Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304834704579401071892041790 <comment><USER2> And so the precedent is set. This is the direction I see things going:

For $70 a month from Comcast you can get Amazon, Google, and Facebook. For only $10 more a month you can add Netflix and Spotify. Want Pandora? Sorry, you'll have to switch to AT&T for that.

The broadband providers are used to this type of packaged service given their history as cable television providers. It's how they make their money beyond providing simple connectivity. Their future expansion and profits are linked to their ability to create exclusivity and extract revenue based on targeted demand.

I don't see any other way around this. Absent regulations prohibiting packet discrimination, I'm not sure I would do any different if I were in Comcast's shoes.

<comment><USER3> That is not going to happen. The onus is not on the consumer, it's on the service provider. The service provider may transfer the costs onto the consumer but Comcast won't directly charge the consumers a premium. That would be a bad move and Comcast would lose out its customers to competitors.

<comment><USER4> What competitors? In many areas, they are the only broadband provider. The next-closest providers are typically DSL.

Consumers are going to get screwed on the front & back end of this.

<comment><USER5> run a search at broadbandnow.com, see what you get

<comment><USER6> Yeah, my building here in NYC, I can get Time Warner or DSL (Verizon or from a reseller). That's it. Lots of us are stuck with 1 or 2 crappy options. I have overpriced Time Warner and a Verizon hotspot as a backup because the TW cable connection goes down about once a month. The other option is DSL which is too slow to do work and was down a week of my 30 day trial when I checked it out years back.

Keep in mind that this is New York City. You'll have lesser options in many other places in the US.

<comment><USER7> I'm in Austin, TX.

We have two FTTH providers (AT&T, Grande). Grande offers 1Gbps now, AT&T is 300Mbps now, 1Gbps this summer. Time Warner offers 300Mbps now (DOCSIS).

Google fiber is being deployed this year (1Gbps).

<comment><USER8> Yeah, funny world - once one decent internet provider pops up in an area (Grande, presumably, and now the thread of Google Fiber too), all the other classic providers seem to provide the best service they offer throughout the country. AT&T doesn't offer that in 95% of their territory in the US (so like 99% of the US can't get it), and the same goes for Time Warner. If any area has decent internet options, it's not because of a classic / well known broadband ISP, it's only because of some small independent ISP that forced a local market to be competitive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wow, Netflix has decided to negotiate with the terrorists? I'm pretty disappointed.

Edit: Having read more of the non-paywalled version, I have to say I think they're shooting themselves in the foot, even if Comcast was offering a better price than Cogent. It sets a terrible precedent, and gives Comcast the leverage to bump the price extortionately at the end of the deal.

<comment><USER10> You don't understand.

This is the creation of an economic moat (a term coined by Warren Buffet.)

The gatekeeper creates a toll and the tradesman agrees to pay the toll. This is an entry cost to new market players and therefore reduces competition. This toll may be increased as the biggest player (Netflix) grows in size and this benefits them, as eventually new startups have $1+ million startup costs and nobody is willing to invest in that cost-payoff scenario.

This is a win-win negotiation for both Comcast and Netflix but a loss for consumers. Unfortunately it's just how the game is played.

<comment><USER11> This is an interesting perspective but I think a bit too startup-centric. Startup costs for a Netflix-like company are already in the tens of millions to negotiate license deals. Netflix is probably far more concerned with Amazon (and maybe Google) taking their business away.

<comment><USER10> True.

But I framed it too specifically. My perspective holds true at the level of large organisations wanting to take punts towards similarly large markets. Signing the money off is going to become more and more difficult when the access cost is so high, and barely anybody will want to take the reputational cost of failure to enter the market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This might not be an anti-net neutrality deal. Here are the details we know at this point:

1\. Netflix is currently using Cogent

2\. Comcast offered them a direct connection to their network via paid- peering.

3\. Netflix agreed and will move over.

4\. Nothing about net neutrality was mentioned in the article.

This deal is being referred to as paid-peering. Peering is a practice performed at ISPs where two ISPs hook up infrastructure and agree to maintain their sides without charging for bandwidth. Peering is a common practice among the industry, and content-providers are always looking for ways to peer with more ISPs because it drives down their overall cost of operations.

The article says nothing about net neutrality. We don't have enough information to say whether net neutrality was harmed in this deal. We can only speculate at this time. Hopefully we will hear more from Netflix on this.

[edit to fix list formatting]

<comment><USER13> You don't seem to understand: This is not a technical issue; is a conceptual one, people are not going to read the details of the deal, rather to grab the idea and slowly believe that paying for better connection with a site/ISP is normal.

<comment><USER14> >rather to grab the idea and slowly believe that paying for better connection with a site/ISP is normal.

Is _is_ normal. ISPs are not equal. There's a reason you pay Level(3) a lot more than HE.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is actually good for Netflix and terrible for any competition. While Netflix probably has to hand over a bit of money, they are in a much better position to do so than any of their competitors as they're the biggest. In effect this creates a massive entry barrier into the video streaming market. You will now likely need to set up a massive infrastructure and pay massive bribes to various internet providers to be able to compete. So this is probably a smart move by Netflix by creating entry barriers that they should be able to easily pass on to consumers if they can achieve market dominance.

<comment><USER16> This sounds like standard paid peering; there's nothing non-competitive here.

If you're a small provider, you tend to buy transit from one or a few providers, and pay per bit in whichever direction has the most traffic.

If you're bigger, maybe you can setup peering. If you have relatively balanced flows, and meet other qualifications, you can usually get free (settlement free) peering. If your flows aren't balanced, then the tradition is that whoever is sending more pays. If the networks you're establishing paid peering with are cheaper than your transit provider (usually the case), then peering is still a win for you, and a win for the other network.

If Netflix wants to get settlement free peering with Comcast, they need to balance their traffic to Comcast (maybe partner with a backup service, or web crawler)

<comment><USER17> The tradition _when backbones peer with each other_ was for traffic to be balanced. When a content provider peers with an eyeball ISP, free peering makes sense regardless of balance.

<comment><USER18> That makes a lot of sense. Not solving this earlier is a detriment to the customers of both companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Not entirely sure why this is such a big deal. Peering agreements happen all the time. Lots of large services peer directly with consumer ISPs because it's cheaper and more efficient than using intermediary transit.

This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Comcast is not throttling or discriminating traffic in any way (at least not publicly). This is a peering dispute settlement.

Does this affect competitors to Netflix? Depends on how much volume they have. If their volumes are low, they can still reliably use transit providers more economically. As their revenue increases, they'll need their own backbone network, but their ability to pay for it goes up too.

Is Comcast big, bad and evil? Probably. But not in this case. Comcast dealing directly with Netflix is good for both parties. They are entitled to charge Netflix to peer directly because most traffic is going to flow into Comcast's network from Netflix. They also probably had a case negotiating away from settlement-free agreements with Cogent for the same reason. Again, none of this is out of the ordinary, ASes negotiate peering deals with each other all the time based on the volume and direction of the traffic they exchange with each other, and this is all fairly unregulated.

Net neutrality is irrelevant in all of this, it only matters if Comcast actively discriminates between traffic at their end. This deal is not connected to the ruling.

<comment><USER20> Comcast is a residential ISP. What possible traffic could there be to flow out of their network, other than requests for other data? By that logic, everyone has to pay to peer with Comcast because "Ha ha, we have all the customers. Darn, it sure is a shame that our customers don't have any data to send to you. Darn it, we really wish we could do free peering, but we just can't, aw, darn it. [cue South Park cable company responses]"

No, what happened was Comcast discovered another place they could fuck over the customer - by charging for peering even though it benefits their customers to not do so, and decided to spin it into some way that makes people feel like Comcast was somehow being injured by Netflix under the old settlement-free peering model.

<comment><USER19> Neither Comcast nor Netflix are trying to operate a non-profit, it's a payment dispute between two large companies who disagree over who should pay. You could just as well argue that Netflix was letting Cogent / Comcast fight it out instead of directly peering with ISPs which benefits customers.

<comment><USER21> The Biggest problem here is, I as a Comcast customer have already paid Comcast to bring me the packets from Netflix... That is what my outrageous bill every month is for..

They will now be DOUBLE BILLING for the same packet, a cost that WILL BE passed along to the netflix customer.

<comment><USER22> But what about the Comcast customers who _don 't_ use Netflix? They win from this deal! At least, if you make the assumption that costs are passed on to the consumer, as you seem to be making.

<comment><USER21> Costs will be passed along on the netflix side

Savings(if any) will not be passed along on the comcast side

Personally I do not believe there will be any real saving for comcast in the first place, so there is nothing to pass along, it is 100% profit for them

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Beyond looking at the implications for Net Neutrality (since we don't really know the implications of this deal going forward in relation to this); for people who are wondering why this has happened, this looks like this is part of Netflix's Open Connect Project[1] which is a single-purpose CDN network - and is essentially a paid-peering deal.

As part of the Open Connect Project, Netflix has deployed servers which are hundreds of terabytes in size in strategic locations all over the work and they contain ~60-90% of the data required for that particular country.

These devices either live in the ISP (which is what Netflix wanted to happen with Comcast) or live in an internet exchange where multiple ISPs can connect to the Open Connect devices.

There are 3 core benefits in doing this:

\- Better Streaming due to fewer hops to the client

\- Netflix avoids rate limiting (if they're inside the ISP Network)

\- Peering is free (usually) and is essentially where two ISPs connect their infastructure and agree to maintain their own sites without bandwidth charges. It's common throughout the industry and content-providers are always looking to peer with ISPs to drive down their overall costs of operations.

[1] [http://openconnect.netflix.com](http://openconnect.netflix.com)

<comment><USER24> Netflix does not use AWS to move video bits, but yes it will save them money on CDN costs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Are the insane? Why would they agree to this _weeks_ after the net neutrality case, and not wait at least until they see what Congress and FCC want to do about it?

