lot of competitors these days, Gore Tex stuff is really expensive cause of the standards they apply to licensees.. Most of the competing products are cheaper because they don't put as many requirements on the clothing designer. But almost anything I have bought that is a Gore Tex outerwear garment will easily go 10 years which makes it a huge bargain over other stuff.

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't be all that surprised to find out I throw out 75lbs of clothes a year. Just shirts. Everything else lasts a long time, but dammit I have an uncanny ability to get grease spots on the front of my cotton shirts. I finally just started buying them cheap in bulk. I also don't really throw them away directly, I recycle them into rags first, but the end result is the same. I sometimes only get to wear a shirt two or three times before it's ruined.

Maybe I need to wear a full-time bib.

<comment><USER4> Grease spots from food? I can usually get those out in the wash. I apply detergent directly to the spot and rub it in a bit. Then I let it sit for a while (a few hours, overnight, whatever) before putting it into the wash like normal.

Modern detergents are amazing. I once spilled cooking oil directly onto some cotton shorts and they came out fine.

<comment><USER5> For a long time, I have taken the approach of getting up from the table and going to the sink and applying soap vigorously to an oil spot as soon as I notice I've gotten it on my clothes. It seems to me that the sooner the soap or detergent manages to get in contact with the oils, the less time they have to set, and the better the chance that a subsequent wash will remove all trace of my overenthusiastic eating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The clothing brand I've had the best experience with in terms of longevity is Patagonia. I have some items that are passing the 20-year mark now, things I wear every year like Hawaiian shirts in the summer and fleece gloves and insulated jackets in the winter. In the few instances where a piece has failed sooner than I expected, they repaired or replaced it.

In terms of longevity in outerwear, one of things I look for is nylon fabric. A lot of brands (including Patagonia) are using polyester more for jackets, bathing suits, etc. There are some advantages, like it holds DWR treatments better, and can be made with recycled plastic. But in terms of durability there is no comparison; nylon is just tougher gram for gram.

For socks, wool hiking-style socks seem to last well for me. By hiking-style, I mean the socks have different "zones" of thickness, usually thicker on the sole and heel, thinner across the top and ankle. I have Wigwam hiking socks and Smartwool dress socks have lasted well; in fact I'm having trouble remembering if any of them have actually worn out. Mostly they just get slightly thinner over time. I have tried a bunch of cotton socks, and Gold Toe seemed the most durable, but I still like the wool padded style better.

<comment><USER7> Kind of turned off by their front-and-center political advert on the home page though[1]

I mean, regardless of where you stand on this particular pet issue... it's not what I came to their site for! I came there to look at their clothing... instead I got a face-full of politics. Why do that???

Some of you will support this particular cause - but what if it were something you don't support? Right to life, build a wall, etc... Would that change your impression?

Keep the politics out of your business - in particular - keep it off your home page!

[1] [https://www.patagonia.com/home/](https://www.patagonia.com/home/)

<comment><USER8> The owner of Patagonia cares about environmental issues. I'm sorry that bothers you. He's not a conglomerate with a board afraid of offending someone. But he has a record of putting his money and time where his mouth is. He was a world renowned climber and original dirtbag. The earth is important to him.

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

[https://www.earth.com/news/chile-new-national- parks/](https://www.earth.com/news/chile-new-national-parks/)

<comment><USER7> The earth can be important to him, and he can "put his money where his mouth is" without placing politics on his webstore's home page.

Like I said - if it was some issue that wasn't your kind of politics, it would be a turnoff to see this when you're just trying to do some shopping.

It's a turnoff even if it is your kind of politics - I was interested in their clothing. Now I'll shop someplace else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I lived in Florida for a couple of years; morbid to consider but of my grandparents' generation, many migrate south and end up there. So there was an incredible array of like-new mens' clothing sold at huge second-hand shops. I have a collection of silk, short-sleeve button down shirts, wool blend pants and coats.

In one case, I purchased a new, custom tailored double-breasted linen suit for ten cents. It was far too small for me, but I gave it a young high-school student: he had never owned a suit.

Another fun hobby of mine was to dress up in these wool suits, go and walk dogs or pick up trash in our local park.

Turns out, wool could handle the heat. I overheat easily, but I was fine. The clothes usually did not need laundering. Just hang them up with enough air.

At the time, these clothes cost a fraction of new jeans and t-shirts or active wear. And they held up fine. Some of the silk shirts are starting to shred, but as they cost me a quarter each is no problem.

The wool suits will last longer than I will. Some of them more than 50 years old.

</comment><comment><USER10> Two years ago I vowed to only buy vintage clothing (with exceptions for under garments, shoes and concert swag). Two years later, I haven't bought any clothes! The problem is that vintage clothing for men is a really bad shopping experience, at least in DC. Few retail stores and the ones that do exist only seem to have clothes from a groovy era or a less fashionable, probably slightly older set. (I'm in my 40s. I like my clothes on the slimmer side.) The vintage option is so much more possible for women.

<comment><USER11> I think more and more people realized vintage clothes are actually better quality and the higher demand sent the prices up. You can still get lucky in some thriftstores though..

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The article didn't spend a lot of time discussing the type of washing machine used. But in my experience that makes a big difference.

Front loading machines seem to be quite gentle on clothes. Perhaps because they don't use an agitator? My mostly 100% cotton clothing lasts for years and years. My family is tired of seeing me in the same clothes.

But maybe another big difference is between men's and women's clothing. The women's stuff feels very lightweight, very delicate. I'm not surprised that it doesn't hold up as well as men's.

And then there's fashion. My girls buy jeans that start out with holes in them. How long can that last? In contrast, by the time my jeans have holes in them they are definitely worn out.

<comment><USER13> I find its the drier actually.

Prior to having a dryer I hadn't thrown out a t shirt due to collars and stuff wearing out, after getting the dryer they just fall to bits after a few years.

<comment><USER14> Everyone hang dries their clothes in Italy, and we kept doing that when we moved to the US. It definitely is a win-win in terms of making clothes last longer and using less energy.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, unfortunately England, in winter, isnt really conducive to drying clothes outside.

<comment><USER14> Neither is a lot of Italy, nor Bend, Oregon where I live. In winter, you put the drying rack next to a radiator or heating vent or whatever, inside.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, but then you get damp, and mold, been there, done that.

<comment><USER15> Wash more often. If you wash every day or two, the amount of water in your clothes will not be super significant. If you wash once or twice a week, then your relative humidity will spike. You can buy super efficient washers, so power consumption is not really an issue (especially in comparison to using a drier). The other thing you can do is to "change the air" in your house every once in a while, especially in winter. Just open the windows and let it breathe. Letting the cold air in reduces the water carrying capacity of the air. When you heat it back up, the relative humidity drops.

I know these kinds of things are not common in the UK, but when my wife and I lived in England for 2 years, that's what we did and it works very well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > "If it doesn't feel comfortable," said Dr. Ritch, "you're going to dispose > of it more quickly."

Or for me, after every shirt I try on feels uncomfortable against my neck, I lose hope and just quit shopping for clothes. It solves the waste problem, but I wish I could find a way to solve the problem of fabric distracting me as it weighs or rubs against my skin throughout the day. Maybe nudist camps are the real answer here.