The only other explanation is that they may actually _like_ this, because they know it would slow down a lot of their smaller competitors coming after them. It's even stranger when you think that customers must've blamed Comcast for their poor Netflix experience lately, _not Netflix_.

<comment><USER26> How would Net Neutrality help here? Comcast wasn't throttling Netflix vs. other content, they were refusing to build bigger pipes to Cogent.

<comment><USER17> It looks like Comcast was refusing to upgrade specifically to hurt Netflix, which falls under the sprit of net neutrality if not the letter.

<comment><USER27> Net Neutrality requires that you treat all traffic the same, regardless of source/destination - it certainly doesn't require that you create larger connections without being paid for them.

And, let's face it - anybody who has ever used Cogent for transit (usually at 1/3 to 1/10th the cost of other providers) knew what they were getting into.

<comment><USER17> I don't think Cogent's cheapness has much to do with it. When Netflix was using Tata, Comcast refused to upgrade their Tata links. When Netflix used Level 3, Comcast found a way to create congestion there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Netflix and other streaming services should not engage in these types of contracts. They should instead detect slowdowns and notify customers of the slowdown and to call their provider to fix it, resulting in increased support costs, customer attrition, etc for the provider. Peering should remain a 50/50 split between the major peers. Just because Comcast and Verizon are sitting there refusing to turn the ports on until you cough up $ (basically a hostage negotiation) doesn't mean you should.

<comment><USER28> > Just because Comcast and Verizon are sitting there refusing to turn the > ports on until you cough up $ (basically a hostage negotiation) doesn't mean > you should.

Would you please enlighten me as to why an ISP should be required to provide access to a resource they aren't being compensated for?

<comment><USER29> Because their customers are paying for it.

<comment><USER28> Nope. ISP customers pay for last-mile infrastructure and access to the connection that the ISP has brokered with larger traffic carriers, whatever that may be. You should read up on peering agreements.

<comment><USER6> And part of that payment is for the ISP's peering agreements with other providers. Why would I pay just to connect to Verizon? I want my connection beyond Verizon to the peer networks hosting Netflix, Facebook, YouTube, etc. No customer would only pay for the last mile if that's all they got.

<comment><USER28> Yes, part of that payment is for access to those negotiated peers. However, just because a customer is paying indirectly for peer access doesn't establish an obligation on the ISP to support arbitrary uncompensated resource consumption on the behalf of their contracted peers. It's an entirely separate contract.

Cogent should pay Comcast market peering costs for the unreciprocated bandwidth they send to Comcast. That's what this whole dispute is about. Arguing that Comcast's refusal to build out and maintain significant infrastructure to support a peering imbalance imposed on them by a peering partner via abuse of a good-faith concession, at their own expense, is somehow "taking hostages" is just silly. Cogent oversold.

I think that Comcast sucks as much as the next guy, but I really don't think they're the bad guy here (as much as it pains me to say that). It looks that way to consumers because Comcast is the only contact affected users have with the whole industry (how many people who have been upset at crappy Netflix quality know who Cogent is, or what a transit agreement is?), but that doesn't mean that's actually an accurate perspective.

<comment><USER29> This is stupid, Cogent is providing Comcast customers with what they are requesting. Now Comcast says no way, I don't give a shit what my customers are asking for, you have to pay us as well. How is Cogent abusing Comcast by providing Comcast's customers with data they have requested.

No, I don't think Comcast is being abused at all and its much more likely they just don't give a shit what their customers want because they know there is nothing the customer can do about it and so they let service degrade in order to extort more money.

<comment><USER28> Because Cogent and Comcast have a peering agreement in which they agree to exchange traffic that is more or less symmetric (since that means that both partners will be spending approximately equivalent amounts on infrastructure development and maintenance). It has been customary for consumer-bound traffic to not count against the balance, since it was a relatively minor portion of the overall traffic exchanged. With the advent of high-resolution consumer- oriented video services like Netflix, that has changed - consumer traffic has become a significant portion of overall traffic exchanged, which causes a flow disparity between the two peering partners and places a disproportionate burden on one.

If this were not consumer-bound data, then Cogent would likely already be paying for the disparity. As it is, it's a good guess that Cogent has refused to compensate Comcast for the additional load on their network build-out and maintenance costs, instead relying on the good-faith consumer data exception to exempt them from paying for it. Comcast's response to this was to steal Netflix's business from Cogent, thereby alleviating the uncompensated load that Cogent was placing on their network and improving Netflix's deliverability.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. If you're a service provider, you're paying _someone_ for delivery of your bytes. Netflix just cut out the middleman here. It's not like Netflix didn't already have to pay for the bytes they delivered - they just changed who they're paying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I thought Comcast had to follow the net neutrality rules until 2018 regardless of that court decision a few weeks ago... Is this NFLX caving because nobody is enforcing the rules Comcast agreed to? (Edited for englishy)

<comment><USER17> The net neutrality rules were written to correct/prevent the abuses that were discovered around 2005. Since then ISPs have invented new loopholes (like targeted non-upgrading) that technically aren't covered by the old net neutrality rules.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> In addition to the absurd, outsized cost, I don't want to pay Comcast et al. -- directly or indirectly -- these extorted prices, because they turn around and spend from these enormous profit margins to further constrain and "prioritize" my use.

The only solution, is to cut off this excess profit that has become the lifeblood of this systematic abuse.

And where these oligopolies have essentially captured the market to the point of excluding any and all competition: End them, legally. Break them up. Specifically legalize and perhaps even foster municipal broadband.

There may be no ultimate, static solution. But there are definitely next steps, and they are overdue.

</comment><comment><USER32> Cogent has had peering disputes not only with consumer ISPs like Comcast, but with nearly every other tier one provider out there. Cogent is known to provide very cheap bandwidth but on the flip side they are also known to not be a mutually beneficial partner for settlement free peering. If you have cogent as a provider you should know this. Netflix knows that and thus has offered to provide settlement to Comcast to get better peering rather than be in the overcrowded Cogent link.

</comment><comment><USER33> So it begins. The end of the neutral internet.

I am already paying Comcast for access to the internet! Why does Netflix have to pay on top it?

That said, I have Netflix and Comcast and I have never experienced any issues.

Edit: Actually I realize, this is an agreement to allow Netflix to colocate some of their servers at Comcast hubs. So it is not actually that bad.

<comment><USER34> > The end of the neutral internet.

"Neutral" is a vague term that in this circumstance conveys no actual meaning.

Settlement free peering is the exception, not the rule. Almost everyone pays for access to the Internet, whether it's buying transit or peering with settlement.

Nothing new to see here, move along.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Unsaid among all this - Netflix could have simply paid a higher quality transit provider (Level 3) to provide them transit, and there wouldn't have been any problems (Level 3 maintains some headroom on their peering circuits).

The reality is that it was likely cheaper for Netflix to just pay for peering with Comcast directly.

<comment><USER29> They have, and guess what? The same shit happened. Its almost like everywhere they go Comcast ends up doing this, kind of like they are specifically targeting Netflix.

<comment><USER27> "They have, and guess what? The same shit happened."

What are you referring to? Comcast and Netflix just started peering a few days ago.

<comment><USER35> Excuse me if I'm wrong but I think the parent might be referring to a 2010 dispute between Comcast and Level 3 regarding settlement free peering (a lot of the direct Level 3 or Comcast links seem dead now but some summary articles I can find are [1] and [2]). From these summary articles, the dispute happened after Level 3 agreed to become a CDN for Netflix.

One tangent that I don't know where else to ask is: why would an ISP agree to peer with Netflix, if Netflix weren't paying them. Reading about openconnect makes it seem that Netflix wants free peering.

My understanding of the situation is as follows. 1) Settlement free peering agreement are equivalent to free peering agreements. 2) Companies agree to these if they send roughly the same amount of traffic in both directions. So I'll agree to peer with you if I want to send ~N GB of traffic through your network and you want to send ~N GB through mine. 3) (and this is where I'm really unsure what I'm talking about) Anyone who peers with Netflix deals with handling traffic from Netflix to it's customers. But what traffic goes the other way? What traffic would an ISP send through Netflix network to make the relationship mutually beneficial?

Isn't it just the normal way of things that content producers pay ISP to send traffic through their networks?

Thanks for any clarifications!

[1][http://www.telecompetitor.com/level-3comcast-dispute- revives...](http://www.telecompetitor.com/level-3comcast-dispute-revives- eyeball-vs-content-debate/) and

[2][http://www.telecompetitor.com/behind-the-level-3-comcast- pee...](http://www.telecompetitor.com/behind-the-level-3-comcast-peering- settlement/)

<comment><USER27> No ISP would agree settlement free peering with Netflix - it has always been the case that Netflix has to pay people. They chose to go with the cheapest provider, Cogent, and Cogent did not have the capacity to provide the services that Netflix required. So Netflix started looking elsewhere, and presumably the next cheapest deal they could get was by peering directly with Comcast.

Your understanding is absolutely correct - this is not a Net Neutrality issue, but a Peering Dispute, plain and simple.

<comment><USER35> So if that is the case, when I read the Netflix openconnect page at [1], the list of ISPs there do NOT engage in free peering? I was assuming they were because of the second sentence on that page: "ISPs can do this either by free peering...".

Also, another tangent: I'm wondering what happens when Netflix installs one of their cache servers at an ISP data center. If 10 customers want to stream House of Cards and that's 10GB of data, I'm assuming Netflix has to end up paying somewhere for 10GB of upload bandwidth.

But if the Netflix cache server was in a nearby ISP data center, would Netflix only pay for 1GB of bandwidth (to upload to their servers), and not pay for 10GB of bandwidth as the customers hit the cache server? I'm assuming that the ISP makes some of it back by charging Netflix to place their servers locally, but it's still cheaper then paying to stream all the bandwidth.

If an ISP were completely focused on maximizing it's profit and not on what Netflix quality was to it's customer, does the ISP have any incentive to install Netflix cache server?

Thanks again for clearing up these questions!

[1][https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect](https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect)

<comment><USER27> When Netflix installs their cache servers at ISP data centers, they purchase transit from those data centers and pay for it at the 95th percentile like any other data center (or CDN) customer of that ISP. Netflix pays for the traffic they put onto the network.

The ISP has a big incentive to have Netflix increase their quality wherever there is strong competition for Broadband Internet. The more competition, the more incentive.

Here is an excellent article on transit: [http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/transit-works- costs-i...](http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/transit-works-costs- important.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I think what I'm seeing is that Netflix doesn't really care about neutrality beyond its ability to enable their business. Which is basically what we as consumers should have assumed from the start.

</comment><comment><USER37> This is a terrible precedent to set, and if it's true, I'm very disappointed in Netflix. Comcast is vulnerable right now since it's seeking to merge with TWC. Now's the time to pull out the big guns and show Congress, the FTC, and the citizens of the US why net neutrality is important. But instead of taking advantage, they cave and even pay off Comcast in what's essentially extortion. A disturbing vision of the future broken Internet to come.

</comment><comment><USER38> "The gravy-train has ended." -Major ISPs

So much for net neutrality. Now ISPs have another way to make more $$. Keep those profits higher - push smaller streaming services out.

</comment><comment><USER39> Wait wait wait...so, a company that has something like 60-70% of the market in total monopoly now has successfully ransomed another company who depends on their services?

Motherfuckers.

<comment><USER40> Where are you getting those numbers? It would seem [1] that Comcast has about 24% broadband market share. Subtracting the 3 million or so planned divested lines, even a post-merger Comcast would only have about 34% of the market -- which may be too high for comfort, but is nowhere near 60-70%

[1] [http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/usbroadbandsubscr...](http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/usbroadbandsubscribersq12013.jpg)

<comment><USER17> Each coverage area is a separate market, and AFAIK cable companies have 60-70% share within their areas (mostly because cable is so much less bad than DSL, so the market is working somewhat).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Is there a non pay-walled version available?

This may mark the end of net neutrality.

<comment><USER42> Here's a direct link using Google as the referrer: [http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees+to+Pay+Comcast+to+En...](http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees+to+Pay+Comcast+to+End+Traffic+Jam&btnI)

<comment><USER43> This worked for me, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Link without paywall: [http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees](http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees) to+Pay+Comcast+to+End+Traffic+Jam&btnI

<comment><USER42> For purposes of easy clicking, here's the same link without the space: [http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees+to+Pay+Comcast+to+En...](http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees+to+Pay+Comcast+to+End+Traffic+Jam&btnI)

<comment><USER44> Since when is it /#q= instead of /?q=? This doesn't work for people with noscript I think.

<comment><USER42> The ?q= doesn't cause the referrer to get set properly.

<comment><USER44> Oh thanks, I didn't know that!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Heres what I would be trying if I was netflix. Probably sure I'd have trouble pushing it against the rest of the company but I'd try this:

1) Collect evidence of network tampering/filtering

2) Get agreement in place to pay for better service

3) Collect the rest of the evidence that network filtering was in place when it gets lifted.

4) Simultaneously hit comcast up for breaching the neutrality agreements, while notifying all comcast customers that comcast is forcing netflix to charge its customers more for access.. that it might have to be along to them to pay... but we are working on ways yo prevent it.

Try and squeeze comcast from both ends at once and public embarrass them, while trying to keep the higher ground, looking like the peoples hero, under dog etc...

I doubt many companies would take that risk, but that what I'd try.

<comment><USER46> They have already done 1 and 2. The problem is #4 isn't possible because there aren't neutrality agreements to breach. Comcast provides shit service to Netflix and that's perfectly legal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I have been waiting 4 years to switch to Sonic Fusion, but I am too far from the CO. I wish there was some way to take local action to help them expand to my area. I know many people would be interested.

</comment><comment><USER48> I refuse to play this game - I'm back to torrenting.

<comment><USER49> Or better yet, let someone else do the work for you:

[http://watch32.com](http://watch32.com)

I'm curious to see how this plays out because the endgame for the internet is free-fast-failsafe. I wonder how long it will take for companies to litigate themselves into irrelevance. I actually feel kind of bad for netflix in this case, because when you make a deal with the devil, he always wins, and I hate to see them go someday :-(

<comment><USER48> > Or better yet, let someone else do the work for you:

> [http://watch32.com](http://watch32.com)

Unfortunately, this (and most other similar) sites use Flash, something I'm trying to avoid[0]. They also tend to have only low-quality, grainy video (not that Netflix is much better even when buffering isn't an issue).

There is also the issue of these sites/videos coming and going. If they host the files on 3rd party platforms (like this site is doing), then once the site is popular those videos quickly get taken down. Then you're stuck clicking through trying to find that one site (if there's even one left) that still hasn't taken down the video. OTOH, if the files are self-hosted, then when the site becomes popular, it can no longer support the bandwidth costs, and goes under.

Torrent sites, however, have lasted for years. I've been using the same private torrent site for nearly a decade. It's reliable and fast, and it has a wide selection of content, both old and new. And I never have to deal with Flash.

0: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7287151](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7287151)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Reminds me of the classic article [http://boingboing.net/2007/09/22/how-a- nonneutral-isp.html](http://boingboing.net/2007/09/22/how-a-nonneutral- isp.html) with a classic "infographic" [http://craphound.com/images/netneutralpricing.jpg](http://craphound.com/images/netneutralpricing.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER51> This deal doesn't seem as bad as many make it out to be. The agreement appears to consist of a an interconnection arrangement between Comcast's backbone and Netflix's streaming POPs.

Prior to the agreement, the traffic was routed through Cogent, and Comcast didn't want to increase the interconnection bandwidth with Cogent.

I don't see this as a blow to Net Neutrality, assuming the deal is as described.

</comment><comment><USER52> For everyone in Europe:

Monday evening there will be a vote on net neutrality. CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE

[http://www.savetheinternet.eu/](http://www.savetheinternet.eu/)

(dutch) [https://www.bof.nl/2014/02/21/maandag-d-day-voor- netneutrali...](https://www.bof.nl/2014/02/21/maandag-d-day-voor- netneutraliteit/)

Explain your concerns to them.

</comment><comment><USER53> Hard to underestimate the ramifications of an agreement like this. Many would say this is the market acting in the way it should.

<comment><USER54> I'd say my internet provider is fucking me over in failing to provide me with reliable connectivity I'm paying for. But that's just me.

<comment><USER55> Yeah, that sounds like the market I'm familiar with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Comcast Profit Jumps 28.6% on Growth of Broadband: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/business/media/comcast- pro...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/business/media/comcast-profit- jumps-26-on-growth-of-broadband.html?_r=0)

</comment><comment><USER57> Another, non-paywalled, link is here: [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/business/media/comcast- and...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/business/media/comcast-and-netflix- reach-a-streaming-agreement.html)

</comment><comment><USER58> Glad I don't have to deal with Comcast but I'm canceling Netflix if this is true.

</comment><comment><USER59> One way to make this ugly real fast is for content providers like Netflix/Amazon to completely block subscribers from ISPs that apply QoS to negatively impact them.

Say something like "we can't provide a great experience so we think you should have no experience at all because it wouldn't be fair with us and with you. we are sorry." and make it explicit that it's because of the ISP they are using.

The ISP think they are selling gold when they are more likely selling a commodity. Sure, at some locations it's indeed like gold, but how much of that is artificially enforced?

These pipes aren't worth much if there is no content flowing through them.

<comment><USER14> So your expectation is that if Netflix _intentionally prevents_ users from using their service because they don't like the user's choice of ISP, that will turn out well for Netflix?

<comment><USER59> If you want to ignore all the details in this discussion, how much power each company has and how much they're willing to leverage it.. sure, go ahead.

The whole net neutrality discussion is a power play between content providers and fiber owners, nothing else. The discussion about freedom and competition is awesome (and right!), but at the end it's these two huge groups fighting each other while we are screaming "think of the children!".

What Netflix would be losing if a subset of their customers on provider X is already getting crappy service and it can't do anything about that? At some point they will have to decide what to do about all those complaints and refund requests.

<comment><USER14> What would Netflix be losing? A lot of customers? And handing all of them over to Comcast's on-demand service. It'd be a massive win for Comcast.

There's no net neutrality issue in this discussion at all. Comcast is simply declining to upgrade its peering with Cogent. How is that net neutrality? If Netflix comes to me tomorrow and decides to buy all their transit through me, is Comcast somehow required to give me lots of free peering?

Netflix might be the majority(?) of Cogent's traffic, and Comcast might decide that it's not worth upgrading the connections for them. But as long as Comcast isn't discriminating traffic on their end (via some traffic shaping mechanism, I'd guess), then it's simply a matter of "Comcast thinks Cogent has enough connectivity, and sees no reason for them to upgrade the connections while getting nothing in return".

Their customers may disagree, but it up to them to not buy the service. (Perhaps the real problem here is lack of competition in the ISP market?)

<comment><USER59> Taking only this episode into account, you're absolutely right.

I was commenting on net neutrality issues and that was obviously not related here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> For those of you not famaliar with how peering agreements work, usually somebody will get one of the backbone providers to give them bandwidth in exchange for connecting the backbone provider to other peers. It's ideal when there is an equal exchange here and no money is involved. Netflix wants something different: they want to peer directly with Comcast/TWC/Verizon but not provide any network in exchange. For such an arrangement, it is fair that a network would charge them for this access.