<comment><USER17> Explore non-cotton and non-wool materials: modals, rayons, synthetics, etc

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> There was a very interesting thread on this topic here some weeks ago [991 points; 287 comments]:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20503194](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20503194) — "How to assess the quality of garments (2014)"

<comment><AUTHOR> I posted that one too ;-)

<comment><USER18> Ah, missed that detail. Nice work :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Workwear brands (Carhartt, Duluth Trading, Dickies, Doc Martin, etc.) and some outdoor wear brands provide high quality and durability. If that's what you're interested in, and you've reached the point at which looking hip isn't your thing, and don't care to comb through piles of vintage items looking for a reasonable fit and style, you'll have options.

Aside from fast (tranlation: fall-apart) fashion, my major gripe over the past decade has been a transition to slim styles which offer very little latitude for different body shapes, and frankly feel tremendously uncomfortable in a full day's wear. You'll pay a slight premium, but generally less than mainstream brands.

A few classic items can offer many years of excellent wear without appearing dated.

The changes to mainstream clothing have lost my patronage at any number of stores. And the practices described in this NYT piece strike me as both alien and revolting.

<comment><USER20> I can't agree more concerning the move towards 'slim' bodies.

I can't fit into the majority of popular jeans brands for the lowly crime of playing hockey as a youth, and now having larger than average legs and glutes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm not entirely sure the best solution is to educate people on buying quality clothes. While that is important, I suspect that consumption isn't just due to shitty clothes wearing out too soon. It's probably due to our culture of fashion trends and constant consumption and the "keeping up with the Joneses". If you go on fashion subreddits, you'll hear people talk about how you need to buy long lasting clothes, inevitably quoting that tired Terry Pratchett segment on boots^[1]. Except these same people have 10 pairs of long lasting boots!

I don't know the answer because honestly, I _do_ like buying new clothes. I _do_ like changing how I look. I _do_ like looking good. And I'm far from alone in this regard. Maybe instead of blaming the consumer, there should be some regulation on manufacturing clothing? Or some sort of carbon/pollution tax? A cynical take on this is that fast fashion companies are attempting to foist the blame onto the consumer, when really they're preying off a universal desire to look pretty and polluting the environment in the process. We should of course educate people on the impact of their choices. But telling people to stop buying stuff to make them look pretty is going against a very basic, very fundamental desire.

[1]: [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/72745-the-reason-that- the-r...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/72745-the-reason-that-the-rich- were-so-rich-vimes-reasoned)

<comment><USER22> _> I do like buying new clothes. I do like changing how I look. I do like looking good. And I'm far from alone in this regard._

I like eating cheesecake until I'm stuffed with it, but I don't because it's not good for me. Liking something isn't sufficient justification for doing it. Maturity means knowing when to heed your impulses and when not to.

I understand that it's hard to scale that philosophy and solve a systemic problem, but I don't think we should just blindly accept that people are gonna do what they feel all the time.

That desire to change how you look partially comes from a cultural value. You're surrounded by people doing that and showing you them doing it, and talking about how great it is. Change that culture, and I bet that desire would evaporate.

<comment><USER21> I agree that we should try to change the culture. But solely depending on having people act better isn't going to be enough. Especially since changing the culture of fashion would mean fighting celebrity culture, people's ingrained obsession with fashion and basically the entire concept of sex appeal.

To take your example of cheesecake, it's perfectly fine to have a personal policy of self control. But if you extend that to the general population, you miss a few things. For one, perhaps there's a reason people are eating so poorly, such as food deserts^[1] or simply lack of time or money. Second, perhaps the fast food companies are acting in particular ways that can be deemed unethical. Personally I find the ways in which fast food companies market to children and feed on what's essentially a sugar and fat addiction pretty despicable and an underhanded tactic. But that's just me.

Indeed blaming the consumer is a pretty common tactic. Keep America Beautiful is a famous example. The entire campaign was an attempt to foist the blame onto people littering instead of, y'know, the corporations producing millions of disposable items^[2]. And yes, stopping littering was a good goal. But it also distracts from the underlying problem: why are we allowing these disposable goods to be produced?

With clothing we should be asking a similar question. Why are we allowing such terrible industrial practices, from the pollution to the child labor?

[1]: [http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/usda- defi...](http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/usda-defines-food- deserts) [2]: [https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct- perspec...](https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec- indian-crying-environment-ads-pollution-1123-20171113-story.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I normally buy clothes that are targeted towards blue collar workers since they are typically designed to be more resistent to wear and tear, at the expense of not looking very stylish. Since I work a desk job, they last a long time. My boss says I dress like a farmer (or fisherman in the summer), but I also only have to replace old clothes every 3-4 years when they get to worn out, and even then they just get demoted to yardwork clothes.

</comment><comment><USER24> If anyone wants a lead on an over built street wear brand here you go [1]

It was started by this precocious production engineer from Montana who found themselves working their way through Nike and then leaving to make clothes by hand that are the most over built clothes I've ever found. All of the seems are done with heavy duty upholstery threads and the fabrics are the heaviest weights that still are comfortable. I've never encountered anything like it. Also hand made in America if that maters to ya.

[1] [https://lastheavy.com/shop?category=shirts](https://lastheavy.com/shop?category=shirts)

<comment><USER25> That website tho...

<comment><USER26> ...yeah, against all odds, I don't think an $80 white t-shirt is a great option, regardless of how long it will hold together.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I have a large set of American Apparel Hammer t-shirts that I bought about five years ago. I wear them every day. I bought a few more once I heard they were going to the dogs, but the quality had dropped dramatically.

It's a big shame that they went to the dogs, as I've been unable to find any other t-shirts since which match the following criteria:

1\. Heaviness of fabric 2\. Generous, stylish cut (i.e. not skinny as fuck) 3\. Well-sewn 4\. Retains colour even after five years 5\. 100% cotton: retains shape even after five years

If anyone can make a recommendation that is available in the E.U., I would greatly appreciate it. In before Hanes Beefy-T. They do not match up.

I've solved the socks and shoes part of the equation. Sadly, I have yet to solve the trousers part of the equation. I recently had to resort to getting vintage Levi's jeans from the 80s. It was impossible to find anything with a pure enough fabric, generous enough fit and which was heavy enough for a reasonable price.

Socks: I buy from the Falke Family series. 94% cotton, quality fabric, comfortable and long-lasting. Not made from sweaty, 50% synthetic crap.

Trainers/Sneakers: USA-made New Balance 990. Comfortable. I managed to get nearly a year of near-daily use out of them. Expensive compared to most other trainers, but well worth it given how quickly similar shoes disintegrate.

<comment><USER28> I have found the Uniqlo T shirts to be quite good quality.

<comment><USER29> Quality maybe, but not durable imho.

<comment><USER27> Got any alternative suggestions?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Why buy new clothes at all? Good, clean, used clothes can be found _anywhere_ if you care to look around a bit. They're also much cheaper, and if you don't need them anymore you can either sell them, pass them to your family or neighbours, or donate them to a charity.

Last year we bought all of our summer clothes used. I got myself 3 pairs of Levis as good as new for 10€. I really don't get why clothes _have_ to be bought new.

<comment> non-entity Unfortunately, I rarely find new clothes that fit me well, let alone used.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I go through a few pairs of H&M / Uniqlo jeans a year, because they simply wear out. I always buy the same look and I kinda wish I didn't have to buy them so often.

</comment><comment><USER11> The same goes for shoes. A good pair of shoes is expensive but durable and serviceable: it is work taking them periodically to a shoe repair shop. A good pair of shoes takes the shape of your foot after some wearing and could last even 10 years.

Modern shoes are designed to quick obsolescence, for example the sole wears and cannot be replaced or the shoe is so cheaply made that it is not worth fixing.