</comment><comment><USER61> You guys need to understand that the slow streaming that netflix had problems with is actually netflix fault. They choose to use the cheapest peer possible(cogent). So them paying comcast to be a direct peer makes complete sense as comcast will not be sending 1/1000th of the traffic it is recieving on these peering connections.

This has nothing to do with you having to pay more to stream other services. It has to do with netflix finally deciding to stop placing blame and further their own product.

</comment><comment><USER62> I think Netflix should've just announced to it's customers that Comcast was throttling their network speeds before doing this. It is the same way that current companies in the US ask you to write to your legislatures about unfair policy changes, the most recent one I can think of in California is the public/private ban they're trying to pass on electronic cigarettes which I believe is still going on.

</comment><comment><USER63> Given Netflix and Youtube account for rougly 50% of peak time traffic, I wonder if Google will also follow suit.

I'm all for net neutrality, but I think Netflix should've been paying some usage fee into a communal fund that is off-limit to ISPs, but can be used to improve broadband quality for everyone.

<comment><USER60> Google owns a lot of backbone so they can do a peering agreement with Comcast/Level 3 which would be mutually beneficial. Netflix has nothing to offer in terms of peering, so their attempt at getting similar terms is just a negotiating tactic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Paid peering is frowned upon, but it happens all the time. This is not a threat to net neutrality.

</comment><comment><USER65> I talked to a Comcast Loyalty Agent 2 days ago about my troubles keeping Netflix going on my devices and was told that Comcast has "superior" Netflix performance and if I am having any trouble it certainly isn't Comcast.

</comment><comment><USER13> We need to do something guys. Probably this falls under some monopoly law or practice against free market because it hurts way too much all the current (and future) Netflix competition.

</comment><comment><USER66> What I don't understand is why Comcast refused to put NetFlix's CDN gear into their network/DC setup. That would solve the problem...

<comment><USER61> How would you feel about someone putting their equipment on your private network? What if the equipment they install is low quality? who gets the blame? Who is in charge of QOS?

It is not as simple as you think

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Will the telecommunications industry ever become competitive? The barrier of entry seems just too high with the amount of infrastructure it takes.

</comment><comment><USER68> Only america can you charge twice for the same product

<comment><USER14> I've got a site. It has large files. Is Comcast required to provide free peering for me? Where do I sign up for my 10GbE port (my site's small so 10G is enough)?

Oh wait, I buy from a friend who runs an ISP. Turns out, he only has a single 10G connection for all his customers. Can he call Comcast for a free peering arrangement now?

That's not how things work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> This is anti-competitive. It is clearly unconstitutional. I hope the FCC still has a chance to compensate for their shortcomings.

</comment><comment><USER70> Net neutrality is dead. The FCC has failed us.

</comment><comment><USER71> That was their whole point, isn't it? To extort a toll for going over the bridge. A a classic trolling method.

</comment><comment><USER72> There is another way: [http://www.open-ix.org/](http://www.open-ix.org/)

</comment><comment><USER73> While many make reference to the mythical creature Net Neutrality, I think at best this will be mostly a way for Comcast to enjoy some time for extra revenue and perhaps a chance to develop a closer partnership with a company like Netflix. They could use the extra revenue to improve their network and the relationship to give them a fighting chance when local access monopolies are broken through new access options.

<comment><USER74> They could use the money to improve their network...but likely won't.

I recall the federal government providing billions to the cable companies in the 90s for high speed broadband that never materialized.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> "Comcast is getting paid by Netflix? I want to be paid by Netflix too!" -every other ISP

</comment><comment><USER76> I want to see Comcast try to throttle Google, Facebook, et al. and see how it ends up in court.

</comment><comment><USER77> The weirdest shit is that people are okay with it, at least enough to not do anything about it.

</comment><comment><USER78> I just cancelled my netflix subscription. I hope you do the same. Let them know why.

<comment><USER79> I did, about a week ago, due to poor picture quality and a library barely better than Amazon Prime, which I pay for anyway for the shipping. Had they made this Comcast deal a few weeks ago I probably would have kept them if the picture quality were better, but now that I've cancelled I won't bother to sign up again to see if it improves.

I was surprised that when I cancelled I didn't even get a single form asking why.

Netflix is $8 a month for all you can stream, so I suppose I can't expect any more than a poor library of B movies and old TV shows.

It's not up to me how Netflix and Comcast sort out their business disputes. Netflix was not delivering service that was worth their measly $8 a month.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> Any link where we don't have to login after reading the first three lines?

<comment><USER81> I am getting tired of those news websites requiring you to register and login to read their content

</comment></comment><comment> brown9-2 Well now every other ISP is considering doing what Comcast just did.

</comment><comment><USER82> this. is. awesome!

hollywood pressures comcast.

comcast shakedown netflix.

netflix offers money to comcast, comcast and hollywood is pleased.

so far it sucks... but then:

netflix pass that as tax to user.

users flee from comcast.

new providers appears.

hollywood cant shake them down.

for the first time, ISP in america have a truly competitive market.

the end.

</comment><comment><USER83> Haven't they shot themselves (and everyone else!) in the foot?

</comment><comment><USER84> I'm going to start my own ISP. Anyone want to invest?

<comment><USER85> I'm sold, nutjob123.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> They just killed the internet.

</comment><comment><USER87> NOOOO! They took you hostage netflix and you gave in! Only bad will come from this...

</comment><comment><USER88> I guess they had to pick between Lawyers vs Comcast.

</comment><comment><USER89> Did they just break the internet?

</comment><comment><USER90> Oh this doesn't bode well.

</comment><comment><USER91> Goodbye Net Neutrality :(

</comment><comment><USER92> Capitalism wins again!

</comment><comment><USER93> Wow. Net neutrality is dead. Here comes Google fiber (with it's own selective routing...)

I'm thinking of switching to Sonic.net - they seem to respect Net neutrality. Does anyone have Sonic.net experience pro or con ??

</comment><comment><USER94> Hooray for the free and open market!! It's not extortion, it's capitalistic innovation!!</comment>


Programmer excuses - <AUTHOR> http://www.programmerexcuses.com/ <comment><USER2> My favorite excuse so far: [http://i.imgur.com/X0aFVfy.png](http://i.imgur.com/X0aFVfy.png)

<comment><USER3> "it was up when i went to bed!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great idea, but after trying it dozen times I still didn't get the most common excuse: "works fine on my machine"

<comment><USER5> This is why Vagrant / Chef is so great.

<comment><USER6> Yesir. I'm using Puppet myself and it's saving me boatloads of time and energy and brainwracking.

The fact that it can be used not just for Vagrant but for setting up your nodes on a cloud infrastructure is kind of overpowered :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That's an interesting webpage. it has a hidden google ads-field in an iframe. I'm not web-savy enough to fully understand how it works.

The "click me as often as you can" contents for sure generate a lot of clicks. genius!

<comment><USER8> I see my GET request for show_ads.js is failing. So perhaps that nonloading javascript is suppose to make it appear but it's non working at the moment... Now, which excuses from the site would apply here?

Here's the first one that might make sense that showed up on my refresh: "It worked yesterday"

UPDATE: Must be Ad Block blocking it.

<comment><USER9> Are you using Adblock or similar software?

<comment><USER8> Yup, it was Ad Block.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I got 500 Internal Server Error with an additional 404 Not Found for the ErrorDocument, I had to wonder if that was a real excuse or genuine server error! Theirs a certain amount of irony to it anyway.

<comment><USER11> Actually, that's a feature

<comment><USER12> That comment really made me laugh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Related (and my favorite): Things to Say When You're Losing a Technical Argument

[http://www.pigdog.org/auto/mr_bads_list/shortcolumn/1914.htm...](http://www.pigdog.org/auto/mr_bads_list/shortcolumn/1914.html)

</comment><comment><USER14> git commit -m "$(curl -s programmerexcuses.com | sed -n '/<a. _> /{s/<[^>]_>//g;p}')"

<comment><USER15> I'd like to commit a bugfix:

      git commit -m "$(curl -s programmerexcuses.com | sed -n '/<a.*>/{s/<[^>]*>//g;p}')"

<comment><USER16> And for any OS X user (* BSD based sed)

      curl -s programmerexcuses.com | sed -n -e '/<a.*>/{s/<[^>]*>//g;' -e 'p' -e '}'

      git commit -m "$(curl -s programmerexcuses.com | sed -n -e '/<a.*>/{s/<[^>]*>//g;' -e 'p' -e '}')"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> On one reload I got a standard internal server error message. Next reload it was gone. If that was on purpose, it is a nice touch.

<comment><USER18> I got this twice and I went to go look at the response to see if it was actually a 200 implying that it was purposeful, but once I loaded up the dev console to see the headers I couldn't reproduce.

<comment><USER8> Try DoSing the page by holding down F5 for a second or two...

Status comes back as 500 not 200.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> 12 months ago while I was bored on a SFO to JFK flight I made a clone relevant to where I was working at the time [http://frsexcuses.com](http://frsexcuses.com) which got featured by 9to5Mac [1] and still to this day gets a little bit of traffic as the domain is about to expire

[1]: [http://9to5mac.com/2013/08/02/frs-excuses-website- showcases-...](http://9to5mac.com/2013/08/02/frs-excuses-website-showcases- some-possibly-familiar-statements-from-apple-stores/)

</comment><comment><USER20> Where is "It works on my box"? I'm guilty of using that one a few times.

Edit: "It's user error" is another popular one.

</comment><comment><USER21> "The bug must come from changes colleague XY has made after me! _pointingfingers_ "

</comment><comment><USER22> Reminded of the old BOFH calendar with daily excuses: "Sunspots."

</comment><comment><USER23> Nice site, but seems weird wrapping the text in a <href> and wrapping that in a center. As somebody else said on the comments, why couldn't be just plain text/have a plain text header?