</comment><comment><USER32> If we didn't mix cotton with synthetics, we could compost those items. There should be a law for such things.

<comment><USER29> The book of Leviticus forbids the mixing of fibers in a garmet, but then again it does the same for homosexuality. _shrug_

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've had several items with near daily use that have lasted me well over seven years.

If you want to build a solid, long lasting wardrobe, you can't go wrong with the following:

Boots: Redwing Iron Rangers

Jeans: Levi 501stf or anything unsanfordized that's heavier than about 11oz

Shirts: Anything 2ply 100% cotton

<comment><USER34> I have a lot of miles on my Iron Rangers. Best boots I've ever owned. They are both comfortable and durable, which is a rare thing in my experience.

<comment><USER33> It's hard to kill them. I'm glad to see that they're getting a second (third?) life because of their durability - I bought mine on deep discount after the Made in America/logger clothes trend went away around 2011 or 2012 and they were considered to be clown shoes (because of the toe cap) compared to the 1000 Mile and other boots.

They've gotten crazy expensive again - it's a good thing that mine are going on eight years with little signs of needing to be replaced.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Mattereum is working on this problem. The idea is to use the blockchain to make really detailed records about physical objects, and track their performance across a number of owners - from design to disposal, using the Ethereum blockchain to bring all the data together. We're starting with collectibles (higher values, better margins) working with William Shatner.

[https://medium.com/humanizing-the-singularity/how-post- indus...](https://medium.com/humanizing-the-singularity/how-post-industrial- capitalism-and-a-new-type-of-big-data-will-save-the-planet-6574b1d75bf6) this blog post digs into the model in a lot more detail, and takes you through our prototype.

</comment><comment><USER36> ®®®,@1,Was XML

</comment><comment><USER37> I find the opposite. To build a personal brand, it's helpful to look very similar.

Steve Jobs and black turtlenecks.

I want audiences to recognize me and connect me from viewing to viewing.

</comment><comment><USER38> Why would I want clothes to last until they look dated and unfashionable?

<comment><USER39> To state an obvious reason: because the "throwaway society" is killing our planet and humans along with it.

Also it would cost you less money to buy better quality clothes in the long run.

<comment><USER40> Terry Pratchett had an interesting spin on that: [https://www.thebillfold.com/2015/03/to-terry-pratchett- who-g...](https://www.thebillfold.com/2015/03/to-terry-pratchett-who-gave-us- sam-vimes-boots-theory-of-socioeconomic-unfairness/)

And yes, I've noticed that you do save money buying better made clothes that don't disintegrate in one season of wear.</comment></comment></comment>


Cars and the Future - <AUTHOR> https://stratechery.com/2016/cars-and-the-future/ <comment><USER2> Too bad this doesn't seem to have gotten much attention here. It's pretty interesting to consider what the future of transportation looks like and which companies are in the best position to take advantage of it.

I'm inclined to think that Uber may well have the best position on this. They may not have what it takes to put out the vehicle hardware or the self-driving software, but they do have the network and trust to set up self-driving, possibly electric, autonomous cars to substitute for conventional cars on at least some of their trips, from selected start and end locations. They're probably in the best position to make agreeable deals with whoever does end up making the best software.</comment>


When it comes to privacy, default settings matter - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/06/04/when-it-comes-to-privacy-default-settings-matter/ <comment><USER3> Mozilla didn't mention this in the article, but the study they referenced had an astounding statistic proving their point about default settings.

> Chrome and Safari are the two most prevalent browsers in our data, with > Chrome being associated to about 43% of the ad transactions and Safari to > about 38%. _About 73% of the ads shown on a Safari browser do not have a > cookie associated, whereas on Chrome this is the case about 17% of the > time._

> The difference is probably due to different default tracking settings across > the two browsers, with Safari impeding, by default, third-party tracking > cookies being set on the user's machine (the user has to explicitly allow > the usage of third-party cookies)

[https://weis2019.econinfosec.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/6/...](https://weis2019.econinfosec.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/6/2019/05/WEIS_2019_paper_38.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER4> [Googler, but this is just my own musing] Here's a theoretical question, if all third party tracking cookies were blocked, wouldn't that strengthen Google's position in the ad market and weaken all of the third party ad networks?

Google gets most of it's revenue (~70%) from it's first party sites, and stuff like AdSense could be made to work without cookies, and given Google's size in the market, people would switch to whatever ad embedding format they required.

But smaller ad networks won't have that power, and don't have huge first party sites either. So in a way, if Google jumps onboard this bandwagon in Chrome, they could be accused of doing it to strengthen their own position, the same way adopting Apple's extension/ad blocking restrictions in Chrome, led people to accuse them they're trying to sabotage ad blockers, instead of trying to reign in a toxic hell stew malware from overly permissive extensions.

<comment><USER5> I am not a Googler and have been a long time critic of any business model that is not "I give you money and you give me stuff."

That being said, I defended Google's choice of implementing ad blocking extensions using an approach similar to Apple's because I inherently don't trust random third party extension makers that can intercept all of my web browsing. I also don't trust VPN providers to protect my privacy but that's a rant for another day.

<comment><USER6> I don't trust random third party extension makers either. That's why I don't go around randomly installing extensions.

<comment><USER5> Even if you do trust the extension maker at the time you installed it, how many times have malware makers bought formerly trustworthy extensions?

[https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2014/01/malwa...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2014/01/malware-vendors-buy-chrome-extensions-to-send-adware- filled-updates/)

I'm very careful on what gets installed on my work Windows laptop and I rarely use my home computer. I'm usually on my iPhone or iPad. There, I install any random app because I know the permission model only allows so much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This step is overdue and i applaud Mozilla for doing it. But:

Why doesn't Firefox block _all_ 3rd party cookies by default? That would be a huge win for privacy. Yes, some sites would break. But if Apple can do it with Safari, Mozilla can do it with Firefox.

Be brave! Do it!

<comment><USER8> When sites break, people leave Firefox. No amount of explaining or media changes that: the number one (by far) reason people leave a browser is because a site is broken.

<comment><USER9> Yes, this. Anyone who was around for the launch of Windows Vista could see this effect in action.

Vista's added security measures like UAC ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control)) broke a lot of poorly coded Windows applications that didn't bother to follow the rules of the platform.

Who did the users blame when those apps broke? Microsoft.

Why? "It worked fine until I upgraded to Vista!"

Sigh.

<comment><USER10> Further evidence: Windows 7 wasn't even that much of a change from Vista. The main differences were 1) software had adjusted to deal with UAC and 2) new laptops were more powerful. But most of the good new architectural features had premiered with Vista.

I think they did improve the UAC situation with Vista SP1, if memory serves.

<comment><USER11> > Further evidence: Windows 7 wasn't even that much of a change from Vista.

I seem to recall Vista was way more sluggish than 7 on the same machines.

<comment><USER12> Most of the anecdotal evidence was comparing a laptop running with years' worth of bloated software to a fresh install. No surprise that Windows 7 came out ahead.

<comment><USER11> I was referring to my own experience of fresh installs of both.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When it comes to the greater public, default settings might as well be the only available setting. Apart from a few 'techies' most people will never even touch the default settings out of the naive belief that "the default setting is what's best for me".

As an alternative approach I would suggest empty settings to begin with, forcing the user to think about their preferences on first use.

<comment><USER14> That would only work if every browser implemented it but for the average user, choosing between a blank-slate approach where they have to parse through terminology they don't understand, and an alternative offering "sensible" defaults, I suspect most users would just pick the easier latter option.

<comment><USER15> Perhaps there's a middle ground. Give users a range of options (say 3 to 5) that aggregate the settings, ranging from " _I don 't really care about privacy_" to " _I wear a tinfoil hat to bed_ ", along with pointers to where and how they might wish to delve deeper into more detailed settings. It can't be that hard...?

<comment><USER16> If you put a big scary decision as the first thing users see, many will just close the browser because they don't know what they should pick. When they open a different browser that doesn't present them with that choice, they may conclude that it's not a problem on that other browser.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Today marks an important milestone in the history of Firefox and the web. As of today, for NEW USERS who download and install Firefox for the FIRST TIME, Enhanced Tracking Protection will automatically be set on by default, protecting our users from the pervasive tracking and collection of personal data by ad networks and tech companies."

this gives me the impression that Mozilla is trying to pull in a bunch of new recruits, also does this mean upgrades or repetitive DLs will not have this ~privacy by default?

<comment><USER18> So they're killing the Google relationship? I mean something called "Enhanced Tracking Protection" would have to disable any sending of data to Google (or anyone, except the server as required to get the data requested), surely?!?

<comment><USER19> Google might not be happy about this move, but historically Google has paid Mozilla to be the default search engine in Firefox, which doesn't require Firefox sending any data to Google (apart from actual search queries, obviously).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There's some discussion of how this ties into Mozilla's mission at [https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/06/04/the-web-the- world-n...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/06/04/the-web-the-world-needs- can-be-ours-again-if-we-want-it/)

</comment><comment><USER21> > In fact, nearly 25% of web page loads in Firefox take place in a Private > Browsing window.

If Mozilla knows that, then Private Browsing Mode isn't as private as it could be.

<comment><USER22> The total amount of loaded pages in Private Browsing doesn't really have to be private?

<comment><USER23> As long as the data is aggregated and not tied to individual users, I'm ok with it.

<comment><USER24> Thats exactly what firefox telemetry data is. It collects things like % of requests over HTTPS, % over IPv6, etc and sends anonymized stats to Mozilla.

<comment><USER25> But at the end of the day, I'm just taking someone's word for it that this is all they send, and assumes that it won't change over time in a browser that regularly updates itself.

It'd be a lot more acceptable if there was an option to show me "This is the exact telemetry payload we want to send to Mozilla." And even then you are taking someone's word for it that there isn't some other piece of data hidden in a hash or something, or that the browser isn't secretly sending data.

I'm not quite paranoid enough to do the full monitoring of all network traffic, but how do I reasonably know what is going on without listening to traffic/watching memory at all times? In the end, I'm trusting a faceless corporation that is attempting to put on a facade of trustworthiness.

The only trustworthy computer is an unnetworked one.

<comment><USER26> > It'd be a lot more acceptable if there was an option to show me "This is the > exact telemetry payload we want to send to Mozilla."

There is! Navigage to about:telemetry in Firefox.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The thing that absolutely pisses me off is how I try to be actively aware of what settings I disagree with and disable things I don't like - and then an unseen update resets things to default.

HOW MANY TIMES MUST I UNCHECK WHAT TO SYNC TO MY ACCOUNT? YOU WOULD THINK THAT IS SAVED PERSISTENTLY.

I think my qualify of life on Firefox would be improved greatly if a notice popped up saying some of my settings were reset to defaults because of breaking changes (or minor). Like they give a crap.

<comment><USER28> Not sure why the down votes that would sure piss me off. I'm very conscious of what I want synced and it only takes a single bug like that to throw away all the effort to keep things separated

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> The irony is strong with this one.

By default, Firefox:

\- Collects a bunch of telemetry data via several mechanisms and ships them to Mozilla HQ

\- Provides Mozilla with remote code execution privileges on your machine via the shield (or normandy, or whatever they are calling it these days) mechanism, which can install and uninstall extensions and certificates, change browser settings, etc

\- Uses Google as the default search engine, and search suggestions leak private data to Google

\- Uses Google Location Services for their geolocation thingy, which - unsurprisingly - phones home to Google

\- Ships closed source third party add-ons

\- Comes with a bunch of "about:config" settings configured in sub-optimal ways, privacy wise - battery API enabled by default, accept all cookies by default and so on

Sure, Chrome is worse, but bringing that up that is like arguing that your pile of manure is better because it doesn't smell as bad: in the end, you are still arguing about shit.

<comment><USER30> There are some valid privacy complaints about Mozilla but I think they are severely overblown by a lot of people.

Mozilla is very up-front about exactly what telemetry data they're collecting and what it's used for, there's even a pop-up when you first install the browser about it telling you what's collected and how to disable it if you want to. And then when Mozilla makes decisions based on telemetry like removing features that 2% of people use the people who disabled telemetry complain that Mozilla is ignoring their opinions.

The optional syncing service is end to end encrypted so Mozilla can't see the data you're syncing.

Shield is a valid complaint, I am not a fan of it being opt-out.

Search suggestions are disabled by default in private browsing mode and probably a feature most people want anyway. Your query gets sent to the search engine when you hit enter either way.

The battery API was completely removed from Firefox two and a half years ago, that particular complaint is very outdated. Firefox has been tracking cookies by default for a while now too. More strict cookie policies would just annoy the vast majority of users.

<comment><USER31> > Mozilla is very up-front about exactly what telemetry data they're > collecting and what it's used for,

I consider myself relatively technically inclined. When I started using Firefox, I absolutely did not know about

\- Normandy as an RCE engine to install arbitrary extensions and customize random settings

\- Google Location Services as the location backend

\- Which about:config settings I need to change for a reasonable expectation of privacy

<comment> orbital-decay Didn't you already trust Mozilla to execute their code on your machine when you installed the browser, in the first place? And to do it remotely with auto-updates.

<comment><USER32> There is a big difference between them being able to activate a connection to my machine at their whim and execute code, vs me downloading their software or an update _at a time of my choosing_ , especially since if I am very security conscience I can wait until an updated has been audited or tested.

With a remote code execution engine, someone could hack into their backend and then start running malicious code on thousands or millions of machines. If they compromise a software update, at least there is a chance it can be caught before it gets to me.

<comment><USER33> There's a config-flag to turn it off. You could even deploy that enterprise- wide.

That said, every auto-update system is essentially an RCE system. For highly exposed and security-sensitive applications like browsers, the auto-update is a net win in many deployment scenarios.

<comment><USER5> Isn't it kind of ironic that you mention a user flag to turn off telemetry that is on by default on a post about "defaults matter"?

<comment><USER33> Yes.

Telemetry and auto-updates are important enough that having them on by default isn't wildly unreasonable.

<comment><USER5> Auto updates yes for security. But why would telemetry be important to the end user - especially for a "privacy focused browser"?

<comment><USER33> [https://docs.telemetry.mozilla.org/concepts/choosing_a_datas...](https://docs.telemetry.mozilla.org/concepts/choosing_a_dataset.html)

The nice thing is that you don't have to ask. You can look for yourself. Mozilla's pretty transparent about what they have and what is in it.

Turns out telemetry is good for things like finding / addressing crashes and seeing if updates have gone out properly.

Also, I seem to recall being explicitly asked if I wanted to participate. But my memory could be failing me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> WARNING advertising SWE insider

I don't like how the opening line of article exploits the fact the average person does not know cost of average online ad to make it appear like tracking has basically no value.

>... data about you was transmitted to dozens or even hundreds of companies, all so that the website could earn an additional $0.00008 per ad.

For the reader to be able to accurately understand how much money this is they need to know the percentages.