</comment><comment><USER24> "That wasn't in the specification"

An excuse being an attempt to justify a fault, I don't consider that an excuse. That one is a fact, and it's not the programmers fault when it happens.

</comment><comment> Dorian-Marie Here is the full list of excuses: [https://gist.github.com/Dorian/28a49b82ee9f026e5823](https://gist.github.com/Dorian/28a49b82ee9f026e5823)

</comment><comment><USER25> I got "The third-party API is not responding" the first time, and I thought for a second that it was a 500-class server error. Then I reloaded, and laughed.

</comment><comment><USER26> I have actually seen something that was thought to be an application error tracked down to a faulty firewall device - that was a fun bug to investigate :-)

</comment><comment><USER27> Similar:

[http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ballard/bofh/bofhserver.pl](http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ballard/bofh/bofhserver.pl)

<comment><USER28> I used to have a BOFH excuse calendar. A classic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> "I heard there was a solar flare today"

</comment><comment><USER30> Everything looks fine on my end! It looks like its a browser compatibility issue.

Ha! I said both of these this morning. No I am blaming the plugin.

</comment><comment><USER31> Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Is this another excuse?

</comment><comment><USER32> Some of those give me a twinge of embarrassment: "I didn't receive a ticket for that," indeed.

</comment><comment><USER33> It's amazing how many of these I've said with a straight face. Guess I am a lazy programmer.

</comment><comment><USER34> The first time I loaded the page I was expecting some writeup on programmer excuses, instead I was presented with a page that said "Our servers are too slow to cope with the demand" or something similar and I thought "OK, a bit too honest calling their servers slow, but the message is clear" so I decided to wait a bit until HN traffic died down

</comment><comment><USER35> What about the heisenbugs, the ones which disappear as soon as I try to debug them?

<comment><USER33> First time hearing "Heisenbugs", think I'm gonna hang onto that one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> looks like an Ad click generator since DoubleClick is hidden in the page.

</comment><comment><USER37> Is there a "hey, it passed all the unit tests"?

</comment><comment><USER38> Does anyone know where to find the full list of excuses?

</comment><comment><USER39> "Internal Server Error" is also an excuse?

</comment><comment><USER40> You say lazy like it's a bad thing.</comment>


AT&T's predictions of 2014 in 1994 were surprisingly accruate - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MnQ8EkwXJ0

<comment><USER2> One of the more interesting ones was the renewing a drivers license at a kiosk. Right now you either renew it online from home or wait in a ridiculously long line to talk to a human. This shows that some tasks are not practical to completely automate, at least until we invent very smart machines or better wireless / video chat type scenarios. I don't really see why DMV employees can't be remotely located and have a TV monitor and less employees at the location.

The other inventions were spot on for the most part. Probably because the ideas are fairly easy, it's the execution and bringing to market that are difficult. The components and infrastructure just wasn't there to make a lot of those things happen without the internet, which was not as common as it is now (20 years later). The internet will continue to change the way we live, there are still lots of potential to better automate processes and make the world more efficient. It's getting kind of hard to imagine the next 20 years though. We've come so far in the past 20 that the things that are left are the really hard problems (space travel, re-arranging molecules and atoms at will, advanced medicine).

One problem with a more efficient and automated world is the loss of jobs. Hopefully all of this innovation will also create as many jobs as it removes. Then we can also start moving towards a post-scarcity society, like socialism but more of a Utopian society that will actually work. We just need molecular re-arrangers to be as common as a printer and BAM, then the only things we will have to worry about are running out of land and accidentally creating a virus, parasite, or robot that kills everyone.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's insane. I wonder what they already have in store for the next 20 years.

Reminds me of this article I just read, "Ray Kurzweil: This is your future" [http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/10/business/ray-kurzweil- future-o...](http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/10/business/ray-kurzweil-future-of- human-life/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> I wonder how many of those innovations at the time AT&T was involved in bringing to market.

Also interesting to see the analog nature of things prevalent in the ads-- how the images flicker into place on the screens.</comment>


Estimates of oil spill officially DOUBLED - <AUTHOR> http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/06/201061103511522686.html

<comment><USER2> Consider the guideline against using flourishes like all-caps in headlines REITERATED:

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> Someone couldn't come up with a better source than Aljazeera? Seriously?

<comment><USER4> BBC > Al Jazeera > CNN

<comment><AUTHOR> While I agree that BBC is better, I find I've been reading Al Jazeera more than either CNN or BBC lately. The quality is close enough, and AJ has a _very_ different view of the world, and I really enjoy that.</comment></comment></comment>


Fake Russian Facebook Accounts Bought $100,000 in Political Ads - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/facebook-russian-political-ads.html <comment><USER2> The hysteria over these unnamed, unproven Kremlin hackers reaches a new high just about every day.

$100,000 is absolutely _nothing_. Zilch. Nada. You can probably count the number of people that changed their vote because of that expenditure on one hand. It's just a number that you're able to trot out and your average lower- middle class American will say "that's a lot!" and lose their shit over Russian interference of tenuous consequence. If this was "on direct orders from President Vladimir V. Putin" you can be sure that he had a lot more than $100,000 dollars to dedicate to Facebook ads.

So far, we know this about Russian interference:

1.) Two unfathomably sophisticated threats successfully stole information from the DNC. 2.) We can reasonably assume that Russia made an attempt to interfere. They've probably been trying this halfheartedly for decades.

Now, we can get in to the wild, unproven conjecture that makes up the basis of much of this panic:

1.) Putin supposedly directly and personally ordered this operation. This assertion is based on pretty much nothing other than him being a "pretty powerful dude" (to paraphrase). 2.) We have supposedly identified that the aforementioned unfathomably sophisticated threats (responsible for the DNC incident) mentioned above are actually a specific part of the Russian government. This assertion is based on the attack having come from Eastern Europe, and having used tools that originated from Eastern Europe. Killer evidence, right? 3.) A few million dollars worth of advertisements and hired trolls supposedly meme'd a president into office. This is despite the absolutely horrid efficacy of online advertising, but apparently Russian witch magic turned the normal 0.5% advertisement engagement rate into a political wrecking ball.

I'm as interested in foreign interference as the next guy, but that's not what this is about. This is people refusing to believe that people disagree with them, and that disagreement led to their candidate and her poorly targeted campaign losing, for better or for worse.

</comment><comment><USER3> Would that be less than about 1/20,000 of what the candidates and their publicly-supporting groups spent? [1] Does the NYT care to discuss how much the needle was and could be moved?

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...](https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential- campaign-fundraising/)</comment>


Goby: A new Ruby-inspired language written in Go - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/goby-lang/goby <comment><USER2> Crystal-lang has also been around with similar ruby syntax and features like green threads, and a larger standard library. Performance is at par with golang.

[http://crystal-lang.org](http://crystal-lang.org)

PS: Notably, websocket support is still lacking in Goby.

<comment><USER3> Crystal is closer to C performance wise. The compiler is much slower than Go due to the aggresive type inference.

<comment><USER4> I believe this is partially due to the lack of incremental compilation, which is on the roadmap [0] for 1.0. The compiler itself builds in ~10 seconds. [1]

[0]: [https://github.com/crystal- lang/crystal/wiki/Roadmap](https://github.com/crystal- lang/crystal/wiki/Roadmap)

[1]: [https://crystal-lang.org/2015/12/24/the-future-of- crystal.ht...](https://crystal-lang.org/2015/12/24/the-future-of-crystal.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting. The goal is "small and handy environment that mainly focusing on creating API servers or microservices". Having moved from Ruby to Go in the last year or two I'd be really interested in what language features they're pushing with that goal. I really enjoyed my work with Ruby, but I have found Golang pretty quick at these "backend" type work.

On the back of this, I dug around a bit around for other transpilers to/from Golang. So far:

\- [http://havelang.org/](http://havelang.org/)

\- [https://github.com/jcla1/gisp](https://github.com/jcla1/gisp)

\- [https://github.com/google/grumpy](https://github.com/google/grumpy) (Python to Go)

\- [https://tardisgo.github.io/](https://tardisgo.github.io/) (Go to Hexe)

\- [https://github.com/gopherjs/gopherjs](https://github.com/gopherjs/gopherjs) (Go to JavaScript)

If there are any others, be keen to find out.

<comment><USER6> EDIT: my bad, I saw 'bytecode' and wrongfully assumed goby is a compiled language

[https://github.com/goby- lang/goby/tree/master/compiler/bytec...](https://github.com/goby- lang/goby/tree/master/compiler/bytecode)

<comment><USER7> > this is not a transpiler though, it as a compiler. which makes it > attractive, especially because Crystal is so very slow

This is an interpreter, not a compiler. Crystal is a compiler and what makes it "slow" to compile is type inference but then it runs at native speed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hi, I'm Stan, this project's creator. I will explain your questions later. But before that please check out our sample site (written in Goby): [http://sample.goby-lang.org/](http://sample.goby-lang.org/)

And our plugin system, which is Goby's coolest feature: [https://goby- lang.gitbooks.io/goby/content/plugin-system.htm...](https://goby- lang.gitbooks.io/goby/content/plugin-system.html)

<comment><USER9> Congratulation, and best wishes :)

When things settle down, I would love to read an article from you about what it's like to launch a new programming language by the end of the 2010s.

I'm under the impression that adoption is going way faster than in previous decade, when php, java and C/C++ were kings hard to revoke. But there's still a gap of few years between initial announcement of a language and it being used in the wild - which is quite understandable, because people want to be sure the language will stick around before writing production code with it.

I would love to know what you do during those years, how you grow your language, how you simply manage to use it at work, or for your own projects. If you could write such article, that would be awesome :)

<comment><USER8> Thanks! I'll try to share my experience to others by writing posts or giving a talk on conf. But actually Goby is just 6 months old, so you might need a while :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Would be interesting if we could use it as a library from go

<comment><USER8> Sadly we can't. But you can use go library in Goby

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Are threads both concurrent and parallel (like goroutines)? In other words can they be used to parallelize CPU-heavy computation?