Very roughly (this varies widely based on the country and websitem) the average online ad only costs ~$0.0005, so that insignificant $0.00008 is around 10-20%. If the article had presented the exact same information but instead framed it in the form of revenue available to pay employees at an online company dependent on advertising, this would sound very different while really conveying the same concept.

Edit: I read the linked study and the data they used had an average cost per add of $0.001 putting the difference around 4%. This is smaller than I would have predicted. I would still rather they have lead with this number.

<comment><USER35> My personal problem with the model is not how much they make, but rather the intentionally hidden relationship they develop with the user. If the relationship is - you get the article, we get to show you an ad that gives us a chance to sell you something and make money on it, which is ~$0.00008 - <USER2> would be clear.

Even if the relationship was - you get the article, we get the above plus we'll collect some bits of information about you that we explicitly list. The ad itself will give us ~$0.00008, and the collected data another ~$0.000007 - that would be ethical imho.

But the real model is - we give you an article, and in return you sign a blank document that allows us to collect all the possible data and try to maximize the amount of money we can make on it. You step into it today, but we are not comfortable putting any price point on this agreement because we bank on the idea that in the future we'll make more as we increase our grip over understanding of user behavior and improve our ability to monetize it in any, potentially unethical way. The reason companies hide the nature of the relationship is because their business models are built around the assumption that the data collection will generate increasing amount of revenue in the future. And since there's no way for you to understand the relationship, or step out of it, you're entering it with information disadvantage, and there's no turning back. I hope you can see how this approach is by design hostile to users and the Internet as a public plane.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> When it comes to everything, default settings matter.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm amused by this because when I called Mozilla out a few days ago, I got a bunch of downvotes [1]. Plus one of the top comments was a subtweet of mine.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20055322](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20055322)

<comment><USER38> > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, > and it makes boring reading.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment></comment>


OpenBSD Foundation Receives Silver Contribution from John Carmack - <AUTHOR> https://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article;sid=20181022130631 <comment><USER2> Hey, you can now have your name immortalized next to the great John Carmack's for just $10,000.

<comment><USER3> It's kind of unclear whether $10,000 is Bronze or Silver.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Tangent: I just love how it links to a diff with his name added. There's something about that.

<comment><USER5> And why are they not closing the HTML tags? Why? Why would anyone do this? :P

<comment><USER6> Ahem ;) [https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC- html5-20141028/syntax.html#op...](https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC- html5-20141028/syntax.html#optional-tags)

"An li element's end tag may be omitted if the li element is immediately followed by another li element or if there is no more content in the parent element."

<comment><USER7> I know that makes sense, but it feels unsettling and wrong. Where are the good old times of proper XHTML.

<comment><USER8> HTML and XHTML are different things, and you can have proper documents in either. HTML is a subset of SGML.

XML is designed for machines to read and write. SGML, humans. It's like the difference between JSON and Markdown.

(Addendum: TIL HTML5 is not parseable as SGML. Because, reasons.)

<comment><USER9> According to Firefox, chrome and amusingly not IEs xmlserializers, xhtml tags are case insensitive. The scars oh the scars..:

<comment><USER10> If you send XHTML with the XHTML MIME type, the tags are case-sensitive.

If you send it as "text/html"... well, then presumably you're relying on XHTML 1.0 Appendix C and letting browsers parse your XHTML as HTML. And HTML is case-insensitive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Anyone know why OpenBSD VMs aren't provisionable by the big cloud companies like AWS or DigitalOcean? I've always found it to be a curious omission given OpenBSDs sterling reputation for security.

<comment><USER12> Probably just the amount of support tickets vs revenue. OpenBSD doesn't support Xen PV, for example.

I thought there was an AWS AMI for OpenBSD though.

Vultr does let you boot up and install any ISO, so that's an option. Not a big provider, but...

<comment><USER13> Vultr has it listed now officially. Don't think you even need to upload the iso anymore.

<comment><USER14> Can confirm OpenBSD works fine on Vultr. No weird install problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm curious. What are people here using OpenBSD for? In which scenarios would you consider using OpenBSD over Linux?

<comment><USER16> I've used OpenBSD primarily for network edge and utility services. Things such as a firewall, gateway, vpn/tunnel connector, ipv6 router, dns server, dhcpd, ntpd, lightweight httpd, imapd, SMTP forwarder, and ssh/shell access. I've also installed it for the sole purpose of playing atc, the air traffic controller game. Hardware support and raw performance are the only things that keep me on Linux in most server roles.

<comment><USER17> I have been wondering why there aren't any commercial router based on openbsd.

<comment><USER18> You can create a firewall handling a 1Gb/s link with OpenBSD, but passed that, it's quite limited.

Even with top end hardware, we could not go past ~5Gb/s with simple pf rules and after a lot of tweaking. With FreeBSD or Linux, we got the 10Gb/s out of the box with similar rules.

That's for the network part.

As for userland application, it's also slower than Linux or FreeBSD, I remember benching some OpenSSL/LibreSSL based application. On the same hardware I was at 200 transaction/s (transaction ~= RSA signature) with Linux/FreeBSD, with OpenBSD I was at 150 transaction/s, so significantly slower.

<comment><USER19> That's what hardenedBSD [[https://hardenedbsd.org/](https://hardenedbsd.org/)] is for :) FreeBSD with lots of the same bells and whistles security features OpenBSD is known for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> A "silver-level" contribution, not literally a contribution of silver :)

<comment><USER21> That would've been awesome, if he made the contribution in actual silver.

<comment><USER7> It would be between 25kg (54 pounds) and 60kg (130 pounds), depending on the size of the donation. Just in case anybody else was wondering too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A silver contribution is 10k-25k.</comment>


Predict the future with Machine Learning - <AUTHOR> https://www.zeroequalsfalse.press/2017/08/10/ml/ <comment><USER2> For anyone who still sees ML as a big of a magic black box, I can't highly recommend this book enough: [https://www.amazon.com/Make-Your-Own-Neural- Network-ebook/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Make-Your-Own-Neural-Network- ebook/dp/B01EER4Z4G) it does a fantastic job of breaking down the concepts into incredibly straightforward ideas.

In fact, the linked article does (IMO) a terrible job at touching on NN by displaying a large equation without a great deal of context - possibly the last thing anyone actually needs when trying to grok the basic principles behind a NN

</comment><comment><USER3> We shouldn't ever confuse machine learning with predicting the future -- just because you've never encountered a black swan in the wild, doesn't mean they don't exist.

That being said, the article otherwise seems like a great introduction. Not sure why they chose that title.

<comment><USER4> Black Swans are the error rate of your predictions (the real error rather than your prediction of your error rate) not existential proof that prediction is always doomed.

After all, if Black Swans were common enough to make prediction a fool's errand most of the time, the bird of that name would never have led to the book of that name, _because everyone would be predicting their failure to predict things_.

<comment><USER5> I think that a Black Swan is when a new factor appears in your domain. In science we are conditioned from the start to create fair tests in controlled experiments. Control is the fundamental of experiment - and statistics are designed to handle experimental data.

In the real world there are often no controls, and complex systems can be driven by an attractor for a very long time before one morning they are not, and every rule that you have is useless (often worse than useless).

Sources of error are not equal; "Black Swan Error" is unusual in that over time it may be that this source is more important than any other source of data in your domain - the strange attractor that drove the creation of your classifier over the last 20 years may _never_ recapture your function and if that's the case your classifier will be literally the most wrong thing you could have!