<comment><USER12> If you care about CPU-heavy computation, you care about not using an interpreted language to do it, because if you pay a 10x performance penalty, that turns your 16-core machine back into an effective 1-core machine. (Apparent number mismatch to account for slowdowns and general amdahl's law.) And, with no offense intended to Goby, a brand new scripting language built on top of a language like Go (already ~2x-3x slower than C in general) could easily see performance penalties of 100x or 500x vs C. (Think logarithmic here.)

Even Go, at 2x-3x slower than C, is already not a terribly great choice for true CPU-intensive loads. It's fast enough it can fit in some scenarios, but if you really start to ramp up you're going to want to switch to something else.

Edit: Would someone like to explain what is wrong with the idea that people who care about CPU-heavy computation also need to care about the performance of the language they are using rather than just downmodding it? I find the idea that in one second, someone cares deeply enough about CPU performance to call their load "CPU-heavy" and want to learn how to use many cores to process it, but in the next second is oblivious to the issues of using languages that are very slow on the CPU to do the work, to be a very bizarre shape of concerns about performance. It's like someone asking how they can move ten tons of something from New York to LA as quickly as possible, but insisting that they will only use bicycles to do it. The fact that you may be able to work out a way to do it with only bicycles, even perhaps surprisingly quickly compared to what one's initial reaction may have been, isn't going to change the fact that it sure is weird how one moment you're concerned about doing it as quickly as possible and in the next moment completely oblivious to the performance consequences of the chosen tools.

<comment><USER13> > "If you care about CPU-heavy computation, you care about not using an > interpreted language to do it, because if you pay a 10x performance penalty, > that turns your 16-core machine back into an effective 1-core machine. "

> "Edit: Would someone like to explain what is wrong with the idea that people > who care about CPU-heavy computation also need to care about the performance > of the language they are using rather than just downmodding it?"

You first talk about interpreters and then you talk about performance. They're not _perfectly_ correlated. Given how modern implementations of languages are not _either_ simple token processing state machines of the 1980s _or_ simple compilers of the same period, this equivocation of yours seems out of place in the 2010s. A _proper_ interpreter like LuaJIT can not only reach very decent performance on computationally expensive stuff (1x-2x of C run time in Scimark 2, depending on the particular test, for example) but also allow for delaying computation to as late a time as possible and then generating specialized code based on the increased amount of information available. That can be done not only even across modules (which static compilers still struggle with without some kind of link-time optimizations) but also depending on actual data at run time (which static compilers are completely incapable of, unless they're somehow embedded into the final application - an option that, e.g., Lisp programs can use if they choose so).

<comment><USER12> "A _proper_ interpreter like LuaJIT"

Is a JIT, not an interpreter. JITs are fundamentally different. I seriously doubt Goby is a JIT yet, to the point I'm not even going to check the source.

LuaJIT is also an outlier. I consider it a solid point in favor of the argument that if you build a language for speed from day 1, you can do pretty well and still build in a lot of nice features. Even so, I understand LuaJIT had to drop some Lua features to get there. However, if you first design your language's features with a lot of focus on convenience, and then try to make them fast without compromise, you end up in the PHP/Python/Perl/Ruby/Javascript space, where no matter how much work you put into it you hit fundamental walls. (Yes, even JS with all modern JIT'ing is not really _that_ fast of a language.) The counterargument to your point is that LuaJIT is pretty much all alone in its position on the performance, despite the fact that other seemingly-similar languages have had orders of magnitude more work poured into their JITs.

I think there's a lot of up-and-coming languages that have learned a lot about designing for performance and while, alas, LuaJIT's future seems dim, I believe a lot of languages like Nim and Crystal and even to some extent Go have learned about how to be nicer languages than C or C++ while _not_ giving up tons of performance. LuaJIT, in my opinion, still has a place of honor in the history of programming languages, far outsized from its actual use.

(Rustaceans may be assured I have not forgotten them, I just think Rust is coming at this from a significantly different angle.)

<comment><USER14> > Even so, I understand LuaJIT had to drop some Lua features to get there.

Not true. LuaJIT is complete Lua. The difference, besides being jitted are: having parts written in assembly, super optimisations and things like FFI which cannot be written in C89. Main Lua uses nothing but C89 which makes it run on almost anything so this is not the case for LuaJIT. Also vanilla Lua is way smaller and the source code is cleaner simpler. Divergence in the language is not because LuaJIT dropped some features but because it was created while Lua was on version 5.1. Now Lua is on 5.3 and LuaJIT didn't catch up on everything yet, it is basically 5.1 compatible with some sprinkles of 5.2.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > Tough thread

What the heck's that??

<comment><USER16> I think the word "tough" is an adjective here, modifying "thread/channel mechanism" \- meaning something like "resilient" or "robust".

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Can this be used in a Go app as a plugin/scripting lang?

<comment><USER8> Goby does reverse, using Go package as plugin. See: [https://goby- lang.gitbooks.io/goby/content/plugin-system.htm...](https://goby- lang.gitbooks.io/goby/content/plugin-system.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> sorry but the ruby community now has something called Elixir.

<comment><USER19> Erlang is not made for anything that is cpu intensive. It doesn't solve every problem. Thats the void I think Crystal is going to fill for Rubyists.

<comment><USER9> That's one of the reasons I migrated to Go instead of Elixir (plus, I love the idea of suddenly having system programming within reach). But doing so, I haven't explored deeply enough Elixir and Crystal. Would you say they each provide something, not related to taste, that Go doesn't have (or that Go is doing worse)?

<comment><USER19> I'd compare Go to Crystal. Go is more mature and stable but crystal a little faster thanks to LLVM. Plus I like Crystal's syntax better. I've been contributing to the crystal ecosystem with some libs and use it for personal stuff but I use Go at work. Once Crystal hits 1.0 and has good parallelism then I think it could be used as a drop-in replacement for Go for most use cases.

<comment><USER9> I see. Thanks for your insight!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Just call it "Gouldby". That's an English surname, and can be short or "Go would be Ruby". (Which doesn't entirely make sense, but names don't entirely have to!)

</comment><comment><USER21> Unless you explain the motivation behind yet another language, it's hard for people like me to like a new thing. How is it different from Ruby? Just concurrency support? How is it different from Go? Just ruby syntax? Is the language statically typed or dynamically?

Additionally I would like to see some syntax examples at the start as well.

<comment><USER7> What? This is literally the first paragraph of README.md:

        Goby is an object-oriented interpreter language deeply inspired by Ruby as well as its
        core implementation by 100% pure Go. Moreover, it has standard libraries to several
        features such as the Plugin system. Note that we do not intend to reproduce whole of
        the honorable works of Ruby syntax/implementation/libraries.

        One of our goal is to provide web developers a sort of small and handy environment that
        mainly focusing on creating API servers or microservices. For this, Goby includes the
        following native features:

        - Tough thread/channel mechanism powered by Go's goroutine
        - Builtin high-performance HTTP server
        - Builtin database library (currently only support PostgreSQL adapter)
        - JSON support
        - Plugin system that can load existing Go packages dynamically (Only for Linux by now)
        - Accessing Go objects from Goby directly

This makes it quite a match to do containerized things as a single binary || self-deploying Go apps[0]

[0]: [https://www.dotconferences.com/2016/10/kelsey-hightower- self...](https://www.dotconferences.com/2016/10/kelsey-hightower-self- deploying-go-applications)

<comment><USER21> >One of our goal is to provide web developers a sort of small and handy environment that mainly focusing on creating API servers or microservices

How does it explain the motivation behind creating another language? What were the reasons the developer/team behind goby thought existing languages/tools didnt help? My questions are also about how different goby vs ruby is, or goby vs go. I also question if the language is dynamically or statically typed, etc which are bare minimum I expect in introduction.

<comment><USER8> If you ask me why I started this project at first place, I'd say it's just for fun and practicing.

And we know that Goby is not special enough by giving green thread or channel. So currently our main goal is to let users use Go's packages and manipulate Go objects directly in Goby.

And we already made some progress, please check out this: [https://goby- lang.gitbooks.io/goby/content/plugin-system.htm...](https://goby- lang.gitbooks.io/goby/content/plugin-system.html)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Blackberry services down in Europe, Middle East and Africa - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15243892

<comment><USER2> I'm the only one seeing this as the announcement of RIMs downfall? One of the things that really held BBs still going was that it's in almost all corporate environments. But I think a lot of users will jump ship after this. At this point RIM is in serious problems.

<comment><USER3> They've had outages before and it doesn't seem to change anyone's opinion of them. That keyboard is like crack for some people - no matter how bad the rest of the offering is, they keep coming back for that keyboard.

<comment><USER4> They got me with the 4 day battery and the sweet sensitive laser pointer. I do have an Android phone on the side though, but I just can't get myself to charge it everyday and when I think of it, it's dead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The article makes it sound like BlackBerry proxy all EMEA network traffic through their UK servers. Does anyone know if this is correct? If so, I wonder how easily the UK government could get their hands on it.

<comment><USER6> Isn't that the idea?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Having all communication in a region pass through a single third party server is such a big design flaw! If only other companies made decent qwerty keyed phones, picking a successor to my Blackberry wouldn't be so hard.

<comment><USER8> I don't see anything that says it was a single server (I'm taking your words literally).

Any wildly popular (wildly is debatable, nonetheless they have many customers) service can put itself in to this situation if it does not have failover cases.

<comment><USER7> If you're taking me literally, do allow me to change that to "datacenter". I'm talking about email! Very little reason for push mail these days. Internet's fast and cheap and IMAP+ is as fast as push. And I've never seen gmail go down. Why tie all blackberries down to the blackberry datacenter in the region?

<comment><USER8> That would indeed be the biggest issue.

You are right in that not properly having some type of failover and thus funneling all traffic to a single region or datacenter hurts.

I would have thought that a Corp as big as RIM is that they'd be able to hire some seriously good talent which address this issue. Especially since I believe one of the big points they use to sell to business is the 'Enterprise stability' line.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Your phone... is now... a phone!</comment>


Yasiin Bey (aka Mos Def) force-fed under standard Guantánamo Bay procedure - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jul/08/mos-def-force-fed-guantanamo-bay-video

<comment><USER2> The process of having a feeding tube inserted into one's nose is extremely painful, much more so than you'd expect. Out of all the injuries I've had (e.g. broken collar bone, 4 concussions, etc), none reached the immediate pain intensity level as having a feeding tube inserted.

For me, the tube felt way too small to fit. Blood started trickling down the back of my throat and my whole body seized up in pain. It's scary to have such an internalized pain immediately next to one's brain.

<comment><USER3> Tell her [http://youtu.be/YJIFOCbPTjo](http://youtu.be/YJIFOCbPTjo)

This little girl seems to have it down pat. her biggest issue is getting past gag relex

<comment><USER4> Oh, well if _she_ is fine with it then _he_ must have been hallucinating. /s

What utter shit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Guantanamo Bay is one of the most disgusting institutions in the "civilized world". How is this acceptable? Treating humans as garbage, no trial, just meat stored for torture.

Every day this piece of shit prison is open is a god damn disgrace for the entire human race.

<comment><USER6> While I agree it is a disgrace, what do you plan to do with the detainees?

If they weren't "terrorists" before, they most likely are now. Think about it, that's the real problem.

I'm not defending it, I think it should be closed too.

These humans have been subjected to complete hell.

<comment><USER7> What else would you do with them, other than set them free?

"Oh I have this guy in my basement I've been torturing for four years, I can't let him go now because he's going to want to kill me".

Are you serious?

<comment><USER6> And then he does, and the media makes a big deal out of it and people cry out "never again", "how did we not see this coming?", "whos accountable?".

Setting them free and closing the illegal prison is the right thing to do. If I was calling the shots I would close it and release them.

BUT:

I just see why they haven't done it yet. It's a quagmire, with extreme consequences. Sure, let a prison full of "suspected terrorists" out into the world, what could go wrong?

How nice would it be to live in a world where we all trust each other and enjoy peace and harmony?

<comment><USER8> I don't think anything will go wrong if we let them go.

Everyone knows that they will be monitored up the wazoo by the NSA. Any smart terrorist operative will not associate with the released prisoners. And the ones that do will provide a nice honeypot for the NSA.

The real quagmire will be when the NSA picks up intel about the released prisoners and fails to pass it along to any other intelligence agencies.

Then we'll be blinded by our own incompetence and go back to the media blame you mentioned in your comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Recently read a headline I could not believe was not from The Onion: "Guantanamo Bay Prisoners force fed at night during Ramadan"

<comment><USER10> Isn't that consistent with normal force-feeding, except its properly respecting Ramadan?

The fast of Ramadan begins at sunrise and ends at sunset. So force-feeding them at night is the religiously observant thing to do.

(To say nothing about force-feeding in general)

<comment><USER9> So we (if only we could just blame the Americans, but we are all responsible, unfortunately) respect their religious rights but completely ignore their rights to liberty or even a fair trail.

You have to admit, it's hilarious. Even the Soviets could not have made up this stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Direct link to the mp4 (video) file: [http://cdn.theguardian.tv/mainwebsite/2013/7/5/130705MosDef-...](http://cdn.theguardian.tv/mainwebsite/2013/7/5/130705MosDef-16x9.mp4)

</comment><comment><USER12> That makes me feel like waving my countries flag proudly. Mainly because it isn't the US flag.

<comment><USER13> It's really a corrupted country.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Surely everyone watching this had their bullshit detectors go off???

Regardless of how you feel about Guantanamo Bay, there is clearly some acting -- some "dramatic exaggeration" \-- going on in this video.

Bey volunteered to undergo the procedure. So he knew they would stop at any point if he asked them to. There was no need, therefore, for all the screaming of "no" and "please don't."

For Bey, this procedure was akin to you or I needing a painful procedure performed at the doctor's office. You might hate it, you might cry out in pain, but you don't react with the distress of knowing that you're being forced against your will.

If someone wants to make a video for the purpose of _exposing_ me to some truth I'm unaware of, great. But don't go enhancing it with your own bullshit. There's already enough propaganda and bullshit for me to discern my way through to start with.

<comment><USER15> that's a very normal reaction, lookup any 'funny' video of people not being able to hold the pain of getting tattooed... they wanted it done, they paid, they try to sustain what they're going through since they accepted it in the first place(which is not the case of your criminal country abductees) and then it explodes in a violent reaction when they figure out "I really can't take it", go, look it up.

<comment><USER15> * criminal government would be the right term of course as this is not exactly done in light of it's people scrutinity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> All in the name of the war on terror

</comment><comment><USER17> Relevant video of Christopher Hitchens being voluntarily waterboarded: [http://youtu.be/4LPubUCJv58](http://youtu.be/4LPubUCJv58)

</comment><comment><USER18> That got worse when I turned the sound on.

</comment><comment><USER19> God bless the land of the free.

Oh I forgot, it's not on US soil, so human rights don't apply.

</comment><comment><USER20> Thanks Obama.

</comment><comment><USER21> So...I kind of don't feel bad about this ever since those allegations of domestic violence surfaced.

<comment><USER22> So, torture in Guantanamo is OK?

<comment><USER21> No, torture in Guantanamo is not OK.

As for Mos Def the artist, awesome. As Mos Def the person, meh.</comment></comment></comment>


Dearth of a Salesman: Auto Dealers Struggle to Recruit, Retain Younger Workers - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/auto-dealers-struggle-to-recruit-retain-younger-workers-1535016600 <comment><USER2> The subhead reads, "Turnover is rising in showrooms as more millennials enter the workforce uninterested in selling cars."

I'd guess the bigger problem is with the future of the industry: electric cars require almost no maintenance. If Tesla-the-company is successful, it will likely kill the dealership model altogether. Who would sign up for an industry with no future?

And, as always, the real key is this:

 _Ryan Gremore, president of O'Brien Mitsubishi in Normal, Ill., said he recently increased commission-based pay for his sales staff by 5% and began monthly sales bonuses. The efforts have helped with retention, he said._

There is never a shortage; there is a shortage at a given price.</comment>


Learning from Apple's Failures - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/3062596/tim-cooks-apple/eddie-cue-and-craig-federighi-open-up-about-learning-from-apples-failures <comment><AUTHOR> From the article "in order to stay updated we're trying to use the iPhone itself, and the data it's giving us"

Which is interesting, given Apple's marketing about how they _don 't_ track consumers.</comment>


Things We Learned From 2010′s Tech Failures - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcmech.com/article/7-things-we-learned-from-2010s-tech-failures/ <comment><USER2> I disagree with point one:

      *Email has no place in social media*

_People prefer to keep social media messages and email messages separate, and moreover do not want the two mixed together in some weird tech soup._

I have a active community website that has areas that are not auto subscribe for email notification, and some areas that are email auto subscribe. The areas that are auto subscribe are what draws in the traffic to the site to remind them the site exist and are the ones actively posting. Most seem to prefer this and many time are not even aware of the others areas of the site. I am working to fix this awareness</comment>


A Thriving Civilization in Malta Collapsed 4k Years Ago - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/why-a-thriving-civilization-in-malta-collapsed-4000-years-ago <comment><USER2> This is probably related to the (somewhat shortsightedly named) 4.2 kiloyear event when climate change and aridity caused the collapse of multiple long standing civilizations like the Egyptian and Indus valley civilizations:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event)

[https://phys.org/news/2014-02-decline-bronze-age- megacities-...](https://phys.org/news/2014-02-decline-bronze-age-megacities- linked.html) [https://www.livescience.com/20614-collapse-mythical-river- ci...](https://www.livescience.com/20614-collapse-mythical-river- civilization.html)

<comment><USER3> I guess kiloyear is the new B.C. with the 2000 marking a new epoch. It really seems too shortsighted.

<comment><USER4> This comment thread sparked a new Wikipedia tangent for me:

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

Apparently, the "before present" time scale is commonly used in archaeology and geology, and uses an epoch date of Jan 1, 1950. And there're two reasons for this: radiocarbon dating was first standardized in the 1950s, using a reference sample from 1950; and after the 1950s, widespread nuclear testing made radiocarbon dating inaccurate.

It's actually less arbitrary and shortsighted than it seems. Future civilizations are going to face a discontinuity in the archaeological record, and it'll be roughly at the Before Present epoch date.

<comment><USER5> Makes you think about the impact of nuclear testing... What else is impacted by these tests?

<comment><USER6> > Low-background steel is any steel produced prior to the detonation of the > first nuclear bombs in the 1940s and 1950s. With the Trinity test and the > nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and then subsequent > nuclear weapons testing during the early years of the Cold War, background > radiation levels increased across the world. Modern steel is contaminated > with radionuclides because its production uses atmospheric air. Low- > background steel is so-called because it does not suffer from such nuclear > contamination. This steel is used in devices that require the highest > sensitivity for detecting radionuclides.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low- background_steel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel)

<comment><USER7> Apparently one source of low-background steel are ships built before 1945, especially military ships as they are large and can be in use for decades. The US navy has scraped a few old ships for this use and there are theories that some WW2 wrecks are being salvaged from the ocean bed for this purpose, but there is no conclusive evidence.