<comment><USER4> That's certainly one type of Black Swan. Taleb's example of that sort of thing being a Turkey predicting they will be fed (because that is what happened every other day of their life) but who is actually slaughtered.

However, it is not the only type. There is also the stock market, which demonstrates major unpredictability every few years, but which can also be approximated the same way _between_ each of the Black Swans. (And they keep being Black Swans because the gap between them is large enough for people to convince themselves that "This time it's different, this time n̵o̵b̵o̵d̵y̵ ̵w̵i̵l̵l̵ ̵h̵a̵v̵e̵ ̵t̵o̵ ̵b̵e̵ ̵n̵a̵i̵l̵e̵d̵ ̵t̵o̵ ̵a̵n̵y̵t̵h̵i̵n̵g̵ growth will be eternal!")

Edit:

Point is, it generalises as how wrong you are in your predictions, and the closer your estimate of your error rate is to your actual error rate, the better your model is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Fundamentally it is Software that works like our brain.._

Stopped here. Moving on.

<comment><USER7> Why? Is it really that bad of an analogy for an absolute beginner?

<comment><USER8> It's not terrible for an absolute beginner but it's fairly harmful overall. People tend to use this analogy a lot to conflate specific AI with general AI and argue for regulatory capture based on things completely outside of evidence. The real brain is sparsely connected and has multiple activation networks that reuse nodes. We also have the ability to train from single examples to things we've never seen before so it seems unlikely that our brain operates exclusively by derivatives on error or other data-fitting techniques. Humans still seem more unreasonably effective than deep learning on many tasks and this is despite having a harder problem (Humans have more tasks with unlabelled data as far as I can tell).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I would like to read mathematical foundations of machine learning written for those who are bad at calculus but good at discrete mathematics and algorithms.

For example, I'm learning algorithms, participate at contests, quite comfortable with combinatorics and discrete probability theory but I'm absolute zero at calculus. I would like to read machine learning's math introduction which is friendly to my "discrete" brains.

<comment><USER10> I am in the same boat. I get the feeling that most Calculus books are just a compilation of tips and tricks. So I am suggesting you invest time into learning real analysis proper. Right now I am learning from [1]. It follows Rudin closely and as opposed to many other analysis books meant to "better explain" stuff, it goes deep into the trenches and actually tackles the subject.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Real-Analysis-Lifesaver-Understand- Pr...](https://www.amazon.com/Real-Analysis-Lifesaver-Understand- Princeton/dp/0691172935/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1502546377&sr=8-8&keywords=real+analysis)

I think time invested into studying real analysis pays off because then you can later study measure theory, functional analysis and more advanced probability to deal with curse of dimensionality and whatnot.

edit: I started studying the book linked above starting from chapter 4 since the first 3 chapters are familiar from discrete math. Then did chapter 5, skimmed chapters 6(little linear algebra), 7, 8 (most "transition to higher math" books contain this stuff) and am currently in chapter 9.

<comment><USER8> The majority of the stuff you need from calculus for deep learning doesn't rise to the level of real analysis. Real analysis is worth doing if their are benefits to Fourier transforms on your data sets in the domain you're working in but otherwise has good payoff for studying more math rather than studying more deep learning.

<comment><USER10> Broadly speaking, I want to read books like [1]. It looks like they use quite a bit of advanced nondiscrete probability. Since I prefer books written in definition - theorem - proof format anyway, I figured I might as well get analysis out the way :)

[1][http://www.cs.cornell.edu/jeh/book%20June%2014,%202017pdf.pd...](http://www.cs.cornell.edu/jeh/book%20June%2014,%202017pdf.pdf) (Foundations of Data Science by Bloom/Hopcroft/Kannan)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> To me as an AI novice this article seemed like a good overview. It did not address one problem I have with AI however, which is the inherent lack of transparency. That is, unlike normal programs, we have an input and an output, but the reasoning in between is a black box to human intelligence. This problem has to be solved before we can turn over any really vital tasks to AI with confidence IMO.

<comment><USER12> That's a good and deep point. Let's consider the case of writing an algorithm to drive a car. There are some ideas people have had:

1) What really matters is what happens in the worst case, so we need explanations in the worst case, but not necessarily the rest of the time: when the car is choosing a slightly more efficient trajectory, we don't need an explanation of why it 'chose' to do that. In the case of a crash, though, we'd like to know precisely what went wrong. This suggests, perhaps, that we could have a simpler and more transparent fallback system that usually is uninvolved in driving, but that takes 'responsibility' and has the ability to control the vehicle at a minimum level of safety (rather than efficiency).

2) Humans seem to produce make decisions first and explanations later [http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/11/14/post-hoc- ratio...](http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/11/14/post-hoc- rationalisation-reasoning-our-intuition-and-changing-our-minds/): 'To the question many people ask about politics — Why doesn't the other side listen to reason? — Haidt replies: We were never designed to listen to reason. When you ask people moral questions, time their responses and scan their brains, their answers and brain activation patterns indicate that they reach conclusions quickly and produce reasons later only to justify what they've decided.' so perhaps we could also train an ML agent to produce explanations that we find persuasive?

<comment><USER11> Agree, the need for transparency occurs mainly when something goes wrong. But it is not also a question of control? Without human understanding there is no human control, with no human control we have HAL ... which sort of answers your second point: no, we should not let AI come up with it's own explanations that we just find persuasive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Future cannot be defined for a any stochastic process with unknown number of hidden variables with unknown weights. Everything core complex than a roll of a dice is unpredictable by definition, just because the model is incomplete. Even next roll of a dice cannot be predicted.

Probability is not reality. Simulations are cartoons. Map is not the territory. Models and simulations based on them are different from reality in the same way a movie is not reality.

People who can't grasp these simple ideas cannot be legitimately called scientists.

<comment><USER14> You don't need perfect simulation, just a good enough one. Simulation is like a dynamic, extensible dataset. Neural nets can learn from simulation not only in game play, but also in genetics, robotics and general reasoning. I think simulation is at the core of what will lead to AGI.

<comment><USER13> My comment was is about inevitable philosophical gap between reality and _any_ model or a simulation, which cannot be bridged in principle.

Yes, simulators as sources of sensory input to get _similar_ experience are used, for example, to train airline pilots. Nevertheless, there is no airline which train its pilots on a simulator only. Algorithm, like a pilot, would learn a simulation, not reality.

<comment><USER14> That's true. I was thinking about using simulation as an addition to being embedded in the real world. Simulation is necessary to plan complex actions based on reinforcement learning (model based RL). When AI can do simulations, it can check a few steps ahead to see how things will go and select and act in a proactive way as to maximize rewards. When interacting with people, the AI will need to model people's state of mind and knowledge, in order to infer how they would act and react. When using a device, an AI would need to control it and know what to expect from it. In almost any non-trivial interaction, AI needs to simulate in order to adapt to situations. Since it is impossible to rewind reality (like a game) in order to try another action, the agent needs to do that in its imagination (simulator).

By the way, humans are good for simulating some things, but quite bad for others, and it still doesn't stop us from being the most intelligent agents. I think AI only needs to simulate a little ahead in order to act much more intelligently than today, because today, AI is mostly reactive, or feed- forward, like a simple reflex.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm a PhD candidate related to statistical forecasting and projection related to natural science (hydrology/streamflow projection under climate change uncertainty).

The article seems to be a decent introduction article that shows what Machine Learning is about (which is great) and shows how it can POSSIBLY be applied to forecasting and prediction. However, I think it would be even better if there was a simple example or two with each method being applied and showing different outcomes and then the significance of each methodology through those examples.