<comment><USER8> And not just before 1945: lead is used for radiation shielding, but freshly- mined lead is slightly radioactive itself... shipments of lead that were mined 2000 years ago and sitting at the bottom of the Mediterranean since then, much less so: [https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100415/full/news.2010.186.h...](https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100415/full/news.2010.186.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Favorite part:

"Until now, the Temple Culture was thought to have centered on the worship of a mother goddess, but Malone thinks it was more of a clubhouse culture, focused on ritual and feasting but where food—rather than a deity—was revered."

(The word'Temple' has for too long been a placeholder for 'we don't know.')

<comment><USER10> > Until now, the Temple Culture was thought to have centered on the worship of > a mother goddess, but Malone thinks it was more of a clubhouse culture, > focused on ritual and feasting but where food—rather than a deity—was > revered." > > (The word'Temple' has for too long been a placeholder for 'we > don't know.')

This reminded me of The Motel of the Mysteries[1] where modern-day objects and franchises are similarly turned into temples and objects of worship or religious tools.

[1] [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/MotelOfThe...](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/MotelOfTheMysteries)

<comment><USER11> When we look back on past civilizations we do it with a relatively slim understanding on what, why, or how they did things besides the basic drives and needs of life. The further back in time, the more we have to "guess" what we're looking at. So usually we just assume that so far back in time the civilizations must have been simple enough that their main focuses (besides... living) were religion or war. It's sort of a running joke among archaeologists that when something is unexplained you immediately attribute it to religion/ritual. [0] Sometimes it's hard to imagine that once in a while, people many millennia ago might have behaved just like modern humans since we haven't changed _that_ much in the meantime (biology/evolution). [1] [2]

[0] [https://www.quora.com/Do-archaeologists-have-a-tendency- to-s...](https://www.quora.com/Do-archaeologists-have-a-tendency-to-simply- label-artifacts-of-unknown-purpose-ceremonial)

[1] [https://satwcomic.com/humans-never-change](https://satwcomic.com/humans- never-change)

[2] [https://me.me/i/lesbianshepard-if-an-archaeologist-says- an-a...](https://me.me/i/lesbianshepard-if-an-archaeologist-says-an-artifact- was-probably-for-91cf8afceb1b426e8cf2a45281345f14)

<comment><USER12> I really think we didn't change that much in depth. Just reading Marcus Aurelius quotes gives a hint. That said cultural context seems to matter deeply too. Some guy told me that no matter how educated they were, a high % of migrants will become impatient, selfish and violent after a month of struggle. All in all you'd have to factor in their lifestyle. Small village in a calm and abundant enough area ? probably very similar to us. You can see african tribes living in isolated places.. they're not different. They sit around, care for young ones, listen and rebel against elders, clean and cook. They have near zero fancy distractions though (they make their own I suppose).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > "The decisive blow may have been an unknown catastrophe that occurred around > 2350 BC, a period during which, according to tree ring analysis, the whole > region suffered a catastrophic climate event—possibly a dust cloud caused by > a volcanic eruption."

Wouldn't this leave some sort of trace? A layer in the dirt? Even under water?

I'm a bit disappointed - this being the crux of the theory - this was left open. Intentionally?

<comment><USER14> There is a known dramatic climate shift that occurred around that timeframe that is responsible for several civilisation collapses. [0]

However, the author points out that they lack the preservation of proxies such as what you've pointed out. They were analysing in a region where ecological change occurs frequently.

[0] [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS106422931707001...](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS1064229317070018)

<comment><USER13> Well, with that being said, what I read, at least to some extent, implied this society had a (heavy) hand in their own undoing. But if the area is known to be in flux, then maybe it was simply another round in that cycle? Or not?

That context, to me, should be stated plain and obvious right upfront. Caveats. They matter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is malta where they have those wheel ruts in the stone from centuries of use?

Yep:

[https://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained- phenomena/prehis...](https://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained- phenomena/prehistoric-lines-across-malta-cart-ruts-misrah-ghar-il-kbir-020312)

<comment><USER16> >Width between the tracks extends about 140 centimeters, but not in all instances. The tracks measured at the San Gwann site in Malta are said to be half a meter in depth, making them the deepest to be found.

Wow. Our rail gauge is 142 centimeters. And half a meter deep? (Goes looking into Roman cart technology)... about the same!

> These rims had their outer side convex, inner side concave or flat, with a > thickness of about 15 mm., a width of between 35 to 45mm., and a diameter > from 1001 to 1193 mm.20

> _Roman Traction Systems_ > [http://www.humanist.de/rome/rts/wagon.html](http://www.humanist.de/rome/rts/wagon.html)

>The historical tendency to place the wheels of horse-drawn vehicles approximately 5 feet (1,500 mm) apart probably derives from the width needed to fit a carthorse in between the shafts.

> _Are U.S. Railroad Gauges Based on Roman Chariots?_ > [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/railroad-gauge- > chariots/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/railroad-gauge-chariots/)

<comment><USER17> While moderns tend to think there's not much path-dependency in specifying axle-widths for wheeled vehicles, between rut tracks (mant remarkably persistent) and gate widths, constraints can be strongly imposed.

Rail guages have also varied fairly considerably, though again, standards come to be imposed with time. Reguaging rolling stock is slow

<comment><USER17> s/mant/many/

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Reflecting on ancient civilizations is always exhilarating—a way to connect with where we've been as a species, and where we may eventually go. I wonder how life must have felt subjectively from the perspective of someone without the lenses (and weight) of history and science, without knowing where they are in space and time (on a planetary and cosmic scale, as we do). Yet there are so many aspects of day-to-day human life and society that never seem to change.

Stories of societal/environmental reckonings are also a good reminder that civilizational resilience is a worthy goal, if for no other reason than future generations can experience the existential "enoughness" of eating olives in the Mediterranean sun (and such).

By the way, I recommend the book _Collapse_ by Jared Diamond for more like this article. Spoiler alert: do not totally deforest whatever island you live on. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choo...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed)

<comment><USER19> It is worth pointing out that most anthropologists disagree with Jared Diamond's thesis. Notably, the consensus view is that Greenland, Easter Island, and Mayan city states were not driven to collapse primarily because of ecological effects.

Greenland's collapse was largely driven by a shift in northern trade routes and Greenland lost its cash crop export (ivory). Easter Island does not appear to have undergone any sort of collapse until after European contact. And the Mayan collapse is actually completely backwards from how it should progress if climate was the major factor: there was a shift in power from the more fertile highlands region to what was previously the relatively backwards arid Yucatan region (Cichen Itza, in the northern Yucatan, didn't start thriving until after the southern regions were in dramatic collapse).

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Article says that the islanders ate almost no fish.

Isn't that strange for an island-based people in the Med?

<comment><USER21> It's not unique. Sardinia is another mediterranean island where people relied on cattles much more than fish for food.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Lots of civilizations around that time collapapsed: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRcu- ysocX4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRcu-ysocX4)

</comment><comment><USER23> > _these people understood the importance of soil management to fend off > starvation_

So they were in some ways more advanced than modern U.S.

</comment><comment><USER24> Not just Malta. The whole Minoic culture (Greek Islands) went down. Most likely due to the Santorini vulcanic eruption.

<comment><USER25> That was ~1000 years later 1450 BC vs 2350 BC

<comment><USER26> Actually around 1600 BC: [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180815141326.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180815141326.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Usually these kinds of articles avoid the obvious fact, that ancient civilizations were based on plunder and exploitation, and that eventually you run out of places to plunder or your victims adapt and fight back. This was surprising because it seems like that wasn't the case.

<comment><USER28> Well-documented ancient civilizations tend to be the conquer-and-plunder typer, sure, but there's an obvious survivorship bias there.

<comment><USER29> I'd say the onset of civilization is marked by the ability to organize politically and amass resources without resorting to whole-sale plunder.

What makes the Maltese Temple Culture a "Civilization" is the higher population density and their efforts to bend the land to their will, leaving traces that endure for millenia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Interesting article claiming that the Maltese civilization is much older than believed. It goes into the politics of archeology as well:

[https://grahamhancock.com/reedijkl1/](https://grahamhancock.com/reedijkl1/)

If you find the revised date hard to believe, take a look at this:

[https://6abc.com/science/9000-year-old-city-unearthed-in- isr...](https://6abc.com/science/9000-year-old-city-unearthed-in- israel/5402961/)

Also look up Gobekli Tepe.

<comment><USER31> Hancock is a crank that thinks Atlantis existed in Antarctica.

Just as fascinating are the seemingly endless list of real civilizations and cultures we seldom here about (often because they're in poorer parts of the world). Trypillian is one of my favorites ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni%E2%80%93Trypillia_cul...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni%E2%80%93Trypillia_culture)) but a good starting point for others is here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory#By_region](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory#By_region)

<comment><USER32> > Hancock is a crank that thinks Atlantis existed in Antarctica.

Hancock claims to have been misrepresented about this by the BBC in an interview many years ago, he explains it here [0]. I think if you asked him today, he would say the most likely location for the ruins of Atlantis is somewhere off the coast between southwest Spain [1] and the Celtic Shelf [2]. While certainly outside the mainstream, that is not an unreasonable hypothesis. In my experience, when you start to really research ancient civilizations you often find the mainstream view a bit unsatisfactory. In searching for alternate explanations however, you quickly end up in the land of fringe theories. Hancock often presents these ideas in a more favorable light than what the evidence supports, but there's also some good history mixed in and he doesn't go off into ancient aliens territory like many of the people who write about these topics.

[0] [https://grahamhancock.com/horizon- antarctica/](https://grahamhancock.com/horizon-antarctica/)

[1] [https://grahamhancock.com/daughtreyp1/](https://grahamhancock.com/daughtreyp1/)

[2] [https://grahamhancock.com/crispdanatlantis/](https://grahamhancock.com/crispdanatlantis/)</comment></comment></comment>