Also, I'd like to add a comment to this.

This article is great when you look at it from the Machine Learning perspective. However, when you look at it from a forecasting perspective it only shows a very small portion of what forecasting/predicting really is.

Algorithms you develop through machine learning is something known as a black- box model. You know that the input data and the output data you're matching up with are related somehow, but don't know exactly how they're matched up. That relationship is established based on a performance index determined from a trial-and-error method (of course depending on what actual method you use).

There are different methods available such as ARMA and ARIMA based models. In regards to physical science, there are models that focus on the physical interaction between the input data to simulate what is happening inside the system. ML methods are simply just a taste of other methods available.

Regards to programming use (as I'm sure most of you folks here are used to), ML is a good tool to use for forecasting if you're really interested in it. But just like any forecasting model you use, you should probably determine the performance of your model based on not one index but multiple indices which consider different parts of your "needs". Percent accuracy only shows how accurate you are, you should probably also consider how frequently you're over-estimating vs under-estimating, how many series of overestimation there is, etc. The most important one though in my books is bias correction. When working with ML Algorithms most of them do not consider for bias. So you, as the modeller need to prepare for bias correction. However this article kinda glossed over it by saying "right amount of data" and "combination of data" (which I understand is an introductory post, but I think this is very important).

Maybe look into applying a method like the K-Fold Cross Validation to make sure the final output parameters aren't AS biased. It really depends on the modeller and the model and your performance indices you use.

</comment><comment><USER5> "Fundamentally it is software that works like the brain". I stopped reading there, no good thing can be in any document that contains this phrase*

* Apart from this one</comment>


Why the Impossible Burger's 'blood' is raising eyebrows - <AUTHOR> https://www.agdaily.com/insights/impossible-burger-blood/ <comment><USER2> > "The other reason it is controversial is that the Impossible Foods' > leghemoglobin is not produced by soybeans. It is produced in fermenters by > yeast that have been genetically modified. Soybean genes were inserted into > the yeast that allow the yeast to produce leghemoglobin, which is then > extracted, concentrated, and included in the burger recipe. They justify it > to their predominantly anti-GMO customer base by saying that, compared to a > beef burger, the Impossible Burger uses 96 percent less land, 87 percent > less water, and produces 89 percent less greenhouse gas emissions, and 92 > percent less aquatic pollutants. Believe that? I don't. But they are making > a case, intentionally or unintentionally, for the safe use of GMOs in our > food supply."

I mean, this is a great case for GMOs. "Believe that? I don't" seems like unwarranted concern trolling and scaremongering based on zero evidence.</comment>


Ask HN: What's your current phone? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Sony Xperia Z3 & Z3 Compact. I use one for work and one for personal use. Both are on T-Mobile, in the U.S. (Although T-Mobile briefly offered a branded Z3, mine are both phones I bought from Sony dealers.) Although three years old, they both still do all that I need a phone to do.

<comment><USER3> Are you still getting security fixes?

<comment><USER2> They stopped a little over a year ago

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Used to have Samsung Galaxy S7, it had no problem and stable enough. Just had problem with 3rd party app's (instagram) freezing sometimes.

Just got an iphone7, so far so good! Camera-wise, I would like to say S7 was better.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nexus 5X. I'm probably going to get a new phone before the end of the year because this one just isn't working very well anymore.

I think I'm going to buy my first iPhone.

</comment><comment><USER5> iPhone 7 Jet Black base. I was originally going to skip the iPhone X but I think I might order soon / whenever stock catches up to demand and I can just make an impulse purchase walking by T-Mobile in the mall, lol...

</comment><comment><USER6> Nokia 3310. I don't change phones until they die on me.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you decide when to start your own business - <AUTHOR> As a full time software engineer, I am wondering if I need to work on my profession, learn new areas such as ML or start implementing my simple ideas and publish them  in my free time and at the weekends. Improving my skills on software engineering gives guaranteed value slowly over the years while starting with small apps gives better foundation to do my own startup company later.
Can you please give me you feedback/comment from your experience, which helps me to decide which way to go.
Thank you :) <comment><USER2> In my experience, you learn useful things faster when running your own company, compared to working for someone else. Pretty much by definition, you tend to specialize when working for someone else. You can get unusually good at a certain thing, but you miss out on other things that you could be learning. The thing you specialize in gets boringly easy (from the perspective of what is good enough for the employer), and everything else remains a black box.

As a software engineer, the challenge is learning sales, and the art of distribution in general. If you don't want to do sales, avoid B2B software startups entirely, because that is pretty much always the bottleneck unless you are doing some kind of fundamental innovation.

I don't know anyone who was so good at technical things that a market formed around them and their technical skills, where I know several people who basically knew they wanted to start a software company, started it, slogged in obscurity for 6-12 months thinking product was the most important thing, and then either gave up and got a job again or learned sales in order to survive, and then after another year or so had a business with more fulfilling work and income than the job they left.

The key, regardless of how technical they were, was figure out how to be passable at sales before they ran out of money. Passable sales and passable product ability in practice seems to run circles around great product ability but insufficient sales ability (anecdote, at least for B2B since no one I know has a successful B2C startup). So that is probably the biggest observed blind spot for a software engineer.

The other thing is that a particular idea might have a shelf life, but the concept of starting a business doesn't. Besides having kids or impulsive lifestyle inflation, you can pretty much put off or pull forward starting a business with impunity and you just accept the trade offs. Having a job is without question an easier way to make money though, it's just a harder way to make _lots_ of money or have _deeply_ fulfilling work. I suspect much of the problem actually isn't the job itself, it's the nature of specializing.

<comment><USER3> I sell crypto market intelligence; I've never put any effort in sales. Good work simply markets itself in the right scenarios. Yes what I do is very niche, but simply pointing out that in the right market conditions (huge demand low supply) you don't need sales.

<comment><USER2> I meant to add a caveat that you can also commercialize b2b if your audience is technical without sales or with much less one to one sales. Stripe has sales people but they also have a good number of people just find them and start making API calls. But there are always exceptions too, just much less common.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm not one to take advice from and I would never assume to give any on this matter. Just a short anecdote.

Max Levchin [Affirm] visited my university my senior year and someone in the audience asked something similar. He told us (paraphrasing) "if you keep holding off building a startup, it will never happen, and if you hold off until you have a stable job and income, it's definitely not going to happen."

</comment><comment><USER5> It's like having kids. Logic says that it's better to do it later on in life but the best time is a little earlier than you think you're ready.

Some people are disciplined about it. They plan and save years in advance, build skills and connections, then build a company after a well planned ritual.

Some people cheat on their day jobs, working on a side project at night and on slow days at work. One day, they wake up and realize... oh no, they have 10k users and not enough time to take care of them.

<comment><USER6> If you have 10k users and you still need a day job, you don't have a business.

<comment><USER5> I've seen a startup bootstrap up to 400k monthly active users before anyone would give them seed funding.

<comment><USER6> It is hard to determine what to make of this anecdote, without more information.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Do both... when you start making more from your side projects, it will be the time to consider leaving your day job and starting a business... By that time, you'll have the experience with running the business and the leap will not be that painful... (unless you are like me and really love your job, then, it will be hard... every year I am postponing my "early retirement")

</comment><comment><USER8> Learn how to work with people. There are too many people around here who sit in front of a comp the whole day, and develop the misguided notion that developing their sw skills is all that's required. But in a few years some kid is going to come along and do whatever you are doing faster and better.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you everybody. I really appreciate all of your comments)</comment>


Ask HN: How do you read books, especially technical book? - <AUTHOR> How do you read books, especially technical book? <comment><USER2> 1\. Read introduction.

2\. Skim each chapter, building a mental map, and trying to get basic notion of new ideas and terminology.

3\. Return to it later when I need to look something up.

This works better with paper, since it's easier to build a map of an unchanging, physical object. I _hate_ the way my (old) Kindle changes page breaks if I go backward and then forward, it destroys the ability to visually remember pages.

<comment><AUTHOR> I just bought a new kindle and agree with you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Like in digital\paper or what?

<comment><AUTHOR> a book like "Code complete" or "An Introduction to the Analysis of Algorithms"</comment></comment>


Gnome desktop instead of Unity in Ubuntu 11.04? - <AUTHOR> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2011-April/000842.html

<comment><USER2> Actually I'd be surprised if they did a last-minute switch back to Gnome Classic for 11.04 given Shuttleworth's penchant for decision by fiat and history of using non-LTS releases as nothing more than extended betas/UI playgrounds. (See Pulseaudio, Empathy over Pidgin, Indicators, window buttons --and that one was actually for an LTS!)

No, Shuttleworth has decided that Unity is the new hotness, so we'll almost certainly be getting it in 11.04, which will make us all glorified beta testers again. This'll be the first release since I started using Ubuntu that I won't be upgrading to immediately. My business productivity--which is what I use Ubuntu for--is more important than that.

<comment><USER3> Logical conclusion of what you say is that this is exactly the right time to make changes, otherwise they would be too dangerous for LTS releases! Unity going into 11.04 means that by the 12.04 LTS it's had a whole year of real- world use on thousands/millions of desktops and all of the bug fixing that will result from that. Yay!

<comment><USER2> What I'm saying is that "non-LTS" shouldn't be code for "bug-ridden and feature-incomplete," just because it isn't supported for as long. They deserve the same attention to stability that LTS releases get. I'm not against all change, only change that is foisted upon me with more concern given to haste and deadlines than to polish and stability. If Unity is as buggy and feature- incomplete as they say, I would much rather wait another 6 months for it to mature in development than have it released early and having to deal with 6 months of crashes and missing features while I wait.

Unfortunately that seems to be the direction Ubuntu has been leaning in for the past few releases. It's too bad that the PPA system, for all its benefits, almost forces one to do distro upgrades--it's a choice between having new versions of critical software like Firefox and accepting immature stuff like Unity, or using out-of-date software for another 6 months.

Can you imagine being stuck with FF3.6 till October if you choose not to upgrade to 11.04? (And yes you could add a PPA, but they're often hard to find, and many popular programs don't have PPAs for out-of-release updates.) But that's more of a complaint about the milestone-release system than it is a complaint about Unity.

Though I _am_ glad they're providing the option for Classic, at least in 11.04. Too bad most people who don't like Unity and don't read Linux forums won't figure out how to enable it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't care for the default as long as the dropdown on the login screen leaves me the choice to have my "real" Gnome desktop. Else, this release would be a nightmare, i guess..

<comment><USER5> I agree. And from what I have read/seen as far as Unity goes is that it is not ready for prime time just yet. On the other hand, Gnome 3 looks pretty awesome. Just saying.

<comment><USER6> Gnome 3 is great...if you have compatible graphics processing.

Ubuntu (and Gnome for that matter) are facing an interesting challenge there. Do you try to take Windows head on and assume your target customer is running new hardware? or do you try to keep the installed base of Linux users happy? Many of those are using Linux on older hardware precisely because it's still pretty snappy on those machines, while Windows is too bloated. It seems hard to have it both ways.

<comment><USER7> You got it backwards -- newer hardware is the problem ;)

<comment><USER8> Gnome shell mandates compositing.

<comment><USER9> Unity doesn't because it has a fallback shell that mimics actual unity 100%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Discussion: [https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu- desktop/2011-April/...](https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu- desktop/2011-April/002894.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> I wouldn't be surprised. When I tried Unity a few months ago it was riddled with bugs and memory leaks. It felt much like KDE4 did when it first came out - an incomplete product that focused on quantity of features over quality. It _could_ be a great desktop environment, but it's going to need a lot of work before it gets there. With 11.04 coming in the next few weeks, I just don't see it having that polish on time.

<comment><USER12> The only reason I can find to prefer one desktop over another is ease of using / assigning custom keyboard shortcuts: <http://oss.zentu.net/?q=node/27>

KDE4 was a huge leap _backward_ in that respect. 3.5 was about perfect, and I actually preferred it over Gnome when 3.5 was the default. But more often than not must we learn the hard way that sometimes it's just best to leave well enough alone.

<comment><USER9> Exactly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Actually, classical gnome won't even be installed by default at all:

[http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/04/ubuntu-11-10-will-not- shi...](http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/04/ubuntu-11-10-will-not-ship-with- classic-gnome-desktop/)

[https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity/+bug/739812/...](https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity/+bug/739812/comments/5)

      We made very good progress on a11y in Natty, but will miss the goal of
      perfect a11y. We'll nail it in Oneiric. That's OK, because we have the
      Classic desktop fallback in Natty, but will not in Oneiric.

      Mark

<comment><USER3> Natty = 11.04 Oneiric = 11.10

So 11.04 will have the classic by default :)

Either way, it's just an apt-get away :)

<comment><USER14> > it's just an apt-get away

im amazed at how much internet drama ignores this point...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Guys, they are talking about having a classic-desktop OPTION by default. Otherwise people will have to install gnome2-desktop to get it. Unity will be the default.

</comment><comment><USER15> Relevant thread at Ubuntu Forums seems to call bullshit on this <http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1724085>

Contains a link to related [https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu- desktop/2011-April/...](https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu- desktop/2011-April/002894.html)

<comment><USER16> People on forums can call many things... but it's still the Canonical staff that makes the decisions (Tech board in this case).

<comment><USER15> I'm referring you specifically to the second link I posted which is not from the forums but from the mailing list from which all this speculation arose. The forums don't mean anything, it's just where I originally found the pertinent link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This was expected, Unity isn't ready yet.

<comment><USER18> But GNOME3 is?

<comment><USER19> I have been able to use F15 alpha for a week or so, and I actually quite like it. Majority of problems that I've met so far was caused by systemd or some other novelty, not Gnome 3.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Some people mentioned Gnome 3 in here, but by Gnome classic, I think the mean Gnome 2, as opposed to Gnome Shell, which is Gnome 3.

Did anyone else noticed that Gnome Shell has a lot of Unity stuff? Possible Wayland backend and a launcher interface.

<comment><USER9> Yes, Shell added and redesigned itself a lot after Unity surface but hey, that's good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm still on 10.04 x86-64. I'm very happy with it. If it isn't dead simple to switch to Gnome Classic in 10.04 I will be switching to Debian. I use my desktop computer for work not play. If I want to just waste time on the web I use my CR-48.</comment>


Follow the Bitcoin: Wikileaks - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/crytpo-politics/follow-the-bitcoin-wikileaks-f2218dece347 <comment><USER2> __Blockchain.info also provides the estimated IP of the first node that broadcasted a transaction to the blockchain which allows us to map the geographical sources of the transactions that include this information and estimate the influence that either Russia 🇷🇺 or China 🇨🇳 had in the organization through Bitcoin donations.

This is wrong. This is the IP address that first broadcasted the transaction to the blockchain.info node. Nobody can know where the transaction came from.</comment